No necessity to talk about the factory floor. The product of intellectual labour
(i.e., intellectual property) does have value. But it is the intellectual labour
which creates value not the intellectual property. Changes in intellectual property
enforcement change the incentives of the intellectual labourers, and the
intellectual labourer may become more productive. So as in the case of the
waterfall, there is both an increase in output and a redistribution of surplus.
(This result is no different in a neoclassical analysis)
When one talks about value it is instructive to distinguish between what is given
value in a capitalist system, and what has value according to a socialist system of
value. My objection to the argument so far is that no one has made that
distinction. Because the capitalist system values something, it does not
necessarily follow that it is good in some other system of values. The huge
expenditures on advertising may be socially necessary under the current state of
affairs.
It also does not mean that the thing valued is technically necessary.
Whether or not, surplus value is subject to "some kind of conservation law" depends
upon the type of analysis we are doing. In a static economy, it is a requirement of
reproduction, not a law. In a dynamic system it is not necessary, and in fact not
likely unless growth is perfectly balanced, and we have constant returns to scale
in all industries.
The morale: Brad is partially right but for the wrong reason.
Rod
Brad De Long wrote:
> >Brad, I am too dense to know when you are serious. I don't even know who Will
> >Robinson is.
>
> A pop culture reference to "Lost in Space": think of it as the
> modern-day equivalent of a gratuitous: "hic rhodus, hic salta!"
>
> >
> >I assume that you know that most people here know that "average market prices
> >are *not* labor values" and that that fact does not invalidate what most
> >people mean by the LTV.
>
> The argument being made was as follows: "Because changes in the
> regime of intellectual property enforcement do not affect what
> happens on the factory floor, they cannot affect the rate of
> exploitation. Hence changes in IP do not increase surplus value.
> Hence changes in IP *redistribute* profits, but do not change the
> economy-wide profit rate."
>
> If the LTV is true--if surplus-value is a kind of *stuff* that, once
> created, is subject to some kind of conservation law, and bears some
> relationship to profits--then this is a cogent, coherent, and correct
> argument.
>
> But it ain't: changes in IP can and do change the economy-wide profit
> rate (and wage rate as well). My point--that thinking in LTV terms
> gets you so tangled up in knots that you cannot think straight--is
> not a new one...
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
