From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@WFU.EDU)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 15:27:41 EDT
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Diego Guerrero wrote: > Cars: according to [Paul], labour is productive only if they are > cheap, but unproductive if the cars are expensive (luxuries). Consider an increase in the physical productivity of labour in a car factory. How, if at all, does this lead to an increase in aggregate surplus value? The classic answer (which seems to me right) is that the increase in surplus value comes about via a reduction in the necessary labour time -- the labour-time required for the reproduction of labour-power. That is plausible if the increase in productivity occurs in a factory producing VWs, Fords, or what have you. It does not apply if the productivity improvement is confined to factories producing Lamborghinis or Aston Martins, since these commodities do not enter into workers' consumption, directly or indirectly. In that case, the extra productivity just means that the rich get to consume a bit more. There may be some second-order effect if demand is inelastic and workers are displaced from luxury car production into Depts I or II, though it's not clear why that should happen. Paul is not just saying that, e.g., luxury cars are a "contingent" commodity, something that would not be produced under socialism. He's making a point (following Ricardo) about the role of the production of such commodities in the dynamics of capitalism, namely that improvements in productivity for such commodities have no first-order effect on wages or profits, but only on the real income of capitalists. Allin Cottrell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 12 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT