RE: [OPE] Understanding Value and Use-Value

> I take an different view. To account for moral depreciation all that is
> needed is to depreciate long lasting elements of constant capital in
> proportion to revenue (in value terms, of course).
> Suppose an asset is anticipated to last 5 years and revenue is expected
> to be flat. This would lead the accountants to depreciate it at 20% per
> year. If due to unanticipated technological change, the firm decides to
> scrap the asset after 4 years, given flat revenue for those 4 years, the
> depreciation should be 25% per year. The accountants should make prior
> year adjustments.
 
 
 
Hi Phil:
 
 
Moral depreciation isn't simply an accounting question. The possibility
of a premature and unanticipated loss in use-value, value, and exchange-value
are all inherent in the character of the commodity-form. The most
accountants can do is make suppositions - as you do above. These suppositions,
usually based on recent trends, are - when all is said and done - merely
guesstimates.

> Use-value has nothing to do with it.

 
Nothing to do with it ??? Why do you think capitalists buy means of
production to begin with? They buy these because of their *use-value*
in the production process: namely, the _possibility_ of transferring
value to the commodity product. Similarly, they purchase the commodity
labor-power because of the *use-value* of wage labor: it's potential
to create commodities and value. Why do you think they then purchase
new, more technologically-advanced means of production to replace
the morally depreciated means of production? Yes, because of its
use-value. This topic can not be understood without reference to
use-value and understanding the conceptual links in the commodity-form
between use-value, value, and the value-form.
 
In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sun Apr 26 11:13:07 2009