No. Not at all. That si why you can't get around the poroblem by giving up on the transformation problem the way Rakesh does, also Andrew Kliman.
The LTV is supposed to do at least four things:
1) Explain prices (on one view) -- by showing the poiunt around which long term prices tend to fluctuate. It does a poor job of this and is not necessary for the purpose, that's what the Sraffans showed.
2) More importantly explain the origin of profits and the existence of exploitation. Here it does a better job but it is still not necessary. In particular, you can show taht there are profits without ever referring to value, simply because of differential ownership (Roemer, Schweickart) and that there's exploitation without reducing all value to labor values or indeed without saying that all profits represent value.
3) The theory is supposed to explain the laws of motion of capitalsim, the incentive to accumulate no matter what and at all costs. But neoclassical theory does fine at this.
4) Finally the theory is supposed to explain the capitalist tendency towards crises. But Marx never worked out a coherent crisis theory. The efforts to do one in terms of value theory via the f=tendency of ther rate of profit to fall are unpersuasive. Berttrer versions, using geberal Marxian assumptions and tool, like Brenners' (my fave) or Weisskopf or Gordon, don't use value talk.
So the main point is that where value talk is coherent and even where it is useful it is not necessary. ANd there has been no progress, I mean NONE, in value theory in 100 or more years.
It's just a religious attachment to the master's Word that keeps some Marxist reciting these formulae.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com