# [OPE-L:2911] Re: Value of labour power and real wage

Patrick Maso (Patrick.L.Mason.20@nd.edu)
Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:19:53 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

Paul Z:

Specifically, I should not have stated that the maximal profit rate occurs
when s/v = 0, but when v = 0, i.e., workers work for free. Sorry about the typo.
Aside from this bad editing, I think the rest of my post holds.

peace, patrick l mason

At 08:36 AM 8/28/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Patrick Mason wrote:
>
>> In response to Duncan's post, Paul Z. writes:
>> > ...
>> >I always find it useful to write the rate of profit r from s/(c+v) to
>> >s/v divided by c/v+1 and rewriting the divisor to
>> >
>> > c v + s c
>> >------- ------- + 1 = ----- [1 + s/v] + 1
>> > v + s v v + s
>> >
>> >
>> >Thus, with s/v fixed, the movement in the rate of profit depends upon
>> >movements in c/(v+s), the technical value composition of capital, the
>> >ratio of labor time in fixed capital to the living labor time working with
>> >it (rising implying falling r).
>>
>> The necessity for holding s/v fixed confuses me. Consider the standard
>> formulation for the average rate of profit:
>>
>> r = s/(c + v).
>>
>> Even we assume a maximal rate of exploitation, i.e., s/v = 0, it is still
>> the case that "the movement in the rate of profit depends upon movements in
>> c/(v+s), the technical value composition of capital, the
>> ratio of labor time in fixed capital to the living labor time working with
>> it (rising implying falling r)." Under maximal exploitation, we would have:
>>
>> r (max) = l/c.
>>
>> Clearly, as the technical composition of capital increases the maximal rate
>> of profit will fall. Since this is in fact the maximum potential rate of
>> profit the argument is independent of any assumption regarding the rate of
>> exploitation.
>
>Pat, I don't understand you. Clearly under maximal r, s/v is not 0 but
>rather infinity as v goes to 0 (using your conception).
>
>Paul Z.
>
>