Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte

[Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is broadly similar, but it goes a bit beyond this by arguing why the relationship
has to be transitive in a commodity producing system and looking at the relationship
between this and symetry relations in the laws of nature.

Allin and I first put the argument forward in 'Values Law Value's Metric', in Freeman 
Kliman and Wells, 'the new Value Controversy  and the Foundations of Economics', 2004
but the paper in question was out as a report in 1996.

The argument is developed further in chapter 9 of 'Information Money and Value'
 in a   book that Allin, Ian and I have done, a prepublication draft of which
can be dowloaded from my web page:
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html



Paul Cockshott

www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc



-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Pen-L Fred Moseley
Sent: Thu 4/26/2007 2:09 PM
To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte
 
Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> What analysis of the logic of exchange shows is that there must
> be a conserved scalar quantity in exchange.

Hi Paul,

Would you please explain this argument further?
Have you written it up somewhere?
If so, please send me a copy.

I argue that Marx's argument in SEction 1 assumes that the general
system of commodity exchange is transitive (mutually consistent), from
which it follows that commodity exchange must be the exchange of
equivalents (as discussed in my previous post).  Is your argument
similar to this, or different?

Thanks.

Comradely,
Fred

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.