response to Allin Cottrell on LTV

[FAC_BROSSER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

1)  I do not dispute that an alternative X basic should be
reasonably homogeneous and non-producible by labor and inexhaustible
resources.  I also agree that raw land as such suffers from
heterogeneity problems that are probably worse than those of labor,
although I think Allin may have understated the latter.  It is
probably the case that if one insists on a "single-source" theory
of value that labor has an important edge simply on the basis of
Paul Cockshott's "6 out of 7 bits" argument.
2)  No I am not going to propose some conglomerate of oil, iron ore,
etc., although oil by itself is clearly more homogeneous than either
"land" or labor.  Going to the non-renewables as sources of value
I think sends one to a multi-source, GE theory of some sort.  This
is probably the most serious alternative to the LTV, but that does
not mean I think it is satisfactory.  To note one point, discussed
to death on the pkt net, Walrasian GE models suffer horrendous multiple
equilibria problems in general.  Gil Skillman has posed various non-
cooperative game adjustment models, but my reading of that literature
is that they impose strong restrictions and multiple game equilibria
are the more general case.  (PS:  There are also potentially multiple
equilibria problems with LTV, but let's stay away from that can of worms)
3)  If I were to pose an alternative X it would probably be biospheric,
notably a fixed ratio of the basic necessary biogeochemicals necessary for
the amino acids necessary for life.  In practice this would suggest
different elements limiting in different locations, von Liebig's
favorite culprit, phosphorus, being one that is the most limited globally.
4)  However I accept that imposing environmental constraints on the
optimization problem (e.g. with fish catches) is viable within an LTV
planning framework.  I note however that this raises the problem that
nearly got Kantorovich purged by Stalin back in 1939-41.  Linear
programming implies shadow prices on constraints, thus bringing in
notional values (perhaps measured by primordial labor-time) on such
environmental constraints.  Are these shadow prices values as
argued by some of the mathematical Soviet planners?
5)  I don't think the time question is still quite answered.  Fish
catch constraints, tree harvest constraints, etc. may work for
the reproducible resources.  But how do you figure out the optimal
time path of the exhaustion of a non-reproducible resource like oil?
This latter point, plus the argument over shadow prices, suggests
again the problem of a multiple-source theory of value, however
structured, as the most serious competitor for the LTV.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University