From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 07:31:43 EDT
Re Rakesh's [7699]: I'm still thinking through some of these issues, but some contrary thoughts occur to me: >One may not > want to understand why Michele, you and I are saying there would tend > to be extra surplus value in the gold industry (lower than average > OCC as a result of i. the use of little to no raw materials in the > extraction of precious metals as Marx emphasizes, The trend would be -- because of the increasing OCC in the gold- mining branch (see below) -- for raw material costs to increase as well. That is, the expanded use of constant fixed capital would tend to require the expanded utilization of constant circulating capital, e.g. increasing energy costs (putting aside the possibility of new more advanced constant fixed capital which is more "energy efficient" and which thereby decreases energy and other constant circulating capital costs). > ii. economic > disincentives for large investment on scarce, privately owned land > for which the lease cannot be counted on to last as long as long > lived fixed capital, A counter-tendency exists, though. Gold-mining capitalists have a *double incentive* to increase the OCC: their quest for additional surplus value drives them to increase the OCC (they share this incentive with other industrial capitalists) _and_, ***precisely because of the scarcity of land suitable for gold-mining***, they must increase the OCC. That is, as more gold is mined less gold is left in the ground and it is more difficult to mine. This requires the gold-mining capitalists to increase their OCC if they are to obtain the additional gold that is still in the ground but is less easily obtainable than was previously the case. As a consequence, one might anticipate over time that the OCC in the gold-mining branch (subject to the assumption that gold is mined entirely capitalistically, e.g. there are no "small scale" gold mines by landless peasants, etc.) that the OCC might be *higher* than the average OCC in the rest of the economy. > iii. value of gold being set at marginal mine > which will tend have the most labor intensive technique of production > as you have underlined though I am not clear about this, A contrary argument: in "the more marginal mines" gold is less readily available and the cost of mining will tend to be higher. As a consequence, the more marginal mines will be forced to substitute more advanced means of production to obtain that gold. This would suggest that the marginal mines will either be forced into a higher than average OCC or be forced to close the mines. > iv. inherent > technical difficulties in raising the capital intensity of in > agriculture and mining etc.) What "inherent technical difficulties"? We have seen in capitalist agriculture, an enormous increase in "capital intensity". Witness the technologies used by contemporary agribusiness. Indeed, it is precisely the increase in this "capital intensity" which has accelerated the concentration and centralization of capital in agriculture. Moreover this is a long-term trend. > and why instead of being competed away > this extra surplus value would tend to be appropriated by the owner > of the land which is an inherently scarce means of production as > absolute rent even as the gold capitalists themselves tend to make > the average rate of profit. I don't see how one can argue that the gold-mining capitalists make the average rate of profit yet still appropriate the "extra surplus value". If they appropriate extra s then wouldn't their rate of profit tend to be higher than the average? >Of course demand may not be strong enough > for the full extra surplus value in the gold industry to be realized > but given that gold is immediately exchangeable there seems little > reason to doubt that the extra surplus value would in fact tend to be > realized. Well, yes. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT