Fred [3191]F
>But I continue to insist that these results will be of little use in
>understanding contemporary capitalism, which is characterized by a declining
>value of money. This is not a case where dropping an initial assumption
>will slightly modify the conclusions. Instead, this is a case where the
>conclusions are changed into their opposite. If one assumes historical
>costs and a declining value of money, then the rate of profit in general
>rises, not falls. There will be no "breakdown" such as John describes in
>the case of a constant value of money. We don't have to wait and see what
>the effects of changing the assumption will be; we already know what the
>effects will be.
I generally see the importance of understanding contemporary capitalism
as a stage (or stages). At the same time, adopting TSS or other interpretations
is still important question in the basic theory where we examine what is essence of
economy where capitalist mode of production dominates. It seems to me
that TSS conclusion does not change essentially if you assume decline of
value of money. The rate of profit in value term should fall at the same rate
under any rate of change of value of money according to TSS, I think.
I thought this is the reason why John assumes constant value of money.
Am I wrong, John?
The phenomenon of rising profit rate (in currency) under declining value of money
should be addressed in another stage of analysis = the stage theory.
"Current cost" rate of profit may well explain the motivation of capitalist
behaviour of investment in means of production so that crisis theory
may regard its effect. At the same time, How surplus value is distributed under
such condition is still an important question.
in solidarity,
Iwao