Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 13:32:16 EDT


I'm trying one step at a time; or actually more like two steps.  If I can
get this model to be reasonable maybe I'd be ready for incorporating
technological changes.  Previously these models don't deal with fixed
capital and that's what I'm trying to include first.

I'm thinking that it is not unreasonable that the level of circulating
constant capital is a fixed ratio of fixed capital, since the fixed
capital is designed with requirements for circulating constant capital
inputs, like raw materials.

I'm inclined to treat depreciation as within circulating constant capital,
but the alternative would seem to be as a fraction of fixed capital.

I'm pulling in empirical work by Moseley, Shaikh and Tonak, and Wolff
for the U.S., as well as Webber and Rigby for Canada, as empirical
backgrounds.  For example, from these works I conclude that the
materialized composition of constant is rather constant at 2.  Recall that
that is C/(v+s), not C/v.  The later may increase when the former does

Any recommendations are most welcome from anyone.

Paul Z.

(Vol.23) The HIDDEN HISTORY of 9-11-2001   "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
          Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier hardback

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:

>> Regarding turnover, I'm working on a two-department model with the annual
>> flow of circulating constant capital costs an unchanging fraction f of
>> fixed capital and turnover of circulating constant capital costs at n
>> times annually for both departments.  I'm trying to incorporate fixed
>> capital into Marx's reproduction schemes (remember my raising that
>> issue : a month or so ago?).  Depreciation will be included but I
>> haven't gotten to exactly how.
> Hi Paul Z:
> Very interesting.
> So the purpose of the model is to include fixed capital (i.e.
> differentiate the total constant capital into constant fixed and constant
> circulating capitals) in the reproduction schemes [in order, presumably,
> to make the schemes more realistic?]?
> What is your thinking behind the assumption that the flow of Cc is an
> unchanging fraction of the cost of Cf?  What happens to the flow of Cc
> when there are technological advances in the elements of Cf? (For
> instance, assume there has been a devaluation of the elements of Cf.
> Wouldn't your assumption then require that the Cc would be devalued as a
> consequence of the devaluation of Cf?)
>> Any comments or suggestions? I want enough realism to be interesting but
>> not so much as to be greatly complicated.
> I understand, but if you are going to model Cf don't you want to model
> situations where there are technological changes in means of production?
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT