RE: [OPE] Understanding Value and Use-Value

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 12:58 +0100, GERALD LEVY wrote:

>
>
> I already answered that: c + v + s equaling -0- is, in this
> case, illusory.
>
>
> One can not simply take an aggregate equality and then apply that
> equality to all branches of production (part of the 'micro' level),
> periods of time, and regions. This may be the most commonplace
> logical error committed by Marxists: the fallacy of division.
>
>
I don't follow. What aggregate equality? I never mentioned things in
aggregate.

c + v + s is the value of March's production. Since there was no
production in March because of the strike, it is zero. v + s is zero for
the same reason. c is zero because there can be no value transfer to
non-existent produced commodities. All perfectly consistent.

> > Nothing is produced in March. Any sales receipts in March or later do
> > not relate to March production. They could relate to February.
> > The firm may have fixed outgoings but that is not the same as fixed
> > expenses.
>
>
> Whether you call them 'outgoings' or 'expenses' they include monies
> required on an ongoing basis for the maintenance of the site of
> production. For example, if a factory isn't heated, part of the
> value and use-value of the rest of the means of production may be
> prematurely lost and thereby require additional monies to fix.
>

I have explained the difference between expenditure and expenses. It is
rather important in accounting. You cannot just wave it away.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Apr 29 15:46:16 2009