Paul A writes:
>Jim: I would love to know what you think of Shaikh and Tonak's book. I plan on absorbing more of it (it can be slow going for the mathematicly impaired) but seems to be extremely relevant to your interests. It is a good example of both the empirical side AND shows how issues such as productive/unproductive shed light on the laws of motion.<
I am impressed by the book's hard work and sophisticated empirical techniques. However, I disagree with the idea that the wages of unproductive labor should be included as a positive number in the numerator of the rate of profit formula. The profit rate is supposed to be connected with capitalist accumulation, whereas unproductive labor represents an overhead cost.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul_A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:31709] Sweezy's occ\Shaikh
Jim Devine writes:
Shane, you've opened up a can of worms much larger than I can stomach at this point. Instead of trying to do so, I'll simply agree to disagree:
1) I find that Marx's theory of unproductive vs. productive labor to be superior to other versions of that theory (e.g., those of Smith or the neoclassicals). However, it's not very useful, as far as I can tell, for understanding the laws of motion of capital. It's the rate of profit that is calculated treating unproductive labor-power costs as _costs_ (as capitalists treat them) rather than as part of surplus-value (as some Marxists treat them) that seems most relevant to empirical work. In addition, some unproductive labor is indirectly productive (raising the productivity of productive labor), which makes the theory quite fuzzy.
2) I have not been convinced by the various presentations of the theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall that I've seen. I have been convinced by an alternative crisis theory, which I'll summarize if anyone is interested.
3) As I said in my original missive, "how one measures the degree of "capital intensity" of production (the OCC) depends on one's theory and the purpose of one's research." As far as I'm concerned, since I'm not convinced by _a priori_ assertions that the degree of capital intensity rises, I'm interested in measuring whether or not it does empirically -- or rather, whether or not it does so enough to depress the rate of profit.
4) Of course, I think that the kind of issue that Shane Mage and Michael Perelman brings up (the issues of the incorrect measurement of the capital stock) are quite relevant. However, sometimes empirical research must rely on imperfect measures in order to get a preliminary understanding. (It's not like the neoclassical theory of the aggregate production function, which _must_ be based on totally unrealistic assumptions about the nature of capital goods.)
BTW, I found that Mage's dissertation was quite useful to my research. I was lucky enough to get a photocopy.
Jim Devine
Jim: I would love to know what you think of Shaikh and Tonak's book. I plan on absorbing more of it (it can be slow going for the mathematicly impaired) but seems to be extremely relevant to your interests. It is a good example of both the empirical side AND shows how issues such as productive/unproductive shed light on the laws of motion.
I believe Shaikh has put the first chapter on his New School web page.
