Re: [OPE] Reply to critics

> Gerry I think that if you look at Marxs repproduction schemes you will
> see that the particular mobility of money capital that you suggest really
> is impossible. There is just no way that the profits arising in department III
> can be converted into capital.
 
 
 
Hi Paul C:
 
well, as you know, there was no Dept. III in Marx's reproduction schemes.
 
The point I was making has nothing to do with the abstinence theory of
profit. Rather, it is simply to suggest what I think should be an
uncontroversial point: i.e. that surplus value and profits generated in one
branch of production can be invested in any branch of production. This
assumption was made in the transformation of value into prices of production
(and is necessary for the creation of a general rate of profit). It is
true that all _capital_ is not mobile: that is an issue of importance for the
release and tying-up of capital and constant fixed capital, but before
surplus value can be converted into C + V it must pass through a stage when
it is money capital and as money capital it can be invested wherever
capitalists anticipate the highest rate of return on investment.
 
You are thinking of the surplus product as being Gucci bags, etc. but the
Gucci bags must be sold and when they are Gucci can re-invest the money
in Gucci or anywhere else. If you always keep in mind the link between value
and money then this becomes clear.
 
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Oct 18 08:49:53 2010