On 1/4/06, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's only a paradox if you believe there needs to be an identity between > two very different concepts of capital, one of which is an accumulation of > surplus value and the other a capitalization of a future income stream. > Rather than an identity, the relationship between the two constitutes an > apologetics, with the accumulation of capital(1) _seeming_ to represent (as > a "factor of production") and thus justify the capitalization(2) of the > future income. -------------------- I don't think there is or needs to be an identity and I don't disagree with what you've written re the recursivity of the npv. What's missing and what I think the quote was getting at was something Michael Perelman brings up now and again; the shortage of technologies, services, techniques/know-how to bring to 'the market'....the commodities we normally associate with everyday product markets in intermediate and consumer goods and novel means to produce them at lower costs. Investment in novelty is hitting a wall for now; the potential returns on biotech and nanotech and all the potential gadgetry to further saturate the homes of workers with some 'disposable' income available to purchase such stuff are still quite a ways off. Twenty years ahead in terms of technologies is more than a lifetime away for the average trader in NY or London who are hooked on liquidity and until recently, easy credit. M-M' without the MP-C of the circuit is a dangerous illusion and at some point the obsession with liquidity and the attendant asset price inflations becomes a manifestation of laziness and pessimism [the obsession with risk management] and, somewhat deeper, a disconnect between the engineers/scientists etc. and the corporate managers/financiers. One need only think about GM's current woes to catch a whiff of the problem. > Power is it's own raison d'etre. Capital says, "I get, therefore I am." > > The Sandwichman --------------------- Yup.
