Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms

But my point is that evaluating managerial inputs in person hours is not a good answer because you are not measuring the falling in managerial quality as a larger degree of centralisation goes by.   Likewise, as far as managerial inputs are produced inside the enterprises rather than externalising the production of every input, evaluation in money doesn’t seem the answer either. Hiring managers in a job market is not necessarily the same as buying managerial inputs.   The reaction of actual capitalist enterprises is trying to stop nearby the point of constant returns opening new factories/enterprises when it is possible, whichever the way of measuring managerial inputs is.  A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Para: Alejandro Agafonow <alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es>; Outline on Politic al Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: sáb,5 junio, 2010 16:01 Asunto: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms It obviously makes a big difference whether you evaluate managerial input in person hours or in money, given the rapid growth of managers pay. I can quite believe that in money terms there may be decreasing returns to management --- original message --- From: "Alejandro Agafonow" <alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es> Subject: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms Date: 5th June 2010 Time: 10:44:37 am Paul, I’m afraid that productivity, i.e., output in terms of goods per unit of labour, can not be arithmetically treated to determine if under conditions of productivity growing faster than logarithmically it would outmount decreasing returns to management.   To be arithmetically treatable, we would have to reduce managerial inputs and goods or services per unit of labour, to a common unit of account. Then, we would be able to compare them in order to determine if under conditions of productivity growing faster than logarithmically, it would outmount decreasing returns to management indeed.   The crucial point is whether we can find a unit of account for managerial inputs able to measure them according to the quality of their contribution to production? We can imagine a situation where though facing conditions of productivity growing faster than logarithmically, managerial inputs are reducing their effectiveness in running production and distorting the whole system.   A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: lun,5 abril, 2010 21:36 Asunto: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms Ok but are the costs of management polynomial, logarithmic or log linear in scale of production. First approximation indicates managment to be log linear in number of people employed, but if productivity of labour rises faster than logarithmically with number employed ( not a steep demand ) then there would be no decreasing returns in your sense to managerial inputs. ________________________________________ From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Alejandro Agafonow [alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:25 PM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms Do you mean Paul backed by empirical research? The phenomenon of diminishing returns to scale in production is backed by empirical research, though diminishing returns to management may have motivated less empirical inquiry. However, to think the world as one where there are only constant or even increasing returns to scale and management is like thinking in a world without friction. A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: lun,29 marzo, 2010 20:52 Asunto: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms how much of this is theory and how much is backed by quantitative research ________________________________________ From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu<mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu> [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu<mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu>] On Behalf Of Alejandro Agafonow [alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es<mailto:alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es>] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:07 PM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms Diminishing returns to management are yield rates that after a certain point fail to increase proportionately and start to decrease to additional outlays of management. Should certain degree of centralization reached this bureaucratic inefficiencies start to increase disproportionately. A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Gerald Levy <jerry_levy@verizon.net<mailto:jerry_levy@verizon.net>> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu<mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu>> Enviado: jue,18 marzo, 2010 15:09 Asunto: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms > So, what does make conflicting interests in capitalist economies more > powerful than conflicting interests in socialist > economies that prevent the former to go further in a centrally capitalist > economy? Hi Alejandro: The profit system. Also, while there can be conflicting interests in a socialist system, there can and should be a certain level of coordination among different producers. For instance, consider how the diffusion of new technologies is often retarded by the system of proprietary rights, such as the patent system, under capitalism. This incredible inefficiency would (or, at least, should) be overcome in a socialist system where producers would share knowledge about technologies. In any event, there wouldn't be the same people vs. profit equation in which the requirements of the latter trump the former under socialism. > Nothing in my criterion. Therefore the issue of diminishing returns to > management. What do you mean by diminishing returns "to management"?  There can be - and are - bureaucratic inefficiencies wherever there are bureaucracies. A capitalist corporation is an inherently bureaucratic and hierarchical organization and there are many inefficiencies that arise from this. In  solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu<mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu><mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu<mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu<mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope ________________________________ The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Jun 5 12:56:18 2010