> >Justin writes in regard to moral depreciation: > >>. I don't see why the LTV has to be true to explain this. I have >>never denied, nor does the the most orthodox bourgeois economist, >>that if you can save labor costs by adopting a new production >>technique, that people who have sunk costs in onld labor intensive >>production techniques are going to have trouble making money. But we >>don't have to talk about value, least of do we have to say that >>value is a quantity measured by SNALT. >> >> > >But you just described the whole loss from moral depreciation in >terms of labor, though not SNALT.
This is short hand. What capitalists pay for in labor costs is (as Marx showed) labor power expended over a period of time. They seek to reduce the amount of time by technological improvement and enhance theactual labor output from the laobor power they purchase by increasing exploitation. I don't think, apart from the use of the word "exploitation," that Friedman or Hayek or Samuelson would raise an eyebrow at this formulation. And why does it concede the LTV to say this? jks _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
