John, re [#4060] > You then face the problem of how to account for the missing $50. Surely this just --> work-in-progress --> inventory --> money, according to how far production/realisation has gone? > Further, > you seem to take the position that one type of depreciation transfers > value to the output and the other type does not. You're right to pull me up here -- "stock" always puts me in mind of circulating constant capital, which is why I mentioned moral depreciation. I think of moral depreciation as "unexpected" (and hence "unplanned-for") change of value, and thus don't think of it as transferring value, any more than (say) spoilage by flooding does. Of course, capitalists can plan for changes in the value of stock -- in the latter case, of course, this is through insurance, but equally in the case of market-driven changes; for (hackneyed) example, most enterprises write-down IT equipment faster than other types precisely because they know its value will decline far more rapidly than it will wear out. Is value transferred in these cases? I'd say yes. > I think you then face > the question of why moral depreciation is to be labeled "depreciation" at > all. > Arguably it's an unhelpful terminology -- presumably Marx* wanted to draw a contrast with physical depreciation, but in the light of my comments above, perhaps he might have done better to concentrate on the un/expected distinction. Julian *Marx? Did he coin this term, does anyone know?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST