From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 10:49:06 EDT
> > >The same is not true of dept III. An improvement in technology there >just >leads to a greater physical surplus, but no increase in its value. >Consider >the change in Hydrogen Bomb design in the mid 50s from using liquid >deuterium >to using lithium deutride, the result was a big increase in the number >of bombs that the US was able to produce. But since these bombs did not >enter as means of production back into the economy, there was no >concomitant rise in the rate of surplus value. Paul, you had characterized dept III as a drag on growth and accumulation because labor was not productive here. But there are two problems with characterizing this labor as unproductive. It is productive in the sense that it allows for return of value and surplus value; second, growth of dept III can bring whole economy forward. So even if by some definition labor here is not productive there is simply no critical bite to your thesis. >exception that there is unemployment. >PAUL >---- >No, it it just that there is not always sufficient spare labour >and periods of rapid accumulation exhaust the supply. Again this is an exceptional state, not the starting point for theory. > >Paul >---- >No by my definition a running down of the capital stock is >de-accumulation >not accumulation. Again not concerned with definitions but with the effects of running down of the capital stock on the growth of the economy. It can revitalize not undermine capitalist economies. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 12 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT