Marx's condition for machinery not displacing workers is the introduction of "new and additional capital that is seeking investment." This can only come from an expansion of credit. Eventually, the new machinery may enlarge relative surplus value -- and thus "capital seeking investment" -- through the intensification of labor. But this "long run" eventuality will only come about if *in the meanwhile* there is an expansion of credit that enables the realization of that surplus value. You don't realize surplus value from goods that haven't been sold.
My argument that Jevons's Paradox is unsound theoretically does not imply that the phenomenon he was concerned with was trivial or non-existent. I say the effect is there but the cause is not what Jevons thought it was. More exactly, the *cause* of increased energy consumption is not cheap energy prices resulting from efficiency but expanded credit. (However, the * prospect* of cheap prices in the future may indeed be a motive for creditors to lend... but this is putting the cart before the horse!) I am working on a paper in which I explain this in much more detail. On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:38 PM, <[email protected]>wrote: > > Tom Walker wrote: > > > In section 6, chapter 15 of volume one of Capital, Marx > > takes on the insistence by "a whole series of bourgeois > > political economists" "that all machinery that displaces > > workmen, simultaneously and necessarily sets free an > > amount of capital adequate to employ the same identical > > workmen." > > This is an important part of Marx's theory. If machinery > cannot displace workers, then the immiseration as described > in chapter 25 cannot happen. > > Then Tom continues: > > > both Marx and Keynes indirectly repudiated the so-called > > Jevons Paradox > > This is a very helpful observation which puts section 6 of > the machinery chapter into a new light for me. I have > already collected textual evidence in the machinery chapter > that Marx did not appreciate how much the industrial > revolution was dependent on fossil fuels. Some of the > things about the industrial revolution which Marx was not > aware of are in this book: Wrigley, E A, *Energy and the > English Industrial Revolution*, Cambridge University Press > 2010, > http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/nlebk_337687_AN > > I am not sure if Marx repudiated the Jevons Paradox or if he > was not fully aware of it. I think the absolute > immiseration did not happen because capital and labor both > could fall back on fossil fuels, capital for continued > profits and labor for rising standards of living despite the > pressure of capital. In other words, when Marx was > repudiating/ignoring the Jevons Paradox, then Marx was > wrong and Jevons was right. A modern treatment of the > rebound effect not as an issue in a static equilibrium but > as a growth issue is here: > > Ayres, Robert U and Warr, Benjamin, "Energy Efficiency and > Economic Growth: The 'Rebound Effect’ as a Driver", a > chapter in the boook *Energy Efficiency and Sustainable > Consumption: The Rebound Effect*, Palgrave 2008, edited by > Horace Herring and Steve Sorrell. > > I haven't seen this book chapter, our library does not have > this book, but I have seen and can recommend the book by Ayres, > Robert U. and Warr, Benjamin, *The Economic Growth Engine: > How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity* Edward Elgar > 2009. > > http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Growth-Engine-Material-Prosperity/dp/1848441827 > > > Hans. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
