Hi Andrew, RE: 4094 You wrote: I'll be happy to respond to your points (OPE-L 4093), but what responding to mine? Specifically, do you agree or disagree 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"? Do you agree or disagree that "If a machine doesn't produce any output, it can't transfer value to that output"? My comment: At first, it seems obvious that if a machine *never* produces output it never transfers value. But let's consider this a bit. For example, let's say to make sure he can fulfill orders in a timely fashion a capitalist buys 5 machines even though he only needs 4 to produce the output he thinks he can sell. The 5th is there --"just in case." Now if he never uses that 5th machine, does its value get transferred to the value of the output that the other 4 produce? I'd say yes. I'm not sure what you would say. You wrote: Now to your points: : A machine is used all day (say for 12 hours) in production. Its : value is thus fully transferred to the output produced in that : day. Ceteris paribus, 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? No. First, the machine isn't necessarily depreciating due to aging INSTEAD OF TO USE. A 12-hour pause is not what I would normally regard as depreciation due to aging INSTEAD OF TO USE. Twelve hours a day might be the normal rate of utilization; machines often need to rest. Second, preservation and transfer are not taking place during those other 12 hours, but that doesn't mean that value is being *lost*. Value contained in a machine is lost, rather than transferred, if and when the machine becomes unusable due to aging (e.g., it rusts out) before the value contained in it has all been transferred. Once the machine becomes unusable, no more value can be transferred. Its untransferred value, the portion of its value that has not yet been transferred, is then lost. If, however, the machine is still *usable*, even if it isn't *in use* at this moment, the untransferred part of its value is not (yet) lost. If your machine gets used during the next day, and the next, etc., then, ceteris paribus, all of its value will be transferred rather than lost. My comment: Here maybe we can jump ahead a bit so that I can better understand how you deal with "losses" that occur when not all the value is transferred from the means of production to the output during the lifetime of fixed capital. Let's call the loss, x. Does "x" enter into your calculation for the rate of profit? If so, how? Let me say why I think this gets to the matter rather quickly. If a capitalist buys a machine for $100 to produce an output worth $150 in each of 2 years, then, assuming all other costs are negligible, given that $50 of the machine's value is transferred in the 1st year, he would expect a rate of profit of (150-50)/100. The surplus value would clearly be $100 --- the term in the numerator. However, if the machine is rendered useless at the end of 1st year due to moral depreciation, then the untransferred value would be lost to him. His *real* rate of profit would be (150-50-50)/100 or only 50/100. However, had we assumed that the moral depreciation of $50 is transferred to the output, we would get the same result. That is, (150-50-50)/100 where one of "50's" represents real depreciation and the other moral depreciation. The same 50 is deducted from the output no matter how we compute the transfer of value. Thus, I suppose the real question is -- is Marx's falling rate of profit computed before or after allowances for moral depreciation. John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST