[ show plain text ]
Paul C makes a fair point - it wasn't a very good example.
Try this instead -- take a cotton-spinning enterprise which has
(a) spare capacity
(b) at the end of a day's work
(i) enough cotton inventory to sustain tomorrow's production at the present
(ii) yarn which is sold realising surplus value of £100
(c) plans to increase output the day after tomorrow.
The planned output increase will require an increase in capital advanced of
Rather than buy the extra inventory required now, the managers put the £100
in the bank for a day.
What's the status of the £100 while it's in the bank?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: clyder [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:28 PM
> To: ope-l
> Subject: [OPE-L:2996] Re: RE: Re: Defining accumulation
> > I *mostly* agree with Paul C's comments in #2990.
> > But I'd emphasise that what's important, in the context which my
> > message was responding to, is his point that the stock of capital is
> > "embodied in material objects" -- clearly something that's embodied in
> > something else is in some way different from that something, and
> > the two will lead to problems.
> > >From the way that I've selected Paul's word for quotation, it will be
> > apparent that what I'm doubtful about is the "necessity" of capital
> > embodied in material objects -- suppose I sell 100 shares in Microsoft,
> > two days while the price falls, then buy 100 Microsoft shares and invest
> > difference in Amaxon.com: what's my capital embodied in during the
> This is a very important point.
> In my opinion there is no capital involved in any of these transactions.
> that is
> happening is that titles to property are changing hands at speculative
> Capital is no more involved in these transactions than it would be if you
> in old postage stamps.
> You are confusing your personal wealth with capital which is a rentier
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT