Well, we've been having the debate whether surplus value spent by the state is wasted, or serves as capital. Paul B has made the argument that state spending can be a public form of constant capital. Jerry has said that because the infrastructure built for the state that will not take the commodity form the surplus value incurred in its construction have been wasted. Is this simply a version of Shane Mage vs.. Shaikh/Tonak? Seemingly like Mage, Paul B has said however that those costs are recovered like building costs in the realization of the commodity output. So state spending need not constitute the destruction or waste of capital. I have noted that much state spending in Japan today however cannot be reasonably taken to contribute to the realization of commodity capital. I don't think Paul B would take Keynes' famous example of treasury bill burying to be a case of a public form of constant capital. And he has argued that whether state spending forms a (public) part of constant capital or the waste or pulverization of surplus value has to be decided on case by case basis. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT