OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


Hi, Allin,

You wrote:
I agree with Fred.  I think most people will assume that by
"market prices" you mean the actual prices at which goods change
hands in the market, with all their day-to-day and place-to-place
micro-variation.

But it turns out you're wanting to interpolate a further layer
between prices of production and day-to-day market prices.  I see
how this might make sense, but I believe there's still an
important ambiguity here.  Do you mean

(a) To give these "market prices" of yours a theoretical
determination, or

(b) Do you mean to treat them simply as time- and space-averages
of actual market prices?

_________________________

I mean (a)

__________________

Here's the point: If I say that "labour values" (the labour-times
required to produce things) form centres of gravitation for market
prices, I'm saying something substantive (maybe true, maybe false,
but substantive).  Similarly, if I say that prices of production
(the set of prices generating a uniform rate of profit) are the
centres of gravitation for market prices, then again I'm something
that's possibly true, possibly false, but substantive.

With your "market prices" it's not so clear: if you mean, prices
of production adjusted for specific differential indirect
taxation, specific persistent monopoly power, specific barriers to
entry, and so on, then you could be saying something substantive.

_____________

I hope to be saying something substantive in the sense you suggest.

_________________


But if you really just mean space- and time-averages of actual
prices then the claim that these are "centres of gravitation" is
just an arithmetical truism: on average, prices are at their
averages!

___________

I agree

___________


(Although actually it's not quite that easy, because
then it's incumbent upon you to spell out the scope and form of
the "averaging": prices averaged how, over what time-interval and
what spatial domain?  Otherwise it's just hand-waving.)

Allin Cottrell

________________

I replied to Fred's similar suggestion:

"I must insist that the _m_ I used in my paper are not daily prices. In
fact, all direct values and
prices, production values and prices, and market values and prices, have to
be understood as both important categories of the LTV and social averages of
actual magnitudes in a triple sense: time, place and individuals ... I
cannot see any a priori reason to
clarify the point MORE in the case of market prices than in the case of
direct and production prices"

What do you think about this?


Cheers, Diego



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]