From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2007 - 10:23:39 EDT
Paul,
I'm not sure I understand you. I will say that, unlike Marx, I would take
the proportion of surplus value consumed, or alternatively accumulated, to
be independent of which department the capitalist is in. I think that cuts
down somewhat the complexity you mention, while being consistent with the
concept that capitalists don't give a shit what shit they are obtaining
their surplus value from.
Also, unlike Marx, I would allow the rate of surplus value to be distinct
from unity, and consider the implications of its changing, particularly
increasing.
In any case, I'm not trying to do everything, but make a step to include
fixed capital in the role of accumulation. It still puzzles me what Marx's
schemes have not been critiqued in this regard (or at least as I have seen)
-- I don't mean just a critique, but a critique used to build the model
anew.
Thanks and I'd welcome anything further, Paul
--On Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:45 PM +0100 Paul Cockshott
<wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:
> Gerrys point in his last message is relevant - are you aiming for realism
> in uncovering laws of motion, or extension of a historical text.
>
> If you want realism you have to go either for an actor based model with
> discrete time steps, or a continuous time model with differential
> equations. But in either case you have to model actual transactions or
> transaction rates and you have to derive the formation of a uniform rate
> of profit as the outcome of the adjustment procedures and transactions
> engaged in by the agents in your model. In your case since it is two
> dept, you can probably cut down the number of agents to 4
>
> 1. The industrial capital in sector 1
> 2. The industrial capital in sector 2
> 3. The working class as a whole
> 4. The the rentier class or capitalists in the role as consumers.
>
> Each of these agents will require equations to specify their rates of
> expenditure on outputs of each industry. Agents 1 and 2 will also require
> equations to specify their rates of employment of labour power.
> Agent 3 will have to have equations specifying the labour actually
> delivered in return for wages.
>
> Paul Cockshott
>
> www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L on behalf of Paul Zarembka
> Sent: Sat 9/8/2007 1:41 AM
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods
>
> Regarding turnover, I'm working on a two-department model with the annual
> flow of circulating constant capital costs an unchanging fraction f of
> fixed capital and turnover of circulating constant capital costs at n
> times annually for both departments. I'm trying to incorporate fixed
> capital into Marx's reproduction schemes (remember my raising that issue a
> month or so ago?). Depreciation will be included but I haven't gotten to
> exactly how.
>
> Any comments or suggestions? I want enough realism to be interesting but
> not so much as to be greatly complicated. Paul Z.
>
> *************************************************************************
> (Vol.23) The HIDDEN HISTORY of 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
> (Vol.24) TRANSITIONS in LATIN AMERICA and in POLAND and SYRIA
> Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier hardback
> ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
>
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka,ed, Elsevier hardback
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT