Re: [OPE-L] productive and unproductive labor and forms of surplus value

From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Tue Jan 15 2008 - 04:40:04 EST

Yes Jerry, that seems a problem  but think who pays for it, and how does
it get paid for.
Suppose originally HMG purchases 100 Abombs worth 500Million from
Aldershot. Then the workers are worked harder to produce 10 more

Either Aldershot reduces the price to HMG from 5 million to 4,540,000
per bomb, or it goes on selling them for 5million each and HMG has
to pay an additional 50million. How does that get funded?

( Never having worked at Aldershot or Pantex
I may incidentally be grossly overestimating the cost of bombs,
I found an interesting inverview with Linus Pauling on the web
which suggests that in 1960 the plutonium to make a 20K bomb cost
around $60,000 and that the lithium dueteride to raise it to
a 1meg bomb would cost only another $8,000).

The only way is out of taxes, which assuming that necessary labour
in the rest of the economy is not reduced, must be taxes on profits
( standard classical assumption ), so there is a reduction in the
profit of other capitalists of 50 million to make up for the
gain of 50 million by Aldershot.

>> Has the social quantity of surplus value risen?
> Paul C:
> The quantity of surplus value will rise if there has been an
> increase in the intensity of labor.  How does that figure in
> your analysis?
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST