In 4089, Andrew wrote: "In reply to OPE-L 4088; Unfortunately, I didn't understand John's answer to his question "Why would I associate or conflate the transfer of value with depreciation?" I think it is clear that Marx held that a means of production that undergoes wear and tear through aging, rather than through use, does not transfer value to the output." My comment: I had thought that our differences on the matter of depreciation, if any, would be solely around the concept of moral depreciation. Let's be clear on what I had termed, following Marx, the three ways in which the means of production depreciate: 1. via use. 2. via aging. 3. via the loss in value due to moral depreciation. ________ Let's forget 3 for a moment. Andrew, what you now seem to be saying is that as, say a machine, is used, value is transferred to the output produced as that machine is used in the production of that output. However, the value lost by the machine due to aging, when it is used as well as when it is not used, is not transferred to the output. This seems a bit strange to me. If a factory containing that machine is closed for a short time, say, for annual maintenance, its unclear to me what happens to the value the machine loses during that period of time. Must that loss be deducted from the value transferred in that same period of time when the machine is used? John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST