[OPE-L:3418] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: objectivity of value

[Ajit Sinha <ajitsinha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Patrick L. Mason wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Good point. Somewhere I once ran across an engineering textbook that
> actually had formulas for labor hours, effort, etc. Theoretically,
> economists since Marx have spent a great deal of time searching for
> "reduction coefficients," whereas Marx indicated that the reduction of
> skilled labor to simple or average labor goes on behind the back of
> capital. Perhaps the reduction coefficients are simply rules of thumb that
> are observable to capital but that are not observable to empirical economists.

______________________

There is something wrong with my system. I'm getting some postings but not all. In
anycase, Marx and Ricardo say exactly the same thing in terms of how to reduce
skilled to unskilled labor, i.e. Marx said ditto to Ricardo on this. It goes on
behind the back of everyone, but its quantitative measure can easily be taken as
differentials in the wages. Since wages are determined by a socio-historical
process for both Marx and Ricardo, the reduction element is also done in the
similar manner that express in the wage differentials. I don't see much problem in
this. Cheers, ajit sinha

>
>
> peace, patrick
>
> At 04:16 PM 6/1/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >At 09:26 01/06/00 -0500, Patrick L. Mason wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I agree. Abstract labor is unobservable and probably unmeasurable, just as
> >>utility is unobservable and unmeasurable. Nevertheless, abstract labor and
> >>labor values do provide empirical implications.
> >>
> >>peace, patrick l mason
> >>
> >>
> >  Note that in capital marx uses the terms abstract labour and average labour
> >more or less interchangeably. Whilst an average is not directly observable
> >it is not unmeasurable. The whole of Taylors school of scientific management
> >was based on determining this.
> >
> >