Re: [OPE-L] Question

[ajit sinha <sinha_a99@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Ian Wright <wrighti@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Imagine that products are marked with their labour
> content (again,
> > assessed purely on the production side).  But if
> people "don't
> > much want" a particular good in a given period,
> its price, in
> > labour tokens, is set at a discount relative to
> the actual labour
> > content.  (We'd rather sell these goods and not
> waste them.)  On
> > the other hand, if a good is unexpectedly popular,
> its price in
> > labour tokens is set at a premium relative to the
> actual labour
> > content.
> >
> > Now we have two independent pieces of information:
> the labour
> > content as such, and the price in labour tokens
> that (roughly)
> > "clears the market" for the good.  The key point
> is that we can
> > use the _divergence_ between these two magnitudes
> to guide a
> > reallocation of resources.
>
> Allin, I agree with all that you say here. Allow me
> to add:
>
> The labour-content is the "labour embodied" in the
> commodity. The
> price divided by the real wage is the "labour
> commanded" by the
> commodity. A mismatch between them means that  1
> hour of labour is
> either punished or rewarded with command over less
> or more than 1 hour
> of labour. Given that social labour is reallocated
> in response to
> these signals then there is a tendency toward the
> equalisation of
> labour-embodied with labour-commanded. This dynamic
> is the law of
> value. In the hypothetical equilibrium state there
> is no wasted or
> socially unncessary labour, the allocation of labour
> is efficient, and
> prices are proportional to labour-values.
_____________________________
That's right. If all income goes to labor then prices
are proportional to labor-values and labor commanded
is equal to labor-embodied. Cheers, ajit sinha
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com