Alan wrote:
>Thus when Gil writes
>
>"For example, if the rate of profit is below the "steady state" level
> Marx speaks of in section 1 of Ch. 25, the rate of profit will rise
> in an accumulating economy as long as the rate of capital
> accumulation is below the (exogenously given) rate of labor force
> growth, net of the rate of capital depreciation. Nothing absurd about
> that. Indeed, if the temporal approach doesn't deliver the same
> result under such conditions, I'd say it's a defect rather than a
> virtue of that approach. Conversely, if the rate of profit is above
> this "steady state" level, the rate of profit will fall."
>
>he takes it for granted (or cites as an unquestionable result) that
>capital depreciation is large enough to offset the very large sums of
>gross investment with which the capitalists augment their stock each
>year.
>
I dont see that Gil is making this assumption. One can hypothesise a
situation, say in the early stages of industrialisation of a country
where the working population is growing at a rapid exponential rate,
and depreciation very low - the capital stock being small,
where accumulation does not keep up with the growth of the workforce.
Under these circumstances the organic composition would fall, despite
net capital accumulation.