[OPE-L:4061] Revaluation

From: Alejandro Ramos (aramos@btl.net)
Date: Thu Oct 12 2000 - 11:51:34 EDT

John E in #4057:

"I think there is a question of how we look at things here.  For example, 
if a capitalist has $100 worth of stock at beginning of production and
that stock is worth $50 at the end of the period,  has not $50 of stock
been "used up"?

No, this stock has been "revaluated", not "used up". The revaluation
concerns the social productive conditions in which it can be reproduced
now. The "using up" concerns the stock as a use value, the "natural" aspect
of commodity, instead of its aspect as a product of the social human labor.

"Must we look at physical units involved to determine the value "used up:?"

I think so and I think this is Marx's position in a passage like this:

"...it follows that in the labor process the means of production transfer
their value to the product only in so far as they lose their exchange value
*along with their independent use value." I, Penguin, p. 311.

John in #4060, replying Julian:

"You then face the problem of how to account for the missing $50...

Well, I'd say that it's a lost, similar to what happened if half of the
stock had been, let's say, burnt...

"Further, you seem to take the position that one type of depreciation
value to the output and the other type does not.

I think so. The difference is that in one case there is an effective
consumption of the input in order to produce another commodity.

"....I think you then face the question of why moral depreciation is to be
labeled "depreciation" at all."

I'd say that a better name is "lost due to revaluation" (or alternatively,
"gain due to revaluation").

Alejandro R.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST