Re: 4092 Andrew: A machine is used all day (say for 12 hours) in production. It's value is thus fully transferred to the output produced in that day. We agree on this. Yes? Clearly the machine depreciates by aging during its "off" hours or the other 12 hours. I think you're saying that that value is simply lost and not transferred. Yes? If so, how do we figure this loss as we compute the rate of profit? John At 11:35 AM 10/15/2000 -0400, you wrote: >In reply to 4091. > >John wrote: "what you now seem to be saying is that ... 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." > >No, my point was that, in Marx's theory, what allows the value of a means >of production to be preserved (by being transferred) is that it is used >in production. If the same kind of item is *not* used in production, but >depreciates through aging (a machine is idled in a slump, and rusts out), >its value is lost along with its use-value. > >Marx discusses this in Capital I, Ch. 8. And it is obvious in any case. >If a machine doesn't produce any output, it can't transfer value to that >output. > >I think the importance of this case here is that it makes clear that >depreciation and the transfer of value are two different things. > >Ciao, > >Andrew > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST