From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Dec 01 2006 - 16:57:29 EST
--- clyder@GN.APC.ORG wrote: > Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>: > > > Imagine a large capitalist economy which produces > a > > huge amount of surplus however employs just a few > > thousand workers (since you guys are not ready to > > accept zero worker situation). Now, if you apply > > Marx's calculation here, then the labor-values of > > commodities would be close to zero and if wages > are > > what is necessary to reproduce the labor-power, > then > > the rate of profits would be quite high, and this > high > > rate of profits (within Marx's calculations) could > > only be explained by a very high rate of surplus > > value. > > This is not evident to me. In what sense is the > capitalist economy 'large' if it employs only a > few thousand workers? > Is it large in the Tonnage of output? > > It is clearly not large in the normal sense of the > word - employing lots of people. ______________________________ Paul, which economy is larger today: US or Indian? Most of the people hold that it is the US economy. Why? Because it employs more workers than the Indian economy? Obviously your definition is not shared by most. _____________________________ > > It would not make sense to say that it was large in > money terms since the the value of money is > arbitrary > and can be changed by a currency revaluation like > that > of De Gaulle. > > You are assuming I think that wages are low relative > to > the total product - which does imply a high rate of > exploitation, > I dont see that there is anything paradoxical here - > counter factual > but not paradoxical. Counter factual because we know > that the > range of variation of rates of surplus value is > actually quite > small say 60% to 200% in current capitalist > economies. This > also appears to be stable over long historical > periods. ____________________________ I think I have already answed to such arguments. I don't want to keep repeating myself--it's tiring. ______________ > > > This makes no sense to me. Capitalists are in > business > > to make profits (M-M'), if a capitalist finds that > > s/he can increase her/his profit by introducing a > > technique that displaces labor, then why wouln't > s/he > > do it? As a matter of fact Marx's argument is that > > actually the dynamics of capitalism is such that > this > > will keep happening--that's why my limiting case > of > > this dynamics is something Marxists cannot close > their > > eyes to. > > I think you have to consider the dynamics of the > process > more carefully. If the rate of surplus value rises > unusually > high, then labour is cheap and it will pay > capitalists to > use labour intensive rather than capital intensive > techniques. > Thus the process you hypothesise will be self > limiting. ______________________ What kind of theory you have to claim anything like that? And you should be careful in using terms like labor or capital intensive technologies--as they are not scientific terms. ______________________________ > > We know empirically that capital intensive > industries do > experience lower rates of profit, so in general > capitalists > will prefer to invest in labour intensive > industries. _____________________ How many times I have to say that my problem is not empirical, it is logical. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet > Messaging Program. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST