That's helpful.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Max Sawicky wrote: > > Thanks, Jim. Responses . . . > > You're welcome! > > > Monopoly does more than redistribute value. It reduces it in the short > run > > (restricting output) as well. And the existence of monopoly rents is > crucial > > in a number of other ways -- the ability to buy off workers, the > increased > > capacity to invest, inflation of the incomes of "the 1%." > > I don't think Marx would reject these points out of hand (though some > Marxists may). It's just not what CAPITAL volume I is about. It would > instead show up in volume III (or in the unwritten book on Wage > Labor). > > > Regarding the measurement of 'c' (the depreciation component), there is > the > > Cambridge critique. I don't blame Marx for not anticipating it, but it > > remains a basic conceptual flaw in the schema. > > The Cambridge critique is about adding up individual types of means of > production: you can't find a single quantitative element inherent to > all capital goods ("leets," in Robinson's language) that allows you to > add up all the units. As I said in a different pen-l thread (which I > guess I should return to), we can't add up use-values. Instead, all we > can do is add up financial flows, i.e., the amount of money spent on > those use-values (or, using shadow prices, the amount of money those > use-values are worth on the market) or market values (for stock > magnitudes). In volume I of CAPITAL, that flow of money is (and that > stock would be) measured in "labor units." > > The key result of the Cambridge critique is that (even when corrected > for the effects of inflation) the volume of financial flow > (depreciation, raw material costs) or the value of the stock of fixed > means of production are mathematically dependent on the rate of return > on capital. This means that we can't derive the rate of return from > the stock of capital (and an imaginary aggregate production function) > without engaging in circular reasoning. The NCs want to go from the > real stock of K to the marginal physical product of K to the rate of > return on capital (the reward for owning K). The Cantabrigians say: > that exercise suffers from the fallacy of composition! It's akin to > the rejection of representative agent models using general equilibrium > theory (see Alan Kirman's article in the 1992 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC > PERSPECTIVES). > > In volume I of CAPITAL, Marx basically sticks to an accounting > interpretation (assuming value = price). Constant capital (C) is > measured as a financial flow, as are variable capital (V) and > surplus-value (S). The rate of profit is then simply a ratio of C to V > + S. As such, the Cambridge critique is irrelevant. > > Actually, the rate of profit doesn't show up in volume I except quite > briefly. Marx's emphasis is instead on class relations, as represented > by the rate of surplus-value (S/V). (All else constant, of course, if > S/V rises, so does the rate of profit.) It's only in volume III that > the rate of profit plays a significant role, among other things > because it plays a role in intraclass competition among capitalists > (which Marx starts seriously analyzing only at that point). (The rate > of profit shouldn't really be S/(C+V), of course, but the ratio of S > to fixed capital, K, but that point is not important here.) > > > In Heinrich, fictitious capital is the entire credit system. I always > > thought it was the component of paper assets not backed up by real > > productive capital. > > that's pretty much what I said. > > > On Marx's focus on the non-financial economy, my understanding is that > these > > imbalances are expressed in the credit system. So we're back to financial > > fragility. > > I was trying to say that there are two types of financial fragility. > The one you refer to here is due to the imbalances of the > non-financial sectors (their fragility). But there's also fragility > arising from the financial sector itself. > > > Clearly some workers score some surplus value, but what is there in the > > basic, abstract theory that implies persistent 's', over and above normal > > returns to capital? My answer would be power. Capital arrogates 's' to > > itself because it has the state and the guns. But I don't see that in > > Heinrich/Marx until you get beyond the basic value theory. > > In volume I of CAPITAL, after chapter 5 Marx presents a basic abstract > theory that implies a persistent positive S for capitalist society as > a whole. But that S _coincides with_ the normal returns to capital, > i.e., incomes earned simply because one owns K. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > 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
