From: Paul Cockshot (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 10:08:35 EDT
On Sunday 25 August 2002 00:11, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > Paul, > the FROP which seemingly could be derived on on von Neumann lines > would have what Brenner has called a Malthusian character since it > would seem that total labor productivity--that is, the productivity > of indirect and direct labor combined--would have to be falling for > the ratio of physical surplus to the physical stock of capital to > fall. Nothing inherently malthusian about the effects of zero percent interest rates on the direction of capital accumulation. > > But I don't want to pursue this point. > > I don't think it's von Neumann who is important here but Dmitriev of > whose model of total automation Spencer Pack gives a simple example. > > > > 28 56 0 0 > 16 0 48 0 > 12 0 0 8 > 56 56 48 8 > > > What we have in the first column is inputs of computers (28,16,12, 56 > total) needed to make 56 computers, 48 units of gold, and 8 units of > wheat. > > That is, 28 computers => 56 computers > 16 computers => 48 units of gold > 12 computers => 8 units of wheat > 56 computers => 56 computers, 48 units of gold, 8 units of wheat > > > The economy is in simple reproduction because it produces only 56 new > computers, and 56 computers are needed to produce computers, gold and > wheat at the same scale again. Note that this economy is in simple reproduction but has a potention von-Neumann growth rate of 100% since this is the expansion ratio of the basic goods sector. > > There is no direct labor in this economy; there is not even indirect > labor as computers, gold and wheat are themselves the products of > commodities--the literal production of commodities by commodities. > > According to Pack this economy can be solved for relative prices and > a uniform profit and absolute prices as well if we assume by > definition that the price of one unit of gold equals $1. > > (1 + r) (28pc) = 56 pc > (1 + r) (16pc) = 48 > (1 + r) (12pc) = 8pw > > r is the profit rate while pc and pw are the unit prices of computers > and wheat. > > From the first equation we know the profit rate has to be 100%; price > of one computer is $1.50 and price of one unit of wheat is $4.50. > > So contrary to the LTV, there can be a positive rate of profit and > relative prices in a totally automated economy. > This is in no way contrary to the labour theory of value. If there is no human labour input, the labour theory of value simply does not apply to this case. > But this assumes the method of determination which Moseley (monetary > macro), Shaikh (fixed point iteration) and TSS have all criticized in > their respective ways. For each of these three respectives there > would in fact be no profit in a fully automated economy. Why on earth should there be no profit in a fully automated economy? What price structure could the above economy have that entailed not profit? > > With this post, I only mean to invite a debate about this thought > experiment of a fully automated economy. > > Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 06 2002 - 17:17:38 EDT