what is the origins of the notion that Marx's theory of value is first and foremost a theory explaining the level of individual prices (or relative prices)? Even Ricardo's labor theory of prices only concerned long-term equilibrium prices (and only applied 93% of the time, according to Stigler). Smith's idea that relative prices are proportional to relative labor-values applied only in the imaginary “early and rude state of society” preceding “both the accumulation of stock [i.e., capital goods] and the [private] appropriation of land.” Marx was also aware of the systematic deviations between prices and values under real-world capitalism.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote: > Thoma charmingly linked the piece on his blog with the warning: "Marx > is mentioned." :-) Still, it is a strange piece. There are so many > commonplace confusions and misunderstandings about value and money > that Thoma just repeats. One part of me feels that these issues are > too basic for anyone who has ever read Marx and paused a moment to > reflect on the issues. FWIW. :/ > > http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/02/15/The-Income-Gap-Is-the-Distribution-of-Money-Fair.aspx > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
