On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> Jerry asks:
>
> > Why is s/(s+v) better than s/v?
>
> It's a matter of exposition/notation rather than substance, but
> I find it easier to work with a magnitude in the range 0 to 1
> rather than in the range 0 to infinity. s/(s+v) is just a
> proportion -- the fraction of the working day appropriated by
> capital -- while Marx's s/v is a ratio of proportions,
> which seems to me a little awkward to work with.
> This may be off the mark, but I wonder if Marx was influenced
> by 'political' considerations in defining the rate of surplus
> value as he did: for instance, a rate of exploitation of
> 400 percent (s/v) sounds 'worse' than 80 percent (s/(s+v))
> -- though of course these figures carry the same information.
>
> Allin.
>
>
In adition to Cottrell response, is interesting to point out that
s/v is unlimited when v aproaches zero; the limit of s/(s+v) is
one in the same situation.
Saludos
A. Valle Baeza