Depreciation can exist without affecting use value. Tech. change can make a machine obsolute without affecting use value. > > Pardon me butting in with an unwanted aside here, but w.r.t. Andrew's > closing comment that: > > "I think the importance of this case here is that it makes clear that > depreciation and the transfer of value are two different things." > > This is precisely the case I make: the former represents the exchange-value > of the machine, the latter is its use-value. The standard labor theory of > value/Marxian approach is to equate these two magnitudes--so that exactly > the same quantitative entry is made for the value of the input (c) and the > value it transfers (also c). > > When Marx put this proposition to himself in terms of exchange-value and > use-value, however, he made the following statement: > > "It also has to be postulated (which was not done above) that *the > use-value of the machine significantly (sic) greater than its value*; i.e. > that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to > its increasing effect on production." (The Grundrisse, p. 383. Emphasis > added.) > > This would mean, of course, that the value transferred by the machine could > exceed the value of the machine itself, which is the same case as for labor. > > Cheers, > Steve > > At 11:35 15/10/00 -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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Steve Keen > Senior Lecturer > Economics & Finance > University of Western Sydney Macarthur > Building 11 Room 30, > Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown > PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 > Australia > s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 > Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 > Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/ > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST