LTV, response to Paul Cockshott

[FAC_BROSSER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

1)  The argument that as one traces back "indirect energy"
(or whatever) each successive stage contributes less and therefore
one cannot have a model based on that does not hold.  This is
true of labor as well.  In a linear I-O model, any Sraffian basic
can in principle serve as "the source of value" in that the
matrix can be appropriately inverted to deduce the value of any
commodity as the sum of the direct and indirect magnitudes of that
basic.
2)  Arguing that solar radiation is the ultimate basis of the
biosphere is only partly correct.  Solar energy must interact with
necessary biogeochemicals (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) in
fixed ratios in order for life and thus a biosphere to exist, hence
Justus von Liebig's famous dictum that "ohne phosphor keine leben"
(without phosphorus there is no life).  A land-based theory of
value would presumably be based on a properly specified biospheric
(and perhaps non-renewable natural resources as well) basis for life.
3)  Arguments that "land is heterogeneous" and therefore not a good
basis for a theory of value are no weightier than the observation
that a labor theory of value is baseless because of the heterogeneity
of labor.
4)  You may be right that if one wishes to have a single-item-based
theory of value, that labor may have an edge over other possible
alternatives because it is "6 out of the 7 bits" available to us
empirically.  The more serious question is why have a single-item
theory, especially if it fails to fully deal with problems of time,
scarce natural resources, etc.?  The neoclassical GE approach is to
say there is no single source, it is all simultaneous, and the
measure of value is arbitrary (numeraire).  An alternative is the
Sraffian "standard commodity" that is not a single item, but also
is not necessarily a Walrasian GE model, although Gil Skillman
would disagree with this final remark.
5)  The issue of the source of value in a general sense should be
separated from the "returns" received under market capitalism.
After all, asserting a labor theory of value does not lead in
socialism to laborers therefore receiving their surplus value.
The state or the planners or whoever allocates it, quite often to
investment, just as the nasty capitalists sometimes do.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University