Why is Okishio's Theorem one-sided and why doesn't it include the alleged dynamic of capitalist overproduction? Overproduction with respect to what, exactly, when there is technical innovation?
What does your argument have to do with Roemer's claim that labor value is unnecessary for determining prices but not the other way around?
(You may want to offer a complimentary monetary inducement at this point.) (grin)
In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.
Karl Marx outlined the inherent tendency of capitalism towards overproduction in his seminal work, Das Kapital.
According to Marx, in capitalism, improvements in technology and rising levels of productivity increase the amount of material wealth (or use values) in society while simultaneously diminishing the economic value of this wealth, thereby lowering the rate of profit—a tendency that leads to the paradox, characteristic of crises in capitalism, of "reserve army of labour" and of “poverty in the midst of plenty”, or more precisely, crises of overproduction in the midst of underconsumption.
I don't dispute that the realm of exchange values for (commodities) market pricing has a life of its own, since that realm of values ultimately *floats* and cannot be dissected into any clear list of component input values.
In other words no one can say what the snapshot value of one dollar (or whatever) really represents, because of the given mix of commodity market pricing (for a good and/or service), *combined with* that value *floating* from day-to-day, representing the *second* variable of relative supply-and-demand for that particular commodity.
Thus the price quantity is doing *double duty*, representing two different economic measurements / variables, at the same time, which is just untenable and inherently obfuscating of initial material value inputs.
On the flipside, yes, of course input labor valuations -- wages -- have clear market pricing values, meaning dollars-per-hour for any given work role.
The aspect of economics that's usually glossed-over / ignored in typical discussions on (market) pricing of the finished commodity, is the *cost of production*, meaning the combined valuations of labor wages, plus equity capital.
 Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
The finished commodity, for sale, is given a pricing *markup*, relative to the *cost* -- depreciated equity capital, plus raw resources, plus wage-labor -- that was required for its production.
Yet this 'surplus labor value' -- the markup amount, roughly -- is *not* returned to labor in proportion to labor's labor-value input that produced the commodity in the first place.
This is the definition of *exploitation*, and it's *not* a religious claim, but instead is an economically delineated one -- see the diagram.