From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2007 - 10:06:59 EDT
Jerry, your suggestion is helpful, i.e., taking the ratio of circulating
constant capital as fixed relative to output rather than to fixed capital.
I'll think about. Paul
--On Saturday, September 08, 2007 2:05 PM -0400 glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:
>> I'm thinking that it is not unreasonable that the level of circulating
>> constant capital is a fixed ratio of fixed capital, since the fixed
>> capital is designed with requirements for circulating constant capital
>> inputs, like raw materials.
>
> Hi Paul Z:
>
> OK. Thanks for the explanations.
>
> I gather you are implicity assuming that there is full capacity
> utilization? If not, (even without technological change, increases in the
> intensity of labor, or increases in absolute surplus value) then output
> could be increased using the same quantity of fixed capital but with
> additional circulating constant and variable capital. But, that would
> change the ratio of Cf to Cc and hence not be allowed under the assumption
> you are making.
>
> An alternative mught be to treat the level of Cc as a function of the
> level of (expected) output. If you are (for the time being) assuming no
> technological change then an increasing quantity of commodity output would
> require an increasing quantity of constant circulating capital input.
> Just a thought.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka,ed, Elsevier hardback
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT