[OPE-L:4062] RE: RE: Revaluation

From: P.J.Wells@open.ac.uk
Date: Thu Oct 12 2000 - 11:59:07 EDT

John, re [#4060]

> You then face the problem of how to account for the missing $50. 
	Surely this just --> work-in-progress --> inventory --> money,
according to how far production/realisation has gone?

>  Further,
> you seem to take the position that one type of depreciation transfers
> value to the output and the other type does not.
	You're right to pull me up here -- "stock" always puts me in mind of
circulating constant capital, which is why I mentioned moral depreciation.

	I think of moral depreciation as "unexpected" (and hence
"unplanned-for") change of value, and thus don't think of it as transferring
value, any more than (say) spoilage by flooding does.

	Of course, capitalists can plan for changes in the value of stock --
in the latter case, of course, this is through insurance, but equally in the
case of market-driven changes; for (hackneyed) example, most enterprises
write-down IT equipment faster than other types precisely because they know
its value will decline far more rapidly than it will wear out.

	Is value transferred in these cases? I'd say yes.

>   I think you then face
> the question of why moral depreciation is to be labeled "depreciation" at
> all.
	Arguably it's an unhelpful terminology -- presumably Marx* wanted to
draw a contrast with physical depreciation, but in the light of my comments
above, perhaps he might have done better to concentrate on the un/expected


	*Marx? Did he coin this term, does anyone know?

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