Talk:Cost-of-production theory of value

Michał Kalecki
The Polish economist Michał Kalecki [1] distinguished between sectors with "cost-determined prices" (such as manufacturing and services) and those with "demand-determined prices" (such as agriculture and raw material extraction. I don't get it. Aren't all prices demand-determined? --Gbleem 12:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity
"Marx's theory is not a true cost-of-production theory since the value of a commodity contains a component of surplus value unrelated to the physical cost of producing it."

Is this saying that his theory isn't a true cost-of-production theory because it does not explain the component of surplus value or because his theory includes it and thus exceeds the bounds of a cost of production theory? The former would seem to me to be a very "wrong" arguement and the latter would need the sentance to be rephrased for clarity... --MatthewKarlsen 23:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Smith
I find the part about Smith a bit wierd. I am not aware of Smith speaking about factors of production at all. He is big time labour theory of value, just the diffrence with Marx is that price=value, cuz he didnt have the idea of the surplus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith does indeed talk about factors of production; his labour theory of value seems to be a theory of the essence of value rather than a price-determination theory - a theory of welfare, perhaps. But though the article uses the 'probably' caveat when claiming Smith's espousal of C-O-P, I think it ought to mention Hollander's general equilibrium theory, and, more importantly, the point that in WoN Bk.1 C.VII 'natural' prices are statistical rather than C-O-P determined; Smith's theory of price determination may be supply-side, but it's not strictly a C-O-P case, since physical costs of production are only a part of the determination of Smithian natural rates. See the discussion for the entry on Smith for a more complete exposition; if you're interested! Preferably, the entry might read "recent trends in the history of economic thought credit Smith with the C-O-P theory; though such an interpretation was not assigned by his early readers (e.g. David Ricardo) or by all modern critics (e.g. Samuel Hollander)." I am reluctant to make the edit myself, because I feel the way I've put it is a little too clunky! MordantAnalyst (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)