Jerry:
>If one continues to maintain the proposition that unproductive workers
>are paid out of surplus-value, then the continued existence of
>unproductive labour (even at a reduced rate) would require that s > 0.
>
Not if you take depreciation into account. If profits were sufficiently
negative they could exceed the wages of unproductive labour.
>Don't your figures deal with what you call the "apparent rate of surplus
>value"?
No. The ones I gave for 1976 were pukka ones with all the proper
adjustements.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html