On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Michael Nuwer wrote:
Shane Mage wrote:
This is at bottom a verbal misunderstanding. "Value" is both a
noun and a
verb. As noun it is by definition objective, the name for an
"object" (of thought or action). As verb ("to value') it pertains
to the subjective act of valuation . Prices are the objective
result of the interaction among huge numbers of subjective
valuations. ... The distinction between price and value of
a commodity, though determined altogether differently, is like that
between price and value of a capital asset--the difference between
an objective historically determined reality and a transient
resultant of interacting subjective valuations.
I do not see any difference between your explanation and that of
Mises. A good
subjectivist would not have any difficulty with your statements.
Perhaps I'm missing something about your point?
Mises sweeps away values. He talks only of prices.
Here are are a few passages form Mises:
"The modern theory of value and prices shows how the choices of
individuals, their
preferring of some things and setting aside of other things, result,
in the sphere
of interpersonal exchange, in the emergence of market
prices." (Human Action,
Chapter 11)
"The prices of goods and services are either historical data
describing past events or anticipations of probable future events.
Information about a past price conveys the knowledge that one or
several acts of interpersonal exchange were effected according to
this ratio. It does not convey directly any knowledge about future
prices. (Human Action, Chapter 12)
"The ultimate source of the determination of prices is the value
judgments of the
consumers. Prices are the outcome of the valuation preferring a to
b. They are
social phenomena as they are brought about by the interplay of the
valuations of
all individuals participating in the operation of the
market." (Human Action,
Chapter 16)
Thus only subjective valuations. No objkective values.
On the other hand, I think Marx has more in mind when he explains
value.
"In order that two quantities of different use-values can be equated
as equivalents, it is already presumed that they are equal to a
third, that they are qualitatively equal and only constitute
different quantitative expressions of this qualitative
equality." (Theories of Surplus Value)
For quantities to be compared they must have a qualitative identity
that provides a common unit of measure. To say that a quantity of
radios
produced in 1935 is equivalent to a quantity of televisions produced
in 1965, and thus that the aggregate real output of all commodities in
1935 can be compared to that of 1965, is to postulate such a common
unit of measure. To do this the 1935 price must be used to measure
the 1965 output (Laspeyres) or vice-versa (Paasche). To do either the
base-year prices must somehow be postulated to represent actual
values--to a Marxian, *dated* labor time ("concrete" labor,
concretized by the dating process.
And as I quoted in my earlier message: "The value of a commodity is
expressed in its price before it goes into circulation, and is
therefore a precedent condition of circulation, not its
result." (Capital I)
That is because *circulation* begins with the first *sale* but value
is created in production.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to
be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
