If there are 5% less machines, what are those workers who were working
with those machines doing? If they are producing value and surplus
value without the need of means of production, well, we are back to my
point.
Paul Z.
=====
(V23) HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2nd ed. softcover
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
(V26) THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS
====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====> P.Zarembka, ed., www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230
.
On 12/3/2010 3:27 AM, Dave Zachariah wrote:
>> To me, physical depreciation
>> > means something like 5% of the machines need to be replaced annually,
>> > otherwise, production falls by 5%. Moral depreciation is harder to
>> > grasp; I only feel that it cannot be a magic wand, permitting capital
>> > stock to decline from $100 billion, to 90, to 50 (in real terms, of
>> > course) without effect on $10 billion profits.
>>
> Note that we are computing the profits net of depreciation. But at this
> level of abstraction the labour theory of value would predict the mass
> of profits to stay at $10 billion, since the amount of labour is constant.
>
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Dec 3 10:49:00 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST