From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 17:23:11 EDT
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 21:51, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > Credit can be interpreted as a stock value, but why are there such things > as "interest flows" and "flows of earnings from overvalued stocks" ? Given > credit, an income flow can be obtained today on the basis of an expectation > of sales in the future. This means that a positive or negative discrepancy > is possible between surplus-value produced and profits realised depending > on what happens in the future, by that fact alone. It's a comforting > thought that there is always a time t for my friend Paul Cockshott, but I > don't think that has much to do with the economic argument in this > particular case. > > This is a rather different point from the one Gerry was making. I agree that intrest payments are flows, but they are surely transfer payments and as such sum to zero across the economy as a whole. In determining the mass of surplus value one should ideally look at what is actually consumed by the working class as opposed to the net value product. It is relatively difficult to do this and most empirical studies, based as they are on post-processing national accounts data rather than on primary sources, are forced to use approximations. But it is not in principle impossible to do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 19 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT