Jim Devine wrote: > 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.
I blame Marx (for not making it sufficiently clear to readers that he wasn't building on Ricardo, but breaking away from him, and for not hiring a competent assistant or secretary and leaving such a mess), Engels (for not funding Marx sufficiently), Bohm-Bawerk, and Hilferding for not getting the point. Then the confusions metastasized. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
