A Sraffian Interpretation Of Marx
Robert Vienneau
This article presents a Sraffian interpretation of Marx and
investigates how much of the Labor Theory of Value is logically
viable. The interpretation is presented by means of a simple two good
example, thus restricting to arithmetic the mathematics needed to
follow this exposition. The model upon which this example is based,
however, easily generalizes to N goods, and derives from work done
decades ago by John Eatwell...
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Mason Clark
>I have updated one of my essays:
>
>This article presents a Sraffian interpretation of Marx and
>investigates how much of the Labor Theory of Value is logically
>viable. The interpretation is presented by means of a simple two good
>example, thus restricting to arithmetic the mathematics needed to
>follow this exposition. The model upon which this example is based,
>however, easily generalizes to N goods, and derives from work done
>decades ago by John Eatwell...
><http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
It would be honest of me to state that I understand none of this. Nevertheless,
may I ask the following: as a matter of economic *philosophy*, not theory,
may I sensibly contend that things *ought* to be valued by the human
effort required to produce them? By "produce" I intend to include
*anything* requiring human effort, even if only to pick it off the ground
and put it in a useful place. The market-place "value" is quite another
matter, affected by many factors other than the labor content.
If I may be permitted to so contend, does this not have implications in
economic theory? Was this the path Marx was taking -- starting with
a philosophy of man and going then into the theory of economics?
If that is so, then I would suggest that too many economists get it
the other way around: economics first-- man derived therefrom.
Mason C
Tim Worstall
If by starting with philosophy, and then doing the economics, Marx had
actually produced an economic theory that worked in the real world,
then you might have a point. As Marxist economics is useless as a
blueprint for running that real world, I think it might be difficult
to sustain .
My personal view of " free market " economics ( not limiting myself to
Liberal, Neo Liberal, Classical ,Neo Classical schools, but generally
mainstream stuff like Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Marshall etc ) is that it
is an attempt to describe what humans actually do. Not what they ought
to, but what they do do.
To put it in terms of another science....physiology. Thiswas held back
for centuries by the prescriptions of Galen and such.....who had
started with a philisophy of what " ought " to be, rather than
gathering experimental ( or factual ) evidence and then building the
philisophy that explains that evidence.
Other examples abound in other sciences. Astronomy and Earth centric
solar systems, phlogiston and chemistry, ....you can make your own
list.
Perhaps the investigation should come before the philosophy ?
Tim Worstall
> Mason C
Robert Vienneau
masonc...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Nevertheless,
> may I ask the following: as a matter of economic *philosophy*, not
> theory,
> may I sensibly contend that things *ought* to be valued by the human
> effort required to produce them? By "produce" I intend to include
> *anything* requiring human effort, even if only to pick it off the ground
> and put it in a useful place.
It is the case that, in certain models, if workers are not exploited,
prices tend toward labor values.
John Locke's idea was that labor was the basis of property rights:
"Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all
Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This
no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body,
and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.
Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath
provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and
joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it
his Property. It being by him removed from the common State
Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed
to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this
Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man
but he can have a right to what that is joyned to, at least
where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."
-- John Locke
That bit about "is enough, and as good left" is not emphasized by
market idolaters.
> The market-place "value" is quite another
> matter, affected by many factors other than the labor content.
>
> If I may be permitted to so contend, does this not have implications in
> economic theory? Was this the path Marx was taking -- starting with
> a philosophy of man and going then into the theory of economics?
Some have read Marx's Capital as a reductio ad absurdum of Locke. Marx
shows capitalism is unjustified by the criteria its defenders have
put forth.
I agree that there are elements of this argument in Marx. But I
don't think that's the point of his development of the labor
theory of value.
Marx did indeed first study and develop his philosophy before
studying and developing his economics. I don't think that the
labor theory of value had much to do with Marx's early
philosophy. I once read a book by the Trotskyite Ernest Mandel
arguing that Marx rejected any use for the labor theory
of value when he first started studying economics. He needed
to be convinced that it had any use.
Marx had an idea, similiar to and partially based on Aristotle,
of what it would mean for humans to flourish. He thought a
society in which all could develop their capabilities was a
good idea. Here's how he put it in the Communist Manifesto:
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes
and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which
the free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all."
-- Karl Marx and F. Engels
Aristotle and Marx have opposing ideas how labor is connected
to the free development of humankind. Aristotle thought one
could freely develop only if one was free of labor. So only
a small elite could have their capabilities fully developed.
Marx thought that humans achieved full flowering through
unalienated labor.
The materialist theory of history is another important part of
Marx's philosophy. This states, roughly, that possibilities
for art, religion, culture, political institutions, beliefs
are constrained by how a society is sustained. Those elements
of the superstructure evolve in conjunction with the development
of the relations of production.
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their
existence, but their social existence that determines their
consciousness."
-- Karl Marx
This theory of history is related to Hegel's philosophy, stood
on its head.
Marx's economics, I think, was partially a development of and
application of these ideas from his philosophy. I think the
materialist theory of history has a lot to do with Marx's
study of how feudalism evolved into capitalism and his hopes
for transcending capitalism.
> If that is so, then I would suggest that too many economists get it
> the other way around: economics first-- man derived therefrom.
I think that's how neoclassical theory works, and I'm not alone.
Utility theory was not developed based on observation. It is more
a matter of some combination of a slavish imitation of mechanics
and what was needed to justify Walras' utopian vision. (I'm not
sure how Bentham fits into this story.)
You probably remember research from experimental economics.
Those who study economics are closer to the mean-spirited, grasping
economic man than those who don't.
Robert Vienneau
t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> If by starting with philosophy, and then doing the economics, Marx had
> actually produced an economic theory that worked in the real world,
> then you might have a point.
This is in response to a question. It speculates on a certain history
of Marx's ideas.
> As Marxist economics is useless as a
> blueprint for running that real world, I think it might be difficult
> to sustain .
I see. Marx explicitly rejected the idea that he should be constructing
blueprints for future societies. See, for example, The Poverty of
Philosophy. And Engels reiterated this point with the distinction
between "Utopian Socialism" and "Scientific Socialism":
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/>
Marx and Engels were interested in what was going on in advanced
industrial economies around them.
> My personal view of " free market " economics ( not limiting myself to
> Liberal, Neo Liberal, Classical ,Neo Classical schools, but generally
> mainstream stuff like Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Marshall etc ) is that it
> is an attempt to describe what humans actually do. Not what they ought
> to, but what they do do.
I see. On the one hand we have schools of economics, like Classical
and Neo Classical. On the other hand we have "generally mainstream
stuff like Smith, Ricardo, Mill, [and] Marshall".
And despite all that time he spend studying blue books and
data, Marx was not interested in describing what humans actually
do.
> ...science....was held back for centuries by the prescriptions of
> start[ing] with a philisophy of what " ought " to be, rather than
> gathering experimental ( or factual ) evidence and then building the
> philisophy that explains that evidence.
> Other examples abound in other sciences. Astronomy and Earth centric
> solar systems...
I see. Ptolemaic astronomy was not based on observation.
> Perhaps the investigation should come before the philosophy ?
I see. Recommending theory start with observation is not a
philosophy. I'm not a fan of Francis Bacon's tortured paintings,
myself.
Does Mr. Worstall know that he has no idea of what he is talking
about?
By the way, this thread started with me pointing out an essay:
ro...@telus.net
<masonc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:38:49 -0500, Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
>>I have updated one of my essays:
>>
>>This article presents a Sraffian interpretation of Marx and
>>investigates how much of the Labor Theory of Value is logically
>>viable. The interpretation is presented by means of a simple two good
>>example, thus restricting to arithmetic the mathematics needed to
>>follow this exposition. The model upon which this example is based,
>>however, easily generalizes to N goods, and derives from work done
>>decades ago by John Eatwell...
>><http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>
>It would be honest of me to state that I understand none of this. Nevertheless,
>may I ask the following: as a matter of economic *philosophy*, not theory,
>may I sensibly contend that things *ought* to be valued by the human
>effort required to produce them?
No. How people value things is an "is," not an "ought." One may
devote the same effort to making mud pies as peach pies; but the
former are not as valued as the latter, and "ought" not to be.
>By "produce" I intend to include
>*anything* requiring human effort, even if only to pick it off the ground
>and put it in a useful place.
The productivity of effort is determined by the value of the product,
not the other way around.
>The market-place "value" is quite another
>matter, affected by many factors other than the labor content.
That is what value _is_.
-- Roy L
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> No. How people value things is an "is," not an "ought." One may
> devote the same effort to making mud pies as peach pies; but the
> former are not as valued as the latter, and "ought" not to be.
>
Roy,
"Ought" is always and everywhere a question of judgement and situation.
If the local river is overflowing its bank you want baked mudpies, not
baked peach pies, to stem the flood.
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> No. How people value things is an "is," not an "ought." One may
>> devote the same effort to making mud pies as peach pies; but the
>> former are not as valued as the latter, and "ought" not to be.
>>
>"Ought" is always and everywhere a question of judgement and situation.
>If the local river is overflowing its bank you want baked mudpies, not
>baked peach pies, to stem the flood.
Actually, you want sandbags.
At least you agree the labor input is not what determines their value.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
What data determines how much labor is embodied in commodities?
Consider this essay:
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
In other words, perhaps one ought to work on criticizing positions
that are not persons built of straw.
Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well with common
numeraires. I provide references to support this claim on my
LTV FAQ page.
Robert Vienneau
Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> In article <3e23202d...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:10:59 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > At least you agree the labor input is not what determines their value.
>
> What data determines how much labor is embodied in commodities?
>
> Consider this essay:
>
> <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>
> Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
>
> In other words, perhaps one ought to work on criticizing positions
> that are not persons built of straw.
> Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well
empirically
David Lloyd-Jones
>
>>Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well
>>empirically with common numeraires. I provide references to
>>support this claim on my LTV FAQ page.
Robert,
"Numeraire" is the wrong word to use on Roy, even though I think he's
Canadian. Try telling him the cost of labour tracks GDP, and that should
convince him. :-)
-dlj.
The Pomeranian
Mason Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:38:49 -0500, Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
> >I have updated one of my essays:
> >
> >This article presents a Sraffian interpretation of Marx and
> >investigates how much of the Labor Theory of Value is logically
> >viable. The interpretation is presented by means of a simple two good
> >example, thus restricting to arithmetic the mathematics needed to
> >follow this exposition. The model upon which this example is based,
> >however, easily generalizes to N goods, and derives from work done
> >decades ago by John Eatwell...
> ><http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>
> It would be honest of me to state that I understand none of this.
Dude, don't feel alone. No one knows what the fuck Vienneau is talking
about. Never have, never will.
Thanks,
Pom-Pom
Mason Clark
wrote:
concocted a mass of wrong mathematics. So he obeys Mohammed, who
said: "Speak to those according to their understanding."
And thanks, Robert, for the explanations. I may not take the time to
follow your algebra but I appreciate what you're trying to do.
Mason C
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>In article <3e23202d...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:10:59 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones <d...@rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> At least you agree the labor input is not what determines their value.
>
>What data determines how much labor is embodied in commodities?
Depends on the commodity. For most commodities these days, it is
impossible to say how much labor went into them.
>Consider this essay:
>
> <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>
>Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
>
>In other words, perhaps one ought to work on criticizing positions
>that are not persons built of straw.
>
>Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well with common
>numeraires. I provide references to support this claim on my
>LTV FAQ page.
Jevons and Wicksteed explained over a century ago why it works well:
firms devote labor to production of a good until the marginal cost of
the labor meets the marginal value of the good.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
masonc...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> And thanks, Robert, for the explanations. I may not take the time to
> follow your algebra but I appreciate what you're trying to do.
Thanks.
I don't know why, if "Pom-Pom" were truly curious about what I am
saying, he doesn't ask something like, "Where does Equation 3-1
come from, given Table 1?"
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
In times past, he could always look at my references. In the mentioned
essay, I am atypically vague about my sources.
Robert Vienneau
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:57:13 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> >In article <3e23202d...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >What data determines how much labor is embodied in commodities?
> Depends on the commodity. For most commodities these days, it is
> impossible to say how much labor went into them.
Inability or unwillingness to answer noted.
In principle, what data would be needed to calculate how much labor
is embodied in a commodity?
> >Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well with common
> >numeraires. I provide references to support this claim on my
> >LTV FAQ page.
> Jevons and Wicksteed explained over a century ago why it works well:
> firms devote labor to production of a good until the marginal cost of
> the labor meets the marginal value of the good.
Wicksteed's argument was that the marginal utility theory provided
a better theory of prices. Geoge Bernard Shaw was not up on the
mathematics. So it is not surprising that he could not show that
the marginal utility theory does not imply, generally, that prices
tend to be proportional to labor values.
Consider this essay:
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices? Does
is say prices tend to be proportional to labor values? Does it say
Marx claimed they would be?
Ron Peterson
>> Depends on the commodity. For most commodities these days, it is
>> impossible to say how much labor went into them.
> Inability or unwillingness to answer noted.
It is difficult to determine as to the amount of embedded labor in a
commodity, but estimates can be made.
> In principle, what data would be needed to calculate how much labor
> is embodied in a commodity?
The labor content of each component, the capital used and its
depreciation life, and the amount labor expended.
> Consider this essay:
> <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
> Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices? Does
> is say prices tend to be proportional to labor values? Does it say
> Marx claimed they would be?
The essay doesn't say any of those things.
Perhaps the labor theory of value needs a more clear exposition.
For instance, in the same manner as the zeroth law of thermodynamics,
there could be a zeroth law of the labor theory of value stating:
In a closed steady state economy there is a consistent valuation of all
commodities such that the value of each commodity corresponds to the
some of the values of all constituent products and apportioned capital
depreciation and labor time.
I think that your essay shows that for a simplified case, but I don't
know if it can be shown that there is a consistent valuation for a more
complex economy.
Ron
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>In article <3e2484ff...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:57:13 -0500, Robert Vienneau
>> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
>> >In article <3e23202d...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> >What data determines how much labor is embodied in commodities?
>
>> Depends on the commodity. For most commodities these days, it is
>> impossible to say how much labor went into them.
>
>Inability or unwillingness to answer noted.
<sigh> First I like to know exactly what question I am being asked.
>In principle, what data would be needed to calculate how much labor
>is embodied in a commodity?
The labor inputs of everything used to produce it. Duh.
>> >Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well with common
>> >numeraires. I provide references to support this claim on my
>> >LTV FAQ page.
>
>> Jevons and Wicksteed explained over a century ago why it works well:
>> firms devote labor to production of a good until the marginal cost of
>> the labor meets the marginal value of the good.
>
>Wicksteed's argument was that the marginal utility theory provided
>a better theory of prices.
That was a different argument, on a different topic. Unlike some
people, Wicksteed did think about more than one issue.
>Geoge Bernard Shaw was not up on the
>mathematics.
??? How did Shaw get into the discussion?
>So it is not surprising that he could not show that
>the marginal utility theory does not imply, generally, that prices
>tend to be proportional to labor values.
Utility theory has nothing to do with it.
>Consider this essay:
>
> <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>
>Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
The model discussed has no relation to actual prices. It gives only
inputs and outputs under certain idealized assumptions that allow one
to calculate the labor inputs of two hypothetical commodity outputs.
>Does
>is say prices tend to be proportional to labor values? Does it say
>Marx claimed they would be?
The essay is about a model. Following Marx's example, it has nothing
to say about actual values or prices.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:19:27 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3e2484ff...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:57:13 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> >> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >In article <3e23202d...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >> >What data determines how much labor is embodied in commodities?
> >> Depends on the commodity. For most commodities these days, it is
> >> impossible to say how much labor went into them.
> >Inability or unwillingness to answer noted.
> >In principle, what data would be needed to calculate how much labor
> >is embodied in a commodity?
> The labor inputs of everything used to produce it. Duh.
So one can NOT look at a production process for a single commodity
and determinate the labor embodied in its output.
If one wanted to know the labor embodied in the commodities
being produced in a community, one would have to know
the production techniques for all(?) of the commodities.
Given the outputs and the technique, the distribution of
labor among industries follows. Labor values, in some sense,
get at this social division of labor.
Since the producers do not come into social contact with each
other until they exchange their products, the specific social
character of each producer's labour does not show itself except
in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the
individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only
by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes
directly between the products, and indirectly, through them,
between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations
connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest
appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at
work, but as what they really are, material relations between
persons and social relations between things.
The nonsense about proving the concept of value arises from
complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of the method
of science. Every child knows that a country which ceased to work,
I will not say for a year, but for a few weeks would die. Every
child knows too, that the mass of products corresponding to the
different needs require different and quantitatively determined
means of the total labour of society. That this necessity of
distributing social labour in definite proportions cannot be done
away with by the particular form of social production but can
only change form it assumes, is self evident. No natural laws can
be done away with. What can change, in changing historical
circumstances, is the form in which these laws operate. And the
form which this proportional division of labour operates, in a
state of society where the interconnection of social labour is
manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of
labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products. The
science consists precisely in working out how the law of value
operates. So that if one wanted at the very beginning to 'explain'
all the phenomena which apparently contradicted the law, one
would have to give the science before the science.
One reason why an example of mud-pies is a stupid objection to Marx
is because it ignores this social character of labor that Marx
was trying to get at. The example is a particularly vulgar display
of commodity fetishism.
Another reason is that the argument that the example pretends to
attack assumes that the social division of labor is directed
towards producing commodities that satisfy human needs, as is
noted above. Marx explicitly says so in the opening pages of
Capital. Ricardo says the same on the very first page of the
first chapter of Principles. So the example of mud pies is
a stupid straw person argument.
This does not mean that these economists had need of some assumption
of commeasurable utilities for different goods, measured along
a single scale.
And I have not asserted that there are no issues in understanding
the assumption of given quantities. Nor have I asserted one
cannot understand the social division of labor without the
labor theory of value.
> >> >Surprising, the Labor Theory of Value works well with common
> >> >numeraires. I provide references to support this claim on my
> >> >LTV FAQ page.
> >> Jevons and Wicksteed explained over a century ago why it works well:
> >> firms devote labor to production of a good until the marginal cost of
> >> the labor meets the marginal value of the good.
> >
> >Wicksteed's argument was that the marginal utility theory provided
> >a better theory of prices.
>
> That was a different argument, on a different topic. Unlike some
> people, Wicksteed did think about more than one issue.
>
> >Geoge Bernard Shaw was not up on the
> >mathematics.
>
> ??? How did Shaw get into the discussion?
>
> >So it is not surprising that he could not show that
> >the marginal utility theory does not imply, generally, that prices
> >tend to be proportional to labor values.
>
> Utility theory has nothing to do with it.
No. Philip Henry Wicksteed, a socialist, published a criticism
of Marx in Ocober 1884. It was published in the journal To-Day.
Wicksteed took his stand on the newfangled marginal utility
theory in this article.
G. B. Shaw answered him, but, as he realized, not very effectively.
Shaw also participated in some later oral discussions with Wicksteed
and other members of a small group. Shaw became converted to
marginalism as a result of these discussions. As I say, though,
Shaw was not good on the math.
I rely on secondary literature by Ian Steedman for my account above.
I read Wicksteed's Common Sense of Political Economy years ago.
That book is indeed not about Marx. I don't remember if Marx was
even mentioned.
I don't think marginalism implies prices will tend to be proportional
to labor values.
> >Consider this essay:
> >
> > <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
> >
> >Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
> The model discussed has no relation to actual prices. It gives only
> inputs and outputs under certain idealized assumptions that allow one
> to calculate the labor inputs of two hypothetical commodity outputs.
Inability or unwillingness to answer the question noted.
> >Does
> >is say prices tend to be proportional to labor values? Does it say
> >Marx claimed they would be?
> The essay is about a model. Following Marx's example, it has nothing
> to say about actual values or prices.
Inability or unwillingness to answer the question noted.
Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
Does it say Marx claimed they would be?
But let me address Roy's false non sequitur.
Consider the model illustrated in that essay, at least as far as
quantities and prices go. That model has been widely applied
empirically. The economist who first did this won a "Nobel"
prize for his work.
It is true that my purpose in writing that essay was to illustrate
some relations Marx described. Are there such relations in that
essay, particularly in Table 8?
Many non-Muslims are reading the Koran today in an attempt to
understand the world.
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
??? He misspelled "economic."
>the specific social
> character of each producer's labour does not show itself except
> in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the
> individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only
> by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes
> directly between the products, and indirectly, through them,
> between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations
> connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest
> appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at
> work, but as what they really are, material relations between
> persons and social relations between things.
Gobbledegook.
> The nonsense about proving the concept of value arises from
> complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of the method
> of science.
<yawn> Mirror time....
>Every
> child knows too, that the mass of products corresponding to the
> different needs require different and quantitatively determined
> means of the total labour of society.
??? Every child knows that? I can't even figure out what it is
supposed to mean.
>That this necessity of
> distributing social labour in definite proportions cannot be done
> away with by the particular form of social production but can
> only change form it assumes, is self evident.
Nope.
>No natural laws can
> be done away with. What can change, in changing historical
> circumstances, is the form in which these laws operate. And the
> form which this proportional division of labour operates, in a
> state of society where the interconnection of social labour is
> manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of
> labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products. The
> science consists precisely in working out how the law of value
> operates.
The _what_??
>One reason why an example of mud-pies is a stupid objection to Marx
>is because it ignores this social character of labor that Marx
>was trying to get at.
"The social character of labor" is an incantation designed to support
arbitrary declarations.
>The example is a particularly vulgar display
>of commodity fetishism.
ROTFL!!
>Another reason is that the argument that the example pretends to
>attack assumes that the social division of labor is directed
>towards producing commodities that satisfy human needs, as is
>noted above.
Which completely misses the point of the example.
>Marx explicitly says so in the opening pages of
>Capital. Ricardo says the same on the very first page of the
>first chapter of Principles. So the example of mud pies is
>a stupid straw person argument.
No, it is simply an argument whose point -- that the value produced by
an hour of labor depends entirely on what that hour is actually spent
doing -- you wish to evade.
>I don't think marginalism implies prices will tend to be proportional
>to labor values.
IMO it does under a great many ordinary conditions, though not always.
Certainly enough to account for the observed relationship.
>> >Consider this essay:
>> >
>> > <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>> >
>> >Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
>
>> The model discussed has no relation to actual prices. It gives only
>> inputs and outputs under certain idealized assumptions that allow one
>> to calculate the labor inputs of two hypothetical commodity outputs.
>
>Inability or unwillingness to answer the question noted.
As I said before, you first need to get clear on what question you are
asking.
>> >Does
>> >is say prices tend to be proportional to labor values? Does it say
>> >Marx claimed they would be?
>
>> The essay is about a model. Following Marx's example, it has nothing
>> to say about actual values or prices.
>
>Inability or unwillingness to answer the question noted.
<yawn>
>Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
>Does it say Marx claimed they would be?
No, because as I explained, it has nothing to do with "prices" as
normally understood. It is about a hypothesized mathematical
relationship, not reality.
>But let me address Roy's false non sequitur.
>
>Consider the model illustrated in that essay, at least as far as
>quantities and prices go. That model has been widely applied
>empirically. The economist who first did this won a "Nobel"
>prize for his work.
And...? Are you trying to say that you believe _your_ application of
it is as informative?
>It is true that my purpose in writing that essay was to illustrate
>some relations Marx described. Are there such relations in that
>essay, particularly in Table 8?
If I read Marx rightly (always a difficult call), yes.
>Many non-Muslims are reading the Koran today in an attempt to
>understand the world.
With as much effect -- and for about the same reason -- as some read
Marx...
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 03:44:40 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3e25b827...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >> >In principle, what data would be needed to calculate how much labor
> >> >is embodied in a commodity?
> >> The labor inputs of everything used to produce it. Duh.
> >So one can NOT look at a production process for a single commodity
> >and determinate the labor embodied in its output.
> >If one wanted to know the labor embodied in the commodities
> >being produced in a community, one would have to know
> >the production techniques for all(?) of the commodities.
> >Given the outputs and the technique, the distribution of
> >labor among industries follows. Labor values, in some sense,
> >get at this social division of labor.
> > Since the producers do not come into social contact with each
> > other until they exchange their products,
> ??? He misspelled "economic."
Buying and selling occur in a society
> > the specific social
> > character of each producer's labour does not show itself except
> > in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the
> > individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only
> > by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes
> > directly between the products, and indirectly, through them,
> > between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations
> > connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest
> > appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at
> > work, but as what they really are, material relations between
> > persons and social relations between things.
> Gobbledegook.
Much clearer than anything I have read in any translation of Hegel.
> > Every
> > child knows too, that the mass of products corresponding to the
> > different needs require different and quantitatively determined
> > means of the total labour of society.
> ??? Every child knows that? I can't even figure out what it is
> supposed to mean.
To me, it means some matrix equations.
y = q - A q
q = (I - A)^(-1) y
L = a0 (I - A)^(-1) y
The amount of labor required in the jth industry is a0[j] * q[j].
The math shows that, given the net outputs and the technique, the
distribution of labor among industries follows.
> > That this necessity of
> > distributing social labour in definite proportions cannot be done
> > away with by the particular form of social production but can
> > only change form it assumes, is self evident.
> Nope.
I would think, short of a nanotechnology paradise, different
people would have to perform different tasks in sustaining a
society. How people end up assigned to different tasks can
very well be different in different societies.
The author is talking about capitalism, among other
types of societies, in the above quote. The "necessity of
distributing social labour" does not refer to central
planning, if that's your silly objection.
> > No natural laws can
> > be done away with. What can change, in changing historical
> > circumstances, is the form in which these laws operate. And the
> > form which this proportional division of labour operates, in a
> > state of society where the interconnection of social labour is
> > manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of
> > labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products. The
> > science consists precisely in working out how the law of value
> > operates.
> The _what_??
Totally incomprehensible; "the" occurs twice in the last sentence.
> >One reason why an example of mud-pies is a stupid objection to Marx
> >is because it ignores this social character of labor that Marx
> >was trying to get at.
> "The social character of labor" is an incantation designed to support
> arbitrary declarations.
Whatever.
> >The example [of mud pies] is a particularly vulgar display
> >of commodity fetishism.
> >Another reason is that the argument that the example pretends to
> >attack assumes that the social division of labor is directed
> >towards producing commodities that satisfy human needs, as is
> >noted above.
> >Marx explicitly says so in the opening pages of
> >Capital. Ricardo says the same on the very first page of the
> >first chapter of Principles. So the example of mud pies is
> >a stupid straw person argument.
> No, it is simply an argument whose point -- that the value produced by
> an hour of labor depends entirely on what that hour is actually spent
> doing -- you wish to evade.
Since I nowhere assert that anything produced by people doing
anything they feel like will be a commodity, that example challenges
no point that I have made. And it doesn't challenge any point that
any good classical economist made, either.
> >I don't think marginalism implies prices will tend to be proportional
> >to labor values.
> IMO it does under a great many ordinary conditions, though not always.
> Certainly enough to account for the observed relationship.
My correct understanding comes from an ability to add and to follow
a logical argument. Once you work out whether my essay claims that
prices tend to be proportional to labor values, you can work out
what marginalism implies.
> >> >Consider this essay:
> >> >
> >> > <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
> >> >
> >> >Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
> >Inability or unwillingness to answer the question noted.
> As I said before, you first need to get clear on what question you are
> asking.
Well, "labor values" has a technical meaning that is explained in
the essay. Whether anything in that essay correctly describes
trends in actual prices is irrelevant to this question:
Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
Another poster had no problem answering these questions.
> >Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
> >Does it say Marx claimed they would be?
> No, because as I explained, it has nothing to do with "prices" as
> normally understood. It is about a hypothesized mathematical
> relationship, not reality.
Inability or unwillingness to answer the question asked noted.
The answer is incorrect in that the "explanation" is a total
non sequitur.
(1) Do prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
is a completely different question than
(2) Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to
labor values?
Only after one has answered (2) correctly can one assert or
deny that a negative answer to (1) challenges an assertion
made in that essay.
Once again,
Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
Does it say Marx claimed they would be?
To justify an answer to THESE questions, one points to passages in
that essay and in Marx. One does not point to any prices in an
advanced industrial economy, that is, if one has any clue about
what's being asked.
> >But let me address Roy's false non sequitur.
> >Consider the model illustrated in that essay, at least as far as
> >quantities and prices go. That model has been widely applied
> >empirically. The economist who first did this won a "Nobel"
> >prize for his work.
> And...? Are you trying to say that you believe _your_ application of
> it is as informative?
Fantasy noted. I am saying there is good reason to think the
following is unsupported crap:
"[The] model [in t]he essay...has nothing to say about actual
values or prices."
I believe these are different applications of that model:
(1) Empirically describing prices and quantities in some
economy or another
(2) Providing guidance in indicative planning
(3) Providing a reconstruction of elements of Marx's economics
Not being pro-stupidity, I do not complain that using the model
for (3) is wrong because it is not simultaneously and in the
same place being used for some other purpose.
> >It is true that my purpose in writing that essay was to illustrate
> >some relations Marx described. Are there such relations in that
> >essay, particularly in Table 8?
> If I read Marx rightly (always a difficult call), yes.
I am surprised at this correct answer. Do you know where in Marx
to look to find relations like those in Table 8? If you do, you
are less ignorant than David Friedman on Marx.
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>In article <3e271d50...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 03:44:40 -0500, Robert Vienneau
>> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Since the producers do not come into social contact with each
>> > other until they exchange their products,
>
>> ??? He misspelled "economic."
>
>Buying and selling occur in a society
??? But there is more to society than buying and selling.
>> > the specific social
>> > character of each producer's labour does not show itself except
>> > in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the
>> > individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only
>> > by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes
>> > directly between the products, and indirectly, through them,
>> > between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations
>> > connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest
>> > appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at
>> > work, but as what they really are, material relations between
>> > persons and social relations between things.
>
>> Gobbledegook.
>
>Much clearer than anything I have read in any translation of Hegel.
Damning with faint praise...
>> > Every
>> > child knows too, that the mass of products corresponding to the
>> > different needs require different and quantitatively determined
>> > means of the total labour of society.
>
>> ??? Every child knows that? I can't even figure out what it is
>> supposed to mean.
>
>To me, it means some matrix equations.
>
> y = q - A q
>
> q = (I - A)^(-1) y
>
> L = a0 (I - A)^(-1) y
>
>The amount of labor required in the jth industry is a0[j] * q[j].
>
>The math shows that, given the net outputs and the technique, the
>distribution of labor among industries follows.
If the equations describe reality....
>> > That this necessity of
>> > distributing social labour in definite proportions cannot be done
>> > away with by the particular form of social production but can
>> > only change form it assumes, is self evident.
>
>> Nope.
>
>I would think, short of a nanotechnology paradise, different
>people would have to perform different tasks in sustaining a
>society. How people end up assigned to different tasks can
>very well be different in different societies.
>
>The author is talking about capitalism, among other
>types of societies, in the above quote. The "necessity of
>distributing social labour" does not refer to central
>planning, if that's your silly objection.
It's the "definite proportions" I object to. They shift constantly.
There is no way of knowing what proportions are best, or even if any
particular proportions are best.
>> >Marx explicitly says so in the opening pages of
>> >Capital. Ricardo says the same on the very first page of the
>> >first chapter of Principles. So the example of mud pies is
>> >a stupid straw person argument.
>
>> No, it is simply an argument whose point -- that the value produced by
>> an hour of labor depends entirely on what that hour is actually spent
>> doing -- you wish to evade.
>
>Since I nowhere assert that anything produced by people doing
>anything they feel like will be a commodity, that example challenges
>no point that I have made. And it doesn't challenge any point that
>any good classical economist made, either.
Well, I never claimed Marx was a good classical economist. Or any
kind of economist.
>> >I don't think marginalism implies prices will tend to be proportional
>> >to labor values.
>
>> IMO it does under a great many ordinary conditions, though not always.
>> Certainly enough to account for the observed relationship.
>
>My correct understanding comes from an ability to add and to follow
>a logical argument. Once you work out whether my essay claims that
>prices tend to be proportional to labor values, you can work out
>what marginalism implies.
You're Not Clear On The Concept, here: your essay is an exercise in
formal reasoning. It says nothing about reality because its
assumptions are not descriptions of reality.
>> >> >Consider this essay:
>> >> >
>> >> > <http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
>> >> >
>> >> >Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
>
>> >Inability or unwillingness to answer the question noted.
>
>> As I said before, you first need to get clear on what question you are
>> asking.
>
>Well, "labor values" has a technical meaning that is explained in
>the essay. Whether anything in that essay correctly describes
>trends in actual prices is irrelevant to this question:
>
>Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
>
>Another poster had no problem answering these questions.
Then why do you keep asking them? The problem is precisely
equivocation: you want to apply the term "labor values" in an
idiosyncratic way defined by your essay, and then transplant the
implications into a discussion of reality. I'm not going there.
>Once again,
>
> Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
No.
> Does it say Marx claimed they would be?
>
>To justify an answer to THESE questions, one points to passages in
>that essay and in Marx. One does not point to any prices in an
>advanced industrial economy, that is, if one has any clue about
>what's being asked.
??? This makes no sense, unless you point to a passage in Marx that
indicates he is on the same page as your essay. As Marx is no longer
around, any time you talk about what Marx would say about something
you have said, there is a default implication that you must be talking
about reality, as absent a reference or quote, that is the only ground
you can have in common with Marx (inasmuch as Marx ever talked about
reality, that is).
>> >Consider the model illustrated in that essay, at least as far as
>> >quantities and prices go. That model has been widely applied
>> >empirically. The economist who first did this won a "Nobel"
>> >prize for his work.
>
>> And...? Are you trying to say that you believe _your_ application of
>> it is as informative?
>
>Fantasy noted. I am saying there is good reason to think the
>following is unsupported crap:
>
> "[The] model [in t]he essay...has nothing to say about actual
> values or prices."
>
>I believe these are different applications of that model:
>
> (1) Empirically describing prices and quantities in some
> economy or another
Which?
> (2) Providing guidance in indicative planning
Ah.
> (3) Providing a reconstruction of elements of Marx's economics
Bingo.
>> >It is true that my purpose in writing that essay was to illustrate
>> >some relations Marx described. Are there such relations in that
>> >essay, particularly in Table 8?
>
>> If I read Marx rightly (always a difficult call), yes.
>
>I am surprised at this correct answer. Do you know where in Marx
>to look to find relations like those in Table 8?
Not any more. It's been nearly 30 years. I'd guess Volume II of
Capital.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 02:18:46 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> >In article <3e271d50...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 03:44:40 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> >> <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> >> > Since the producers do not come into social contact with each
> >> > other until they exchange their products,
> >> ??? He misspelled "economic."
> >Buying and selling occur in a society
> ??? But there is more to society than buying and selling.
Strawperson. It is not claimed that buying and selling are
all that comprises a society.
But the whole objection that "social" should be "economic"
is petty and pointless.
> >> > Every
> >> > child knows too, that the mass of products corresponding to the
> >> > different needs require different and quantitatively determined
> >> > means of the total labour of society.
> >> ??? Every child knows that? I can't even figure out what it is
> >> supposed to mean.
> >To me, it means some matrix equations.
> >
> > y = q - A q
> >
> > q = (I - A)^(-1) y
> >
> > L = a0 (I - A)^(-1) y
> >
> >The amount of labor required in the jth industry is a0[j] * q[j].
> >
> >The math shows that, given the net outputs and the technique, the
> >distribution of labor among industries follows.
> If the equations describe reality....
The arithmetic follows standard notation.
The following two questions are different:
o Do the equations "describe reality"?
o Do the equations help make sense of what Marx is saying?
> >> > That this necessity of
> >> > distributing social labour in definite proportions cannot be done
> >> > away with by the particular form of social production but can
> >> > only change form it assumes, is self evident.
> >I would think, short of a nanotechnology paradise, different
> >people would have to perform different tasks in sustaining a
> >society. How people end up assigned to different tasks can
> >very well be different in different societies.
> >
> >The author is talking about capitalism, among other
> >types of societies, in the above quote. The "necessity of
> >distributing social labour" does not refer to central
> >planning, if that's your silly objection.
> It's the "definite proportions" I object to. They shift constantly.
The above is no valid objection.
Nowhere do I or Marx say technology and outputs will persist unchanging
through time.
> There is no way of knowing what proportions are best, or even if any
> particular proportions are best.
Of who knowing?
When firms attempt to sell the commodities, some will discover
some labor is not distributed properly. The act of
exchange reveals whether the total labor of society was
distributed properly.
Of course, under the anarchy of production, it will not be
exactly right. There will be some redistribution of that
labor.
This process will never terminate.
"The specific social character of each producer's labour does
not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words,
the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the
labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act
of exchange establishes directly between the products, and
indirectly, through them, between the producers."
If prices like those described in my essay were realized,
labor was distributed correctly.
> >> >Marx explicitly says so in the opening pages of
> >> >Capital. Ricardo says the same on the very first page of the
> >> >first chapter of Principles. So the example of mud pies is
> >> >a stupid straw person argument.
> >> No, it is simply an argument whose point -- that the value produced by
> >> an hour of labor depends entirely on what that hour is actually spent
> >> doing -- you wish to evade.
> >Since I nowhere assert that anything produced by people doing
> >anything they feel like will be a commodity, that example challenges
> >no point that I have made. And it doesn't challenge any point that
> >any good classical economist made, either.
> Well, I never claimed Marx was a good classical economist. Or any
> kind of economist.
Marx made the same assertion as Ricardo on the point.
> >> >I don't think marginalism implies prices will tend to be proportional
> >> >to labor values.
> >> IMO it does under a great many ordinary conditions, though not always.
> >> Certainly enough to account for the observed relationship.
> >My correct understanding comes from an ability to add and to follow
> >a logical argument. Once you work out whether my essay claims that
> >prices tend to be proportional to labor values, you can work out
> >what marginalism implies.
> You're Not Clear On The Concept, here: your essay is an exercise in
> formal reasoning. It says nothing about reality because its
> assumptions are not descriptions of reality.
The above is, typically, crap.
Exploring what marginalism implies is an exercise in formal
reasoning.
Suppose you understood why my essay asserts prices would not tend
to be proportional to labor values. Suppose you also understood,
correctly, that marginalism implies, under assumptions related
to those presented in the essay, that prices tend to prices like
those in my essay. Then you would understand that marginalism
does not imply prices will tend to be proportional to labor
values.
Furthermore, one might consider the implications of marginalism
under other assumptions.
"If Ricardo and/or Sraffa... ever believed that the laws
'determining general profits' could be made the same for a
labour-only model as for a labour-and-land model by utilising
the concept of the 'productivity of labour on land which pays
no rent,' then this error could be dramatised by contrasting
technology A (in which one of corn is producible only by
(2 labour, 1/2 corn) or (1 labour, 3/4 corn)) with technology
B (in which along with the above two options there are the
further options of (2 labour, 1/4 corn, 1 land) or (2 labour,
1/8 corn, 2 land)). For the same social accumulation of corn
and the same population, the land/labour ratio can materially
affect the competitive profit rate. Admittedly, this is
complex arithmetic for 1823 or 1867 but not perhaps for 1925
or 1960."
-- Paul A. Samuelson, "Sraffa's Other Leg". Economic
Journal, V. 101, p. 571 (May 1991).
By the way, according to a certain ignoramous - probably a
mainstream economist, Paul Samuelson is therefore a crank and
a loony:
"Mr. Vienneau's world is comprised of imaginary corn, capital,
workers, and utterly improbable assumptions... Sci.econ is long
since overrun by cranks and loonies... Robert is one of the
founders..., and he is certainly deserving of the tinfoil crown
bestowed upon those who truly and doggedly adhere to a line of
thought untroubled by such petty concerns as relevence, pertinence
of underlying assumptions, or veritable tomes of prestigious
literature contradicting his assertions."
-- Alex Huemer, 5 November 2002
> >> >> >Consider this essay:
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/sraffa.html>
> >Does this essay say that labor values determine relative prices?
> >Another poster had no problem answering these questions.
> Then why do you keep asking them?
To give a certain reactionary a chance to manifest his ignorance.
> The problem is precisely
> equivocation:
The part about equivocation is a matter of fantasizing.
> you want to apply the term "labor values" in an
> idiosyncratic way defined by your essay,
I do not use "labor values" in an idiosyncratic way. One confirms
this by looking at the literature. Some of that literature is
overviewed in my LTV FAQ.
> and then transplant the
> implications into a discussion of reality. I'm not going there.
Since my essay is a presentation of a widely discussed
interpretation, and that interpretation is built up in texts
that exist in "reality", my essay is a discussion of reality.
Whether the approach illustrated in my example is useful in
explaining actually existing economies is another discussion.
That discussion cannot even be entered into by people who
have no understanding whatsoever of the illustrated approach.
Furthermore, it is a manifestation of illiteracy to pretend I
was offering an extensive discussion of the applicability of
that approach to explaining actually existing economies.
However, it would be a manifestation of pro-stupidity to
declare a discussion of the applicability of the illustrated
approach illegimitate in any context.
"The above application of the Ricardian theory, that the
entire social product belongs to the workers as THEIR
product, because they are the sole real producers, leads
directly to communism. But, as Marx indicates too in the
above-quoted passage, formally it is economically
incorrect, for it is simply an application of morality
to economics. According to the laws of bourgeois
economics, the greatest part of the product does NOT
belong to the workers who have produced it. If we now
say: that is unjust, that ought not to be so, then that
has nothing to do with economics. We are merely saying
that this economic fact is in contradiction to our sense
of morality. Marx, therefore, never based his communist
demands upon this, but upon the inevitable collapse of
the capitalist mode of production which is daily taking
place before our eyes to an ever greater degree; he says
only that surplus value consists of unpaid labour, which
is a simple fact."
-- F. Engels, Preface to The Poverty of Philosophy
> >Once again,
> > Does that essay say prices tend to be proportional to labor values?
> No.
So an objection that prices, "in reality", are not proportional
to labor values is not, by itself, a claim that the model
illustrated in that essay is not empirically applicable.
> > Does it say Marx claimed they would be?
> >To justify an answer to THESE questions, one points to passages in
> >that essay and in Marx. One does not point to any prices in an
> >advanced industrial economy, that is, if one has any clue about
> >what's being asked.
> ??? This makes no sense,
One could answer,
"Yes. Here's where you say that... But you are wrong, for Marx
says..."
Or,
"No. You explicitly say that here... And you are right. For Marx
says..."
There are two other possibilities. Of course, the question doesn't
require one justify one's answer or to register (dis)agreement
with the essay's claims.
> unless you point to a passage in Marx that
> indicates he is on the same page as your essay.
Me: It is true that my purpose in writing that essay was to illustrate
Me: some relations Marx described. Are there such relations in that
Me: essay, particularly in Table 8?
Roy: If I read Marx rightly (always a difficult call), yes.
> As Marx is no longer
> around, any time you talk about what Marx would say about something
> you have said, there is a default implication that you must be talking
> about reality,
Wrong. When reconstructing Marx there is no default implication
that I am describing how prices move in actually existing
economies.
> as absent a reference or quote, that is the only ground
> you can have in common with Marx (inasmuch as Marx ever talked about
> reality, that is).
Libraries exist, in reality. They contai books, journals, and
such-like. In addition to the texts Marx wrote, in reality, there
are years and years worth of commentaries, in reality.
My essay is titled "A...Interpretation". I explain I am
describing some work of John Eatwell's, among others. My
essay relates to "reality". Specifically, it relates to a
whole series of commentaries. The closing quotes might have
given the clueless a hint.
Recognizing that, "Infinite are the arguments of mages", I
do not claim to be mind-reading Marx or presenting a
historically-accurate contextualization.
> >> >Consider the model illustrated in that essay, at least as far as
> >> >quantities and prices go. That model has been widely applied
> >> >empirically. The economist who first did this won a "Nobel"
> >> >prize for his work.
> >> And...? Are you trying to say that you believe _your_ application of
> >> it is as informative?
> >Fantasy noted. I am saying there is good reason to think the
> >following is unsupported crap:
> > "[The] model [in t]he essay...has nothing to say about actual
> > values or prices."
> >I believe these are different applications of that model:
> > (1) Empirically describing prices and quantities in some
> > economy or another
> Which?
The "Nobel" laureate I referred to was describing the United States.
The tools he developed have been applied, probably, in every developed
economy, and many undeveloped economies.
> > (2) Providing guidance in indicative planning
> Ah.
How silly. At one point, France was using these tools for
indicative planning. They probably still are.
Nowhere in the essay under discussion, nor in this thread, have
I suggested any policy recommendation. It is an expression
of idiocy to pretend that I have.
> > (3) Providing a reconstruction of elements of Marx's economics
> Bingo.
That's what my essay is about. It is only an expression of
anti-intellectualism and stupidity to object, on idiotic principle,
to attempts to understand what Marx was about, including in his
economics.
> >> >It is true that my purpose in writing that essay was to illustrate
> >> >some relations Marx described. Are there such relations in that
> >> >essay, particularly in Table 8?
> >> If I read Marx rightly (always a difficult call), yes.
> >I am surprised at this correct answer. Do you know where in Marx
> >to look to find relations like those in Table 8?
> Not any more. It's been nearly 30 years. I'd guess Volume II of
> Capital.
Well, you are wrong. It is Volume III of Capital. I find it curious
that David Friedman consistently makes the same mistake.
(One can also find those relations in Theories of Surplus Value
and some letters of Marx to Engels.)