The description of this subdebate states that "a freed market would inevitably align prices with costs of production" but your text says "in a freed market [...] prices would tend towards production costs".

There's a big difference between those statements--the difference between tendencies and inevitabilities. Which do you mean?

Furthermore, the word align implies non-parity (non-equality). If, in your freed economy, prices are not equal to production costs, then how can "all components of price be reducible to labor," as you claim in the title of another subdebate?

I have not been able to find a Kevin Carson quote on the subject, although I believe we should be taking about tendency, not necessity. I thought the word "align" was in the same vein: maybe I was wrong to use it.

In any case, I believe that prices are the result of a power struggle mediated by the cost of production. I don't expect prices to equal production costs as a rule or to be limited by production costs, unless they are deliberately made to be (which would not be a bad thing, either). Again, I think you are making a connection between "all components of price are reducible to labor" and "price must equal costs of production" that is not there in LTV.

I agree that prices tend towards production costs in a freed market: if prices remain below costs for an extended time, all capital will be consumed; if they remain far above production costs, competition becomes profitable.

Since my interpretation of STV and your interpretation of LTV both agree that a freed market would tend to align prices with costs of production, there's nothing for us to continue debating in this subdebate.

By what mechanism does STV align prices with costs of production?

> By what mechanism does STV align prices with costs of production?

By the two mechanisms I described, capital consumption and competition: "in a freed market[,] if prices remain below costs for an extended time, all capital will be consumed [and prices will be forced to rise]; if [prices] remain far above production costs, competition becomes profitable."

> David, [...] did you initially disagree because [you] misinterpreted
> Francois' statement to refer to inevitability rather than tendency?

I recall neither disagreeing nor misinterpreting. I asked only for clarification and the subdebate title does say "inevitably". But, if Francois had insisted upon inevitability, I would've tried to think of an exception.

Against just to clarify, are you saying that a freed market and a capitalist market are exactly the same in that regard?

> [Again,] just to clarify, are you saying that a freed market and a
> capitalist market are exactly the same in that regard?

I'm saying that, given the same inputs, they both posit the same end result.

As an extension of our agreed-upon definition, do you agree that the fundamental principle of STV is that, in STV, price of a commodity is dependent on the confluence of desires of those who want to buy, and those who want to sell, a given commodity?

"However, Francois, if this line of argument is on the question of whether this point actually invalidates the STV (rather than whether there's a false agreement on this point), I would like to make a separate subdebate on the top level (per the agreement up there that I proposed and seems to be failing). Is that the case?"

Yes, that's right.

> (Ill Logic) you just weren't sure about what he meant, and now that you do, you believe you agree with him on this point. Is this correct?

That is correct.