Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:4069] RE: More Depreciation Questions"
Previous message: andrew kliman: "[OPE-L:4067] New Quiz and New New Quiz!"
A reply to John's ope-l 4066.
Because John has accepted in principle my challenge to produce an example, I
am concluding that he does not think a used and a new machine of the same type
are worth the same amount at the same moment. Good. Therefore he does not
think that he has invalidated my proof. Good.
John, I was never assuming cheaper machines; I couldn't give a hoot about why
the machine is no longer used after a certain date. What I am concerned with
is the determination of value, specifically, the determination of value
transfer. Assume whatever you want about why the machine lasts as long as it
does. Assume whatever pattern of technological change. Assume whatever you
want about capitalists' expectations and bookkeeping.
Here is what I require. (a) A one-sector economy; (b) all capitalists within
the sector are identical, having identical technologies, etc.; (c) a constant
monetary expression of value, or measurement in labor-time; (d) a partially
used machine of some type must be worth less than an unused machine of the
same type, and the more the machine is used, the less it will be worth in
relation to an unused machine of the same type; (e) the machine lasts for more
than one period; (f) at the end of the economic life of the machine, it is
worthless; (g) the value transferred plus the value added by living labor
equals the value of the product; and (h) the value transferred in each period
equals the amount of value a machine used during the period loses during the
period.
If we have only one sector, how can there be a better machine? Let it drop
from the sky for all I care. Note that since all firms must be identical,
this takes care of your questions about the better machines. They are never
used as long as the original machines are used. Once the better machines come
in, then the original machines are never used.
Please, please, please forget realism. I have NO interest in any model of
technical change or depreciation or anything. I'm just concerned to see
whether your conceptions are internally consistent, which I doubt. In
particular, I'm concerned to see whether your conception of value transfer is
consistent with the TSS interpretation of value determination. You keep doing
partial (non)equilibrium analysis, in which the firm is an atom that is
affected by but doesn't affect valuation. But I need to see a general
(non)equilibrium analysis, in which the real questions aren't solved in some
unknown way behind the curtain, but clearly, for all to see. I need to see,
above all, value transfer *determining* price (value) as well as being
determined by price (value).
Andrew Kliman