[OPE-L:4091] Revaluation

From: John Ernst (ernst@pipeline.com)
Date: Sun Oct 15 2000 - 10:24:11 EDT

In 4089, Andrew wrote:

"In reply to OPE-L 4088;

Unfortunately, I didn't understand John's answer to his question "Why
would I associate or conflate the transfer of value with depreciation?"

I think it is clear that Marx held that a means of production that
undergoes wear and tear through aging, rather than through use, does not
transfer value to the output."

My comment:  I had thought that our differences on the matter of 
depreciation, if any, would be solely around the concept of moral
depreciation.  Let's be clear on what I had termed, following Marx,
the three ways in which the means of production depreciate:

1.  via use.
2.  via aging.
3.  via the loss in value due to moral depreciation.


Let's forget 3 for a moment.  Andrew, what you now seem to be saying 
is that as, say a machine, is used, value is transferred to the output
produced as that machine is used in the production of that output.  
However, the value lost by the machine due to aging, when it is used 
as well as when it is not used, is not transferred to the output. 

This seems a bit strange to me.  If a factory containing that
machine is closed for a short time, say, for annual maintenance, its
unclear to me what happens to the value the machine loses during that
period of time. Must that loss be deducted from the value transferred 
in that same period of time when the machine is used?     



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