To be serious, it seems to me that how one measures the degree of "capital intensity" of production (the OCC) depends on one's theory and the purpose of one's research.
For example, I would measure the OCC in a deliberately "incorrect" way. I use K/Y, the ratio of the stock of fixed capital to total output. This would measure who was winning in the race between the tendency for capital intensity (K/L, where L = labor hired) to rise and the tendency for labor productivity (Y/L) to rise. The former tendency (that Marx stressed) is only relevant to determining profit rates when the latter tendency (which is often an effect of the former) is weaker.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-----Original Message-----
From: Forstater, Mathew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:31627] Sweezy's occ
The organic composition of capital (occ) is usually defined as c/v. With this definition, it is easy to show that the value rate of profit, s/(c+v), depends on the rate of surplus value, s/v, and the occ, because s/(c+v) = (s/v)/[(c/v) + 1].
Why does Sweezy define the occ as c/(c+v) in The Theory of Capitalist Development? This then leads him to a more complicated proof to show that s/(c+v) = s' (1 - q), where s' is the rate of surplus value and q is the occ by his definition, = c/(c+v).
Thanks, mat
