Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 11:25:29 EDT


Sorry I'm going to have to duck out of the detailed discussion needed on
this one. So in (probably unhelpful) 'sound-bite' form the main problem
appears to be that your (5) presupposes capitalist firms, hence
capitalism, survives, hence that profits exist. Hence it appears to
presuppose what the argument 1-5 is intended to explain.


The real problem to my mind is not explaining surplus value
- that drops directly from the matrix formulation of production
  by von Neumann and Leontief.

The real problem is explaining how this comes to have a monetary
representation - where does the money come from.

If we assume a capitalist economy growing at some fraction
of its von Neumann growth rate then the aggregate circuit


implies an exponential growth in m.

However we know that during the 19th century the average growth
of world gold stock was under 1% per year - see the accompanying
table that gives growth of stock in million troy ounces.

This would appear to set a maximum rate of profit of under
1% per annum in the 19th century under the gold standard.

How did the process m-c-m' occur given these constraints.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT