[OPE-L:5440] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Duncan K. Foley (foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 14:10:48 EDT

I think it makes more sense to take surplus value as the fraction of 
the working day, and to separate movements in the rate of turnover 
analytically. Rakesh wants to measure surplus value per turnover of 
capital, which is a coherent idea, but the conventional division is 
probably better to maintain.


>A. the debate on turnover time
>      ==================
>Issue #1:  Regarding the *effect of a change
>   in turnover time* (more specifically a
>   *decrease* in turnover time):
>-- Paul C (5370) suggests that it represents a
>decrease in the organic composition of capital.
>-- Rakesh (5373 and elsewhere) suggests that it
>represents a increase in the rate of surplus value.
>-- I'm not quite sure what Michael P's and
>Charlie's position on this issue is, although
>Charlie (like Paul C) disagrees with Rakesh
>about the above.
>Did I get the above right?  How do others on
>the list weigh in on this question?
>Issue #2: *is variable capital only a flow or  is
>   there a stock and flow of variable capital?*
>-- Charles [5376] refers to the stock of
>variable capital and argues [5380] that in the
>formula for the rate of profit, both C and V
>are stocks.
>-- Paul C argues (5382) that variable capital
>"should always be seen as a flow measure"
>What is the take of others on this list about this
Duncan K. Foley
Leo Model Professor
Department of Economics
Graduate Faculty
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
messages: (212)-229-5717
fax: (212)-229-5724
e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
alternate: dkf@ultinet.net
webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT