#9 no more =(
guesta at econ.utah.edu
Sun Nov 6 15:48:51 MST 1994
>> Justin Schwartz e-orated. . .
>>>I would add, likewise, that a labor theory of value, even if true--I mean
>>>even if a proof were forthcoming that money were labor, etc.--does not
>>>itself have moral implications. It does not follow, for example, that
>>>labor deserves or is entitled to all value even if labor created all value
>>>and determined all prices. To get such a theory off the ground you need a
>>>labor theory of _property entitlements_ of the sort defended by G.A.
>>>Cohen, Locke, and Nozick.
>> "even if true" ? ? ?
>Why the question marks? I have been arguing that the theory is not true
>because it is internally inconsistent.
I am sorry that I have missed your argument. Why is the LTV internally
inconsistent? I hope the argument isn't because values aren't neatly
transformable to prices.
>From the exploitation of labor. But you don't need a theory of price to
>tell you that, or indeed a theory of value. What you need is a theory of
>exploitation and profit. No doubt it will not surprise you that I have
>written a paper on this, "What's Wrong With Exploitation?", forthcoming
>from _Nous_ in July 1995, they tell me, but no promises.
Perhaps you would be interested in presenting the essence of your ideas here
in this mailing list? I would be very interested in reading your theory of
exploitation and profit and wonder how it will differ from the LTV?
guesta watched his #9 University of Utah Utes lose to New Mexico on a last
second field goal and fears a great fall in next weeks polls
More information about the Marxism