Re: [OPE] Just published: THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION O F CRISIS (RPE, Vol. 26)

From: Paul <clyder@gn.apc.org>
Date: Fri Dec 03 2010 - 10:26:15 EST

There need not be 5% less machines. If the productivity of labour is rising
at 5% a year, the existing machines will be getting cheaper, thus 5billion
will buy more machinery this year than it did 20 years ago when the worn out
machines were bought. If we take the entirely made up figures I gave, a 5% a
year fall in the value of machines produces the following result over a 20
year depreciation period.

depreciation expenditure

price per machine

Number machines

net present value of old machine

5000000000

10000

500000

9500

0

9500

0

8550

0

9025

0

7671

0

8574

0

6859

0

8145

0

6109

0

7738

0

5416

0

7351

0

4778

0

6983

0

4190

0

6634

0

3649

0

6302

0

3151

0

5987

0

2694

0

5688

0

2275

0

5404

0

1891

0

5133

0

1540

0

4877

0

1219

0

4633

0

927

0

4401

0

660

0

4181

0

418

0

3972

0

199

5000000000

3774

1325017

0

 

Suppose all figures are given in working days of labour value, and assume
that an average industrial machine embodied 10000 working days at the start
of the 20 year period. A depreciation expenditure of 5 billion working days
will at the start buy 500,000 machines. A 5% annual increase in labour
productivity means that 20 years later 5billion working days will purchase
132,000 machines.

What we are saying here is not totally novel. Dumeniel and Levy attributed
part of the profit recovery

In the US during the 80s and 90s to moral depreciation of the existing
capital stock arising from the microprocessor revolution which meant that
much less capital had to be tied up in computing machinery to achieve the
same productive effect.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu]
On Behalf Of Paul Zarembka
Sent: 03 December 2010 14:34
To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu
Subject: Re: [OPE] Just published: THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION O
F CRISIS (RPE, Vol. 26)

 

If there are 5% less machines, what are those workers who were working

with those machines doing? If they are producing value and surplus

value without the need of means of production, well, we are back to my

point.

 

Paul Z.

 

=====

(V23) HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2nd ed. softcover

(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES

(V26) THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS

====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK

====> P.Zarembka, ed., www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230

.

 

 

On 12/3/2010 3:27 AM, Dave Zachariah wrote:

>> To me, physical depreciation

>> > means something like 5% of the machines need to be replaced annually,

>> > otherwise, production falls by 5%. Moral depreciation is harder to

>> > grasp; I only feel that it cannot be a magic wand, permitting capital

>> > stock to decline from $100 billion, to 90, to 50 (in real terms, of

>> > course) without effect on $10 billion profits.

>>

> Note that we are computing the profits net of depreciation. But at this

> level of abstraction the labour theory of value would predict the mass

> of profits to stay at $10 billion, since the amount of labour is constant.

>

_______________________________________________

ope mailing list

ope@lists.csuchico.edu

https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Dec 3 10:28:20 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST