LTV defense: Questions

[Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx]

RE: LTV Defense

I have found Allin's "defense of the LTV" interesting, but there are
a couple of questions it raises.

I have already stated that what Allin defended was not Marx's
labor theory of value--something which Allin did not strenuously
object to.

But I would also argue that it is not a defense of *any* labor
theory of value. It is instead a defense of a labor *measure*
of value. Briefly, Allin has given a very good set of reasons
for using labor as a numeraire in measuring (and pla
nning)
production, etc. If this were all there were to the original
debate over Marx's labor theory of value, then I doubt whether
Steedman (or Roemer or myself) would ever have put pen to paper
on the subject. I agree, for all the reasons that Allin has
posted, and then some, that labor is an excellent measure of value.
(As one posting noted, even Keynes advocated it--after a fashion--
in the _General Theory_).

What the critics objected to was the crucial aspect which
distinguishes a labor *t
heory* of value from a labor *measure*
of value: the claim that labor is the only source of (new)
value, from which flows a direct link between surplus value
and profit.

The corollary to this, which was mentioned in these postings only
tangentially by Jim Devine, is the proposition that the non-labor
-power inputs to production (machines and raw materials) only
preserve their value in production. Quoting Jim,:

>But also, if indeed all products sold at their value, then ...
>The means of produ
ction and other material inputs are seen
>as simply having their value passed on to the the final product.
>The rate of

So, putting the questions to Allin:

1) Would you agree that you have defended a LMV, not a LTV?

2) Do you believe that labor is the only source of (new) value,
and therefore that machinery etc. do not add new value? If so,
what are your arguments for this?

Cheers,
Steve Keen