At 04:22 PM 7/22/2011, you wrote: >On Jul 22, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Gil Skillman wrote: > > > Possibly, but I think we'd have to know more about the example (and about > > how you're defining "speculative" here) to conclude this, and beyond this, > > to conclude that it corresponded to surplus value. Speculative > > gain? Depends on the conditions under which it was bought and sold, > unless > > any capital gain from the sale of an asset, however motivated, constitutes > > speculation. That the original X corresponds to capitalized value of the > > expected future flow of rents makes sense, but that's not enough to > > conclude that DX represents a chunk of surplus value, as Marx defined the > > term. > >Speculative = gain from change in asset prices, not interest or dividend.
By that definition, you're clearly right. I'm probably using an outmoded or arcane notion of the term. >A capitalized stream of bits of surplus value isn't SV, is it? It's a >redistribution from one capitalist to another. Well, that's the issue--how did we know that the stream involved "bits of surplus value", or for that matter, capitalists? What if the land were used solely for non-commercial purposes? Gil >Doug >_______________________________________________ >pen-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
