IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
At 18:05 12/06/00 +0530, you wrote:
Paul Cockshott wrote:
> At 11:25 11/06/00 -0400, you wrote: > > > >So this delimitation of the category of commodity, which I agree that Marx > >accepts upon initial analysis, does not answer the specific question. I am > >saying that if we don't pinpoint successful market exchange as the point > >that goods acquire value, then not only would we have to consider > >inventories as already having acquired value but also (and why not?) > >production that is not even intended to be sold on the market (say the govt > >using tax money to hire workers in a transportation dept to build > >roads--have these roads too acquired value?) > > Yes, but they only aquire exchange value if the government sells them off.
__________________
Right now I don't have time to respond to Rakesh, which seems to me as never ending debate. In anycase, just a small comment here paul. Strictly speaking the road should not acquire value because it is not *reproducible*.
To the extent that the road occupies land, that land is not reproducible. But one could readily adjust for that by defining the road as 'a road from town a to town b'. Since additional roads can be built, and if we rule out unusual cases such as the only possible road over a mountain pass, there will be a fairly well defined amount of labour required to build a road, or a second or third road from a to b.
However the substance of his point did not concern the particularities of roads but the fact that the road was build by the government. The UK government used to build a substantial percentage of its armaments directly, from rifles to battleships. The fact that HMS Dreadnought was build in a government dockyard whereas its sister ships were build in private shipyards does not devalue the former.
Rakesh is simply wrong when he says that goods acquire value at the point of exchange in the market. Many things exchange in the market, most notable of them would be land, that have no value because they are not reproducible. Cheers, ajit sinha
>
- [OPE-L:3485] Re: measurement of value, (continued)
- [OPE-L:3485] Re: measurement of value, Andrew Brown Mon 12 Jun 2000, 10:20 GMT
- [OPE-L:3486] Re: Re: measurement of value, Paul Cockshott Mon 12 Jun 2000, 11:09 GMT
- [OPE-L:3487] Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Andrew Brown Mon 12 Jun 2000, 11:53 GMT
- [OPE-L:3488] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Ajit Sinha Mon 12 Jun 2000, 12:37 GMT
- [OPE-L:3491] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Paul Cockshott Mon 12 Jun 2000, 13:20 GMT
- [OPE-L:3481] Re: Re: "Debunking Economics" and Marx's value theory, Steve Keen Sun 11 Jun 2000, 12:52 GMT
- [OPE-L:3478] Re: RE: OPE-L:[3432] Re: "Debunking Economics" and Marx's value theory, Steve Keen Sun 11 Jun 2000, 10:00 GMT
- [OPE-L:3479] Re: "Debunking Economics" and Marx's value theory, Paul Zarembka Sun 11 Jun 2000, 12:16 GMT
- [OPE-L:3477] RE: OPE-L:[3432] Re: "Debunking Economics" and Marx's value theory, Steve Keen Sun 11 Jun 2000, 07:22 GMT