From: Simon Mohun (s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2008 - 16:10:31 EST
I too don't see what the problem is. Value added in money terms = total wages + total profits Total wages = Productive wages + unproductive wages Total surplus value in money = Unproductive wages + total profits These are not equations but accounting definitions. No causality is expressed. But the three relationships are not inconsistent. Simon Jerry Levy wrote: > Ironically, the same authors who argue that the wages of unproductive > workers are a "deduction from surplus value" (which is actually > literallyÃÂ an expression Marx uses in his manuscript) include those > wages as a portion of surplus value, in their social account of gross > product (e.g. Shaikh & Tonak, Moseley). ÃÂÃÂ From a mathematical > point of view, this does not make much sense, since - at least ÃÂ as > far as I know - a deduction cannot be an addition at the same > time;ÃÂÃÂ that's a mathematical error. ....................... > > > Hi Jurriaan: > > Sorry, you lost me. Assume for the moment that there is a given > amount of surplus value. If the wages for unproductive are paid out > of s, then why is there an addition at the same time? If u goes up, > that would mean that the quantity of s which can be redistributed > among capitalists or further 'deducted' by the state has gone down, > not up. If there is a 'paradox' it is that if u represents a > deduction from s then they have an incentive to reduce u to the > minimum. But, to the contrary, u has increased markedly in late > capitalism. This paradox can be explained with reference to > competition, though: i.e. even if from the standpoint of capitalists > as a whole u represents a deduction from s it has nonetheless become > a customary and competitively (and, in some cases, legally) > 'necessary' expenditure from the standpoint of capitalist firms. > > In solidarity, Jerry --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST