# Re: [OPE-L] cockshott, Fw: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and financial services

From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Mon Oct 10 2005 - 10:40:44 EDT

```Paul
----
>The problem here is that you endow capitalists with the power of
>magic. In period 1 the total output of means of production was 20c
>by the miracle of abstinence they now find themselves in possession
>of a total means of production of 22c to use up in the second period.

Diego
----
There is no magic nor miracles. Perhaps I jumped too quickly to the final
state inmy previous post. Look at the tables A, B and C1:

A)
I        10c + 5v + 5s              =   20
II        9c + 4.5v + 4.5s         =   18
III       1c + 0.5v + 0.5s         =   2
-------------------------------------
Total    20c + 10v + 10s       =   40

B)
I        11c + 5.5v + 5.5s        =   22
II        8c + 4v + 4s               =   16
III       1c + 0.5v + 0.5s         =   2
-------------------------------------
Total    20c + 10v + 10s       =   40

C1)
I        12c + 6v + 6s              =   24
II        7c + 3.5v + 3.5s         =   14
III       3c + 1.5v + 1.5s         =   6
-------------------------------------
Total    22c + 11v + 11s       =   44

In A and B we have all servants at capitalists' houses. But in A, instead of
a consumption of 8(II) plus 2(III) and no investment, they spend 6(II) plus
2(III) plus investment 2 (I). Factories workers have to partially move from
II to I, and therefore production have to change in the same direction to
face the new structure of demand.

In C, all servants (who are a quantity of 1) come to factories of III, but
as accumulation proceeds we have at the same time new changes in labour and
production from II to I. Expenses by capitalists of their new total income
(11) go to 3(II) + 6(III) + 2(I).

So, there is no magic but growth due to investment in factories (1 new
workers coming to factories in III + 2 new means of production used up in
III). Capital variable has grown by 1, Value added by 2, and total value by
4.

You can compare now Tables C1 and C2, where new workers have not gone to III
but to the other departments instead. The situation is the same. This can be
interpreted in this way: using a model with only 2 dep. instead of III, C1
and C2 amounts to the same situation: means of consumption and means of
production are in the same relative proportion.

Therefore, it does not matter if goods of consumption are "contingent" or
"necessary" --remember?--: in both cases labour producing them are
productive of surplus value.

C2)
I        12c + 6v + 6s               =   24
II        9c + 4.5v + 4.5s          =   18
III       1c + 0.5v + 0.5s         =   2
-------------------------------------
Total    22c + 11v + 11s       =   44

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] cockshott, Fw: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and
financial services
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 11 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT