[OPE-L:2114] Re: Kliman-McGlone interpretation of the transformation problem

akliman@acl.nyit.edu (akliman@acl.nyit.edu)
Wed, 8 May 1996 17:34:49 -0700

[ show plain text ]

In response to Paul C's ope-l 2099:

I don't understand what your point is about stock appreciation.

Alan's point in ope-l 2087 had nothing to do *fundamentally* with bank
loans as a source of capital. As I understood him, he brought in the
banker simply to *show* the objectivity of the rate of return on
investment; inputs can't be revalued retroactively. The point is the
same w/out banks: if I bought a computer for $5000 six years ago, and
got profit of $1000 each year by employing it, my rate of return
on investment (ignoring some complications) was 20%. If it could
be replaced for $1000 in the sixth year, that wouldn't raise my rate of
return that year to 100%.

Nor do changes in the monetary expression of value have anything to do
with this, fundamentally. In place of $5000, write 100 hours of absract
homogeneous social labor; etc. The point remains valid.

Of course, bank lending and changes in the MEV do complicate matters.

Andrew Kliman