RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV

["Davies, Daniel" <daniel.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic than you
>seem to think. It's basically useful for showing ina  simple way that
>there's exploitation going on. However, you can do this without it. jks

It's also useful for showing that the exploitation (defined in Roemer's
sense) is a result of social factors rather than technical ones; I don't
think you can do this without ending up committed to something which has
most of the characteristics of the LTV.

The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore it is not
a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of someone
else's production.  But without something like the LTV, we miss a lot of
what is important about specifically *marxist* exploitation.  It's possible
to believe that there is exploitation in this sense, but that this is
because of a technical factor; that capital has a marginal productivity.  In
order to see that the reward to capital is a result of social relations
rather than relations between things, you need to get off the fence and make
more definite statements about value.

dd


___________________________________________________
Email Disclaimer

This communication is for the attention of the
named recipient only and should not be passed
on to any other person. Information relating to
any company or security, is for information
purposes only and should not be interpreted as
a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
The information on which this communication is based
has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change
without notice.  All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
___________________________________________________