[OPE-L:3045] Re: Re: Re: Defining accumulation

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Mon May 08 2000 - 07:30:01 EDT

[ show plain text ]

At 07:30 05/05/00 -0400, JERRY LEVY wrote:

>Re Paul C's [OPE-L:3013]:
>An issue: you contrast the "flow rate of profit" (s/c+v) with the
>"stock rate of profit" (s/K). You also recognize that c, v, and s
>are all "flow" categories. Yet, in *defining accumulation*, Marx
>uses the "flow" categories of c, v, and s rather than the "stock"
>category of K ("s", it appears, can be both a flow and a stock in
>your interpretation depending on the dimension used).

He used both at various times. In general he does not make
a clear distinction between flows and stocks, this is an artifact
of his use of fixed period analysis where the dictinction between
the two is less clear than it is with a continuous time analysis.

>Thus, are
>suggesting that "accumulation of capital" should be *re-defined*
>in terms of "stock" categories?
>If that were done, when (if ever) would the "flow" categories
>"re-appear" in the accumulation process? If "a flow is just the
>derivative of stock with respect to time", then how would (could?)
>stocks be valued when (if?) they were converted back into flows?

Sorry I dont see where there is a problem here.

Can you explain what you think the difficulty is.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT