At 03:53 PM 10/12/2000 +0100, you wrote: >John wrote [#4057] > >> In OPE-L 4056, Andrew wrote: >> >> >> "Inputs and stocks are two different things. Inputs are things that >> have been used up, no longer exist, whereas stocks are still in >> existence." >> >> >> I think there is a question of how we look at things here. For example, >> if a capitalist has $100 worth of stock at beginning of production and >> that stock is worth $50 at the end of the period, has not $50 of stock >> been "used up"? Must we look at physical units involved to determine >> the value "used up:? >> > It seems we must, or your point wouldn't be understandable, since I >take it that when you refer to "that stock" you refer to physical items. > > If you instead mean the $100, then from your formulation we cannot >tell whether the $50 missing at the end has been used up *in production*, or >whether it has evaporated due to moral depreciation, accidental loss, etc. > > In the latter case, $50 may indeed have been "used up" in some >sense, but not as an input to production, which is what Andrew was referring >to. > > Julian Julian, You then face the problem of how to account for the missing $50. Further, you seem to take the position that one type of depreciation transfers value to the output and the other type does not. I think you then face the question of why moral depreciation is to be labeled "depreciation" at all. John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST