value and price: a dissenting note

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

: value and price: a dissenting note
by Michael Perelman
03 February 2002 05:46 UTC  < < <


Michael P:I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values
today that depend on conditions in the future.

On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
>
> I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL
> ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition)
> accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to
> determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which profits
> which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex post_).
> My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in
> practice, i.e., _ex post_ values.
> JDevine

^^^^^^^^

CB: I did read Michael Perelman's paper on this when it was on the Crash list or somewhere .

Not answering the puzzle, but what occurs to me in thinking about it now (and maybe last time) is that the rate of obsolescence seems to address the use-value of the instrument of production involved. When it becomes obsolete, it is its use-value that is extinguished.  Without use-value, it cannot carry any exchange value anymore, so all the exchange-value in it must be calculated based on the amount of time it was adding value to commodities.

But this is still ex-post.  What does being expost disturb in the calculation ?