From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 18:17:31 EST
Who are you criticising here Jurrian? The way I have always calculated it is p = s-u r = p/K So it is unequivocal that a rise in unproductive wages reduces profit and the rate of profit. There is no paradox. Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 3125 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: Sat 12/01/2008 5:16 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [OPE-L] The Moseley paradox and stock/flow definitions The Moseley paradox is not affected at all by whether (C+V) is defined as a product flow or a capital stock, since S is always defined as a flow of income. Quite simply, the more paid "unproductive labour" there is, the more the rate of profit is increased as a result. The Moseley paradox points to a serious problem. If we cannot decide whether to include the wages of "unproductive labour" in de nominator or denominator of the equation for the rate of profit, this has a very large quantitative effect, since, on some orthodox Marxist definitions, unproductive labour comprises up to half, or over half of the paid workforce. We are talking about a gigantic portion of wage income of which Marxists are not clear how they should account for it. Moreover, it can be shown quantitatively that the rate of profit will rise or fall depending exclusively on how the wages of "unproductive labour" are accounted for. There are three main possibilities, either you stick U in the denominator, or in the nominator, or you leave it out. Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST