Date: Mon, 15 May 95 07:19:41 BST
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: Value - Relative and Total


__________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: value
Date: Fri, 12 May 95 09:35:55 +0100
From: wpc-AT-cs.strath.ac.uk

Kliman:
-------
Chris Burford (9 May 18:41:52.33) asked if I had seen Cottrell & Cockshott's
 article in the new _Capital & Class_.  Not yet.  I'm not exactly sure of
 where they stand on these issues, but I thought their project was to
 measure the correlations of RELATIVE values and RELATIVE prices, not TOTAL
 value and TOTAL price.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Paul:
-----
You are right.


____________________________________________________________


Admirably concise, but on this occasion could someone add a technical 
explanation for the non-specialists? What does the distinction mean for 
the exercise of testing the Labour Theory of Value empirically?

Thanks.


Chris Burford


PS I took the point of Jerry Levy asking to check the statistic about
male full time employment in the US. Only 2/3 in full time employment is 
of course still  serious.

Can anyone help with checking the statistic I quoted that 1/3 of the 
world's labour force is unemployed or underemployed. I heard it on the 
BBC referring to a report by the ILO about 3 or 4 weeks ago. I think the 
headline was in terms of unemployment, but I assumed that must include 
under-employment. Perhaps it does not.



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------