[OPE-L:5184] Re: Re: Re: Re: the transfer and depreciation of the value of means of production

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Fri Mar 16 2001 - 00:33:20 EST

Whoops; missed a couple of Jerry's queries (your posts turn up on my 
machine with small fonts).

The measure of use-value, when use-value is quantitative, is the same as 
the measure of exchange-value or value: units of labour-time, with the 
potential measurement being via a Sraffian reduction to dated labour. Using 
labour-time as a measure of value is quite consistent with arguing that it 
is not the *only* source of value.

The machine would have two measures: the exchange-value, which would be 
equivalent to the exchange-value of the inputs to its production (including 
other machines and labour-power, themselves all reducible to dated labour 
plus a commodity residual); the use-value would be calculable ex-post only, 
as indeed is the value of labour (as opposed to labour-power) itself.

At 04:25 PM 3/16/01 +1100, you wrote:
>Quite willing to at a later date Jerry, but only if you state whether you 
>accept my argument that in Marx's theory of value, use-value can be 
>quantitative. If you don't accept that--on the basis of my previous post 
>(and all previous relevant ones! -:>), then there's no point discussing it 
>further: we'll simply be arguing past each other, with you believing that 
>use-value must be qualitative and hence dismissing my arguments.
>At 10:43 PM 3/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>Re Steve K's [5179]:
>>The discussion with John was informative--in fact, John spotted the 
>>numerical example which I had missed in my first reading of the 
>>Grundrisse. But it failed to satisfy me for the same reason that your 
>>comment fails to satisfy me, in that John would not accept the contention 
>>that use-value could be quantitative.
>>*What is the unit of measurement, then, of use-
>>value? How is its magnitude measured?*
>>Far from being inconsistent with Marx's perspective on the creation of 
>>value, it is integral to it: in the case of inputs to production, 
>>use-value is *quantitative*, not qualitative. This is precisely the 
>>manner in which he derives the result that labor-power is a source of 
>>surplus-value in Capital:
>>*Labor time can be measured -- even though it
>>gets tricky because what is being measured
>>is *socially necessary labor time* rather than
>>just labor time. If use value, you emphasize,
>>is quantitative then h-o-w is it measured?*
>><snip, JL>
>>in general, your statement above is an accurate statement of what Marx 
>>claimed. However, it is *not* true of that one example I gave: there Marx 
>>did quite explicitly--in his use-value/exchange-value language linked to 
>>the issue of the *difference* between value creation and 
>>depreciation--consider that the value transferred to output by a machine 
>>could be greater than the value it contains: "It also has to be 
>>postulated (which was not done above) that the use-value of the machine 
>>significantly greater than its value; i.e. that its devaluation in the 
>>service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on 
>>*Alas, you did not take up my challenge to defend
>>that interpretation by placing it +within the context+
>>of the examples and paragraphs preceeding and
>>following the quote.*
>>In solidarity, Jerry
>Dr. Steve Keen
>Senior Lecturer
>Economics & Finance
>Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
>School of Economics and Finance
>s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
>Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/

Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT