Brad, Marx's theory of value is not nearly as mechanistic as you make it out to
be. In fact, he never used the term, LTV. Meek and Dobb and some other
interpreters presented the LTV as a mere expansion on Ricardo. I suspect that you
already know this, but like to act as a curmudgeon.
> The argument being made was as follows: "Because changes in the
> regime of intellectual property enforcement do not affect what
> happens on the factory floor, they cannot affect the rate of
> exploitation. Hence changes in IP do not increase surplus value.
> Hence changes in IP *redistribute* profits, but do not change the
> economy-wide profit rate."
>
> If the LTV is true--if surplus-value is a kind of *stuff* that, once
> created, is subject to some kind of conservation law, and bears some
> relationship to profits--then this is a cogent, coherent, and correct
> argument.
>
> But it ain't: changes in IP can and do change the economy-wide profit
> rate (and wage rate as well). My point--that thinking in LTV terms
> gets you so tangled up in knots that you cannot think straight--is
> not a new one...
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
