From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Sun Jan 13 2008 - 13:52:20 EST
> Paul, > > The Moseley paradox is that if a deduction is an addition, then whereas > paid unproductive labour (U) is claimed to reduce the average rate of > profit (R), by including it in the nominator of the rate of profit > equation (S/C+V) as a component of S, it increases the rate of profit. Yes but the rate of profit is P/K not s/(c+v) > > Thus, the more paid unproductive labour there is, the more the rate of > profit rises, due to its contribution to the increase in the mass of > surplus value, of which it is considered to be a part. The effect is that > unproductive labour is a countervailing tendency to the tendency of the > rate of profit to fall, instead of contributing to that fall. > > This view of the matter results from the assumption that the magnitude of > S must be equal to net output less V. > > If it is argued, as you do, that P = S - U, this entails that total > profits can never equal total surplus values even in principle (since U = > S - P), and indeed that there is a very large empirical diference between > them. Of course, this is obvious to anyone who looks at the statistics. In fact of course I was simplifying, actually P = S - U - Rent And rent can be a significant share of surplus value > > If it is then argued, that R = P/K where K = total capital stock, you > still do not remove the problem, because the question is then whether the > stock of U is part of K in that case, and if it is not, how you account > for this item, either as a component of the value product, or as a > component of real capital expenditure. U is not part of K, but the buildings and equipment used by the private sector unproductive workers is. > > I assume you are answer would be that, since V does not exist, U does not > exist either. But if they do not exist how can we measure the value of > output, gross or net? V is ok as an income flow, but not as capital, likewise with U > > To solve the Moseley paradox, there are several possibilities. > > 1 - we could simply ignore U in calculating R (the favourite Marxist > strategy, i.e. if something contradicts your theory, ignore it or start > talking about something else). > 2 - we could include U in the denominator, rather than the nominator, as a > capital cost; in that case, every increase in U will indeed lower R. This > implies however that U is never part of S and therefore that it cannot be > a deduction from S. > 3 - we could think again about what we are actually trying to measure, and > what means actually exist to measure it, distinguishing different capital > circuits and how they could be accounted for. > > As regards 3), I think Marxists are often floored by their lack of > knowledge about what social accounting concepts logically imply, and the > view of transactions being assumed. They assume those concepts must be > similar to Marx's, such that "value added" is equal to the value product, > and so on. It is reasoning by analogy. > > However a research statistician would immediately point out big > differences between the definition of official Gross Output and Marx's > "Value of Production" and that is just for starters. > > Briefly, the rational meaning of Marx's statement that the wages of > unproductive workers are a "deduction from surplus value" could be > construed in the following ways (among others): > > 1 - The deduction is made only at the level of each individual firm, when > U is deducted from realised S (it is not deducted from its total S > "produced") > 2 - In society as a whole, there are several interlinked capital circuits > occurring simultaneously among business enterprises, at least one of which > refers only to the production of surplus value, while at least one other > refers only to the appropriation of realised surplus value. This view seems about right > 3. The "deduction from surplus value" is only an aggregate outcome (a > result) of the sum total of transactions pertaining to the production and > distribution of new value. > > If you think all of this is just a tongue-in-cheek Byzantine > scholasticism, think again, because it refers back to the central > ambiguity of capital accumulation I mentioned peviously: that it can > involve either a net addition to wealth or a net transfer of wealth, or > both in combination. > > Jurriaan > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST