From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Oct 13 2006 - 15:50:23 EDT
--- Francisco Paulo Cipolla <cipolla@UFPR.BR> wrote: > Yes, Ajit, we can have anything, any combination > possible. But we are > talking about tendencies, laws of motion, > regularities. If capital shows > a tendency to increase technical composition all > accross industries then > both valuesof labor power and means of production > will fall all accross. > This means that value composition of capital will > behave organically > related to technical composition, which results in a > rising L/c. > Paulo ______________________ How do you measure "technical composition of capital", Paulo? ajit sinha > > ajit sinha wrote: > > > --- Francisco Paulo Cipolla <cipolla@UFPR.BR> > wrote: > > > > > Rising organic composition and rising rate of > > > exploitation are obviously > > > related, Ajit. They are two aspects of > increasing > > > productivity. > > _________________________ > > No, they are not. You can have increasing > productivity > > with falling organic composition of capital and > you > > can have decreasing productivity with rising > > composition of capital. There is no law in > economics > > that I know of that says that productivity of > labor > > cannot rise if he value of constant element of > capital > > falls faster than the value of variable capital > > needed. Secondly, imagine you are involved in > mining. > > As you produce more and more you find that it is > > becoming more and more difficult to produce the > same > > amount of minerals as before, so you bring in > heavy > > machinery, your organic composition would rise but > > your labor productivity may remain the same. > > Generalize this case to agriculture as a whole, as > > Ricardo did. You can have a rising organic > composition > > of capital with either fall or no increase in > labor > > productivity. > > ______________________________ > > As > > > productivity rises and values fall workers can > have > > > a higher real wage > > > (amount of goods), be more exploited, all this > > > together with a reduction > > > in the rate of profit. As you say the three > trends > > > can go together. > > _______________ > > Actually, I was a little hasty, and I shouldn’t > have > > trusted my little mathematics done on the margin > of a > > newspaper. As a matter of fact by relative > > immiseration, one could only mean the relative > share > > of wages and profits PER UNIT OF NET OUTPUT. And I > > don't think under any circumstance the relative > share > > of wages could fall along with the rate of profits > per > > unit of net output. Thus the relative immiseration > > thesis does not even get a start if it is defined > > properly. > > ________________________ > > > The maximum rate of profit is a concept that > allows > > > us to see that the > > > fall of the profit rate is independent of the > rate > > > of exploitation. For > > > this to be true it is enough to show that the > new > > > value created (L) > > > shrinks as a percentage of constant capital. > > __________________________ > > I don't think that a rise in C/L must imply a fall > in > > the maximum rate of profits to begin with, since > you > > are allowing labor productivity to rise. You > should > > note that it is well accepted that the formula for > the > > rate of profits as S/(C+V) is wrong, so you need > to > > check Sraffa to see whether the proposition you > think > > is obvious is all that obvious or not. Cheers, > ajit > > sinha > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST