Paul Cockshott wrote: > If it is not a theory of price determination what is it?
I see value theory as a macro-theory (so the so-called "transformation problem" is much the same as the familiar aggregation problem). Individual commodity-producers contribute labor to the aggregate flow of value. Because value usually does not equal price (even when converted into the same units) some commodity producers are able to claim value (in a Smithian phrase, "command labor") that's not proportional to their value contributions. But total new value = total claims on new value (when the two sides of the equation are in the same units) and total surplus-value = total property income (ditto). > He certainly uses it as a theory of price determination in his analysis of > the production of relative surplus value. in that volume I discussion, he's talking about an average sector of the economy, for which values and prices correspond. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
