I think of the valuation of stocks of existing assets as _claims_ to the
flow of value created by living labor. The revaluation of these stocks does
not create value in and of itself, since no labor is expended in
revaluation. An analogy is the valuation of land: no labor is expended on
unimproved land, but it may command a rent (a portion of the surplus value)
and the rent may be capitalized into a land price. The land price (and
therefore claim to the flow of value) will change with the interest rate,
but there isn't any labor expended or value created in this process.
Cheers,
Duncan
>Re Duncan''s PIAF:
>
>> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:06:38 -0500
>> From: "Duncan K. Foley" <dkf2@columbia.edu>
>> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Re: Historical Costs
>
>
>Continuing his discussion with John, Duncan writes (snip):
>
>> Surely the individual capitalists wealth is affected in exactly the
>> same way by a falling rate of profit in production proper and by
>> the ongoing devaluation of stocks because of generally falling
>> prices. But it seems to me that there is a great advantage in
>> separating these two aspects of the situation analytically: one
>> basically has to do with the exploitation of labor, and the other
>> with the revaluation of existing assets.
>
>It is not clear to me if Duncan is suggesting here *two* different
>sources of profit, "production proper" and "revaluation of existing
>assets". The term "production proper" may suggest that the
>"revaluation of existing assets" arises from *circulation*.
>
>In any case, I think that, in Marx''s theory, a "revaluation of
>existing assets" implies a *re-distribution* in circulation of labor-
>value (under its monetary form) objectified in production,
>specifically, in other branches.
>
>Maybe Duncan could expand a bit his analitical distinction.
>
>Alejandro Ramos
Duncan K. Foley
Department of Economics
Barnard College
New York, NY 10027
(212)-854-3790
fax: (212)-854-8947
e-mail: dkf2@columbia.edu