In reply to Rakesh's comments:
First, I would accept a modifies "largely not broken away." > Michael, i think i disagree with both you and Shortall that Marx had > not broken from what you are calling simple value analysis in vol I. > To me simple value analysis means static, as in simple commodity production. > > A bit confused. What do you mean by simple value analysis? price > assumed to be proportional to value or value assumed to be not > continously changing? > > Do you mean by simple value analysis an assumption of proportionality > or a static assumption? > > > > > > > ##[The] value [of a unit of capital] is no longer determined by > >the necessary > >> labour-time actually objectified in it, but by the labour-time necessary > >> either to reproduce it or the better machine .... When the > >>machinery is first > >> introduced into a particular branch of production, new methods of > >>reproducing > >> it more cheaply follow blow upon blow. [Marx 1977, p. 528] > > Nathan Rosenberg has picked up on these passages in a couple of > important articles in the mid 70s. Rosenberg was a Marxist, who became very conventional. > > > > > > To the extent that Babbage's example was typical, quantitative > >measurement of > >> values would be difficult, if not impossible. Reproduction costs shift in > >> unpredictable patterns. Because we cannot predict what future technologies > >> will be available at any given time in the future, we have no way of knowing > >> in advance how long a particular capital good will be used before it will be > >> replaced. A machine that lasts 20 years would presumably transfer value to > >> the output at a different rate from a machine that would be expected to last > >> only a single year. > > For Rosenberg, there is a change from a period in which new models > are being rapidly introduced and a period in which the model has been > decided upon though due to greater efficiency in its production it > becomes cheaper and cheaper to produce. So with the new machines, > there is a kind of shift from qualitative to quantitative innovation, > the latter allowing for the wide dissemination of the new technology. That sounds reasonable. > > > > > Because we cannot see into the future, we can only > >retrospectively calculate > >> the appropriate amount of value transferred from the constant capital. In > >> other words, some time in the future after the equipment used in the > >> production process had been used up we could calculate the values of goods > >> produced today. We cannot calculate the values of goods produced today, > >> because knowing the appropriate values of the constant capital being > >> transferred today is impossible without advanced knowledge of future > > > reproduction values. > > but with such uncertainty why would there be investment in branches > that are fixed capital intensive, asks Shortall. Keynes and Smith say because of irrationality. Marx speculated that most pioneers never get their money back. Schumpeter says that this problem is why controls on competition are needed. I discussed this in my Natural Instability book. > > > Well, I'll read the rest a bit later. Michael, have you read > Grossman's book on dynamics as well? No. I should. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
