**From:** Paul Cockshott (*wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK*)

**Date:** Tue Sep 27 2005 - 04:02:44 EDT

**Next message:**michael a. lebowitz: "[OPE-L] Fwd: Please Circulate Widely: Historical Materialism Conference 2005"**Previous message:**Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "[OPE-L] [Jurriaan on] dialectics, value and complexity"**Maybe in reply to:**Ian Wright: "[OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"**Next in thread:**Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"**Reply:**Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Surely for this you need to first express things in material terms. Let us take a 2 industry example with negative net product Assume we have units in tons of material and person years INPUTS OUTPUTS Corn Iron Labour 100 10 20 90 10 10 5 20 ----------------------- 110 20 25 In this case we have a negative net output of corn of -20 and no net output of iron. This would imply that 25 person years were embodied in -20 tons of , so the net new value added per ton of corn must be -1.25 person years per ton so at very least value must be negative Solving the full value equations 90corn == 100corn + 10iron + 20, 20iron == 10corn + 10iron + 5 . iron -> -(3/4), corn -> -(5/4) This implies that with a negative net product in the basic sector values in that sector must be negative. This merely expresses the fact that under these circumstances labour is socially unnecessary, and is indeed deleterious. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Philip Dunn Sent: 22 September 2005 11:04 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: > Hi Phil: > > > In the example I gave no value was destroyed -- aggregate value added > > was positive. > > You're example was a bit vague on details. You previously wrote: > > > Suppose we have an all agricultural economy and there are bad harvests, > > so that the physical net product is all negative. > > The following numerical example is a special case of your example. > > Let's stay at the aggregate level. If I recall correctly, you like > numerical examples. OK ... > > Previously -- in the last harvest before the 'bad harvest' -- the value of > the total product was $150 where C=50, V=50 & S=50. > > Assume that the entire S is then productively consumed. So, 'before the > harvest' the total capital invested equals $150 -- $75 V and $75 C. > > Assume further for now that C consists entirely of constant circulating > capital (but see 'PS' below). > > Now assume -- as a result of bad harvests -- that the value of the total > product now equals $50. In this case, there is a decline in the value > of the total product from $150 to $50. > > Hasn't a value equivalent to $100 been destroyed in this case? > > In solidarity, Jerry > Hi Jerry Comparisons of sums of money paid at different times are only valid if the value of money has not changed. Suppose aggregate labour is 25 hours. Then aggregate value added is 25 hours. Let tha value if money initially be 1. Then C is 75 hours. Let the value of money at the end be v hours/$. The value of revenue, C', is 50v hours. C' - C = 50v - 75 = 25 v=2 hours/$, c' = 100 hours Philip Dunn

**Next message:**michael a. lebowitz: "[OPE-L] Fwd: Please Circulate Widely: Historical Materialism Conference 2005"**Previous message:**Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "[OPE-L] [Jurriaan on] dialectics, value and complexity"**Maybe in reply to:**Ian Wright: "[OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"**Next in thread:**Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"**Reply:**Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT
*