Since this topic has come up again, it might be worthwhile taking a step
backwards to consider the importance of the subject at hand:
"To the same extent as the value and durability of the fixed
capital applied develops with the development of the capitalist
mode of production, so also does the life of industry and
industrial capital in each particular investment develop,
extending to several years, say an average of ten years. If the
development of fixed capital extends this life, on the one
hand, it is cut short on the other by the constant
revolutionizing of the means of production, which also increases
steadily with the development of the capitalist mode of
production. This also leads to changes in the means of
production; they constantly have to be replaced, BECAUSE OF
THEIR MORAL DEPRECIATION, long before they are physically
exhausted. We can ASSUME (?, JL) that, for the most important
branches of large-scale industry, this life cycle is NOW on
average a ten-year one. The precise figure is not important
here. THE RESULT IS THAT THE CYCLE OF RELATED TURNOVERS,
EXTENDING OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, WITHIN WHICH THE CAPITAL IS
CONFINED BY ITS FIXED COMPONENT, IS *ONE OF THE MATERIAL
FOUNDATIONS OF THE PERIODIC CYCLE* IN WHICH BUSINESS PASSES
THROUGH SUCCESSIVE PERIODS OF STAGNATION, MODERATE ACTIVITY,
OVER-EXCITEMENT and CRISES. The periods for which capital is
invested certainly differ greatly, and do not coincide in time.
But a crisis is always the starting-point of a large volume of
new investment. It is also, therefore, if we consider the
society as a whole, more or less a new material basis for the
next turnover cycle." (Volume 2, Penguin ed., p. 264, emphasis
added).
It would seem, therefore, that the whole subject of moral depreciation and
the turnover time of constant fixed capital was viewed by Marx as *"one
of"* the foundations of the trade cycle and one of the explanations of the
periodicity of the cycle.
I think we would all have to agree that the subject of the trade cycle is
pretty damn important.
Some additional comments and questions:
=======================================
(1) As Marx says, he assumes that the cycle "is now on average a ten-year
one." Is it still safe to assume NOW the 10-year character "on average" of
the cycle?
(2) If this is one of the material foundations for the trade cycle, what
are the others?
(3) How -- or do -- "long waves" fit into this picture? I.e. what is the
relation between the trade cycle and long waves? (that's a topic we
haven't discussed yet).
(4) Where is this subject of the causes of the periodicity of the trade
cycle and its relation to the turnover of constant fixed capital and moral
depreciation further developed in _Capital_? "Moral depreciation" is, of
course. brought up in V3 in Section 2 of Ch. 6 (see p. 209, Penguin
edition) re the "revaluation and devaluation of capital: release and
tying-up of capital." But, note that: a) Marx states explicitly in the
beginning of Section 2 that (one of my favorite quotes) "the phenomena
under investigation in this chapter assume for their full development the
credit system and competition on the world market. These concrete forms of
capitalist production, however, can be comprehensively depicted only after
the general nature of capital is understood; it is therefore outside of
the scope of this work to present them -- they belong to a possible
continuation." (Ibid, p. 205); and b) where is the question of the
relation of the turnover of constant fixed capital and moral depreciation
related to periodic crises ideveloped n V3? This would seem to be a rather
large "gap" in the presentation.
BTW, I have now morally depreciated by another year as of today (having
turned 43). I began this project when I was 41. I'd like to see us get to
more of the "extending Marx" topics before my next birthday.
In Solidarity, Jerry