On Tue, 15 May 2001, you wrote: > Re John's [5573]: > > > Jerry, it seems to me that necessary labor time > > would not change due to an increase of > > productivity in the luxury goods sector if > > one assumes that all processes are equally > > profitable prior to the change in productivity in > > that sector. However, as the > > change occurs, the luxury goods producer would > earn a higher rate of > return and the workers > > would be creating more social value than before. > > Yes, they would be creating more value during > the same working hours (i.e. there would be no > increase in absolute surplus value). Increase in productivity does not equate with increase in value. Au contraire to relative devaluation of the product. > > > If the higher rate of return induces capital to > > move to the luxury > > goods sector and the social value created falls > > such that the rate > > of return in that sector becomes equal to all > > others, > > There might be barriers to the movement of > capital to Dept IIb. In any event, this process is > not an instantaneous process and even if it were to > happen eventually, how would you describe the > situation before then? > > Also, what happens if the gain in productivity is > small enough that it doesn't lead to a significant > change in the expected RRI? E.g. let's say that > the economy-wide RRI is 10% but now > instead of a RRI of 10.0% in IIb, the RRI there - > due to a small productivity increase - goes up to > 10.1%. Given the fact that a significant portion > of capital exists as stock and not money-capital > and the gain from movement would be so low, > why would we anticipate a shift into IIb? > Doesn't it have to rise to a certain threshold > before capital flows to IIb? (also, there are > very concrete practicalities that would inhibit the > free movement of money capital under these circumstances, e.g. brokerage > transaction fees > and taxes.) > > > then unless > > some of the movement changes the prices of > > workers' consumption goods > > the rate of surplus value, necessary labor time > > and the rate of > > return will not change. Note that Marx says that > relative surplus > > value is ultimately generated by changes in the > > values of workers' > > consumption goods. > > Wasn't he in that context referring to an increase > in relative surplus value caused by labor-saving technical change? In so > doing, he was referring > to one (the predominant) form in which relative > s can be increased. > > So what happens after the productivity increase > but if there isn't an in-flow of capital into Dept IIb > or in the interim before that happens? The > workers in Dept IIb are being paid the same > wages as before and there is no reason to > suppose that there will be a change in the value > of their consumption goods. They now produce > more output in the same working time. Why > should we then not say that there has then been a > decrease in necessary labor time and an > increase in surplus labor time in that sub- > department? > > In solidarity, Jerry > > PS re Allin's 5572: you assert that necessary and > surplus labor time are "heuristic" devices when > referring to "particular capitalist enterprises". > Since we are referring not to individual firms, but > to production departments, could you explain > why you think that these concepts are > heuristic at that level of analysis? Are you making > essentially the same argument that Paul made > recently about the armaments sector? -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT