Re: [OPE] No rise is s/v? Kliman's empirical work on the falling rate of profit

Hi Paul Z:

Another analytical 'shortcut' on his part which affects the conclusions.
There's a history
to that. Surely, he must have anticipated your criticism (?) to his
quasi-empirics.

In solidarity, Jerry

> http://akliman.squarespace.com/persistent-fall
>
> Working with US data since 1947, he concludes: "the rate of surplus-value
> remained roughly constant over the entire course of each period taken as a
> whole, the rate of surplus-value had only a very minor influence on the
> rate of profit over longer spans of time". However, Andrew has no
> recognition whatsoever of unproductive labor (actually, he doesn't even
> mention it in his 105 pp. first draft). I don't recall having seen other
> work by Kliman which discusses Marx's productive versus unproductive
> labor, although I would presume he has taken a position on it somewhere
> since it hardly seems possible to ignore the discussion.
>
>
> Those who have worked with US data and included unproductive labor find
> that the rate of surplus value is indeed rising considerably. My paper
> for the Marx gala conference in Amherst lays out these works (Wolff,
> Moseley, Shaik and Tonak) but I have yet to include Mohun's 2005 Cambridge
> Journal article correcting Shaikh and Tonak. (From a lecture I just heard
> from Tonak in Kocaeli University in Turkey, I understand him to accept
> Mohun'w work as an improvement.) Mohun's work reports from 1964 to 2001 a
> rise in s/v from ~2 to ~3 - a 50% increase - with the conceptual
> distinction between productive and unproductive labor incorporated.
> Mohun's result makes sense of the stability of real wages in that period
> for the US while the production of relative surplus value continues.
>
> Any thoughts on this matter? Paul Zarembka

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Oct 16 15:36:49 2009