From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2007 - 13:04:58 EST
Hi Jerry, In Paul C's thought experiment, one can hypothesize that a quantity analogous to labour content emerges as the basis of economic value. If there is a scarce and universal quantity that constrains production and the feasible consumption pattern --- and if the economy works with some degree of efficiency --- then this quantity will emerge as a regulating force on the prices of commodities. //Dave Z on 2007-11-28 15:14 GERALD LEVY wrote: > > Hi Paul C: > > > > How are you defining 'profit' and the 'rate of profit' below? > > > > If we take the formula s/c+v to be the rate of profit, in a > > fully automated economy v = 0 and this implies that s = > > 0 unless you think that c can create surplus value. > > > > I suppose one could define 'surplus' (NB: as distinct from > > 'surplus value') in a different way, such that it could exist in > > your fully automated society. But, it would be difficult > > because in pre-capitalist (or post-capitalist) societies a surplus > > refers to an amount of the total product produced beyond the > > necessary reproductive requirements of the direct producers. > > But, there are no direct producers in a fully automated society > > unless you take the robots to be the 'producers'. [If so, then > > the (non-labor) costs associated with maintaining and > > reproducing the robots could be seen as 'socially necessary' > > and a pre-requisite for the reproduction of the system.] > > > > Who would be consuming the output, you ask? Well, > > I guess that would be the human (or non-human) parasites > > who live off of the product produced by the robots, > > right? > > > > What any of this has to do with real economies is unclear > > to me. I don't think such an abstract, ahistorical model has > > *anything* meaningful to say about capitalism. > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > I agree that without wage labour you could not speak of capitalism > in the normal sense, but > > That does not follow that all prices would be zero, since the > firms might still be > > Aiming to maximise profit. > > > > More unclear would be who or what was consuming the output? > > > > One could assume all was reinvested and the rate of profit would > then the the rate of growth as analyzed by von Neumann > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EST