Shane, Try adding and subtracting as much as necessary to the available stats so you get as close as possible to measures of surplus value flows and capital stocks in the capitalist world that conform to concepts. Then tell us how that ratio evolves over time. I suspect that if you take long periods of time, for any significant chunks of the capitalist world, you'll get a declining overall trend. As far as I can tell, for any measure of value added and capital stock readily available, the trend is down or flat at best; and value added caps surplus value. I don't think the wage share has been going down secularly for this to be offset. If most of the data point this way, I think we have a winner -- the FRP. I don't have a reason to believe that measurement errors are going to pile up in one direction only. But who knows. This is one of those things that have to be decided inferentially, whichever way it tilts the scale.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 7, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > > Shane Mage wrote: > > ... Even if instead of GDP > > you use NDP (excluding capital consumption as well as indirect business > > taxes) you still are left with the > > c component, in the form of the cost of unproductive labor--for Marx a > > basic category and one which he insists must be paid out of the aggregate > > product. > > > Another of the reasons why GDP and NDP are irrelevant to calculating changes > in profit rates is that both include non-wage incomes, a very large > statistical aggregate that forms no part at all of the model whereby Marx > derived the Law of the Falling Tendency. > > > if the wages of unproductive labor are "a basic category" for Marx, > why doesn't he discuss them at any length in volume I of CAPITAL? > > > Capitalist production is not merely the > production of commodities, it is essentially > the production of surplus-value...That laborer alone is productive who > produces > surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of > capital. > If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material > objects, > a schoolmaster is a productive laborer when, in addition to belaboring the > heads of > his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That > the latter > has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage > factory, does not > alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive laborer implies not > merely a > relation between work and useful effect, between laborer and product of > labor, > but also a specific, social, relation of production, a relation that has > sprung up > historically and stamps the laborer as the direct means of creating > surplus-value. (v.I, p.558) (Kerr ed.) > > the point: only productive labor gives rise to surplus-value. > > The general law is, that all these expenses of circulation which only arise > from > changes in form of commodities, add no value to the latter. They are merely > expenses required for the realization of value or for its conversion from > one form > into another. The capital laid out for these expenses (including the labor > employed > by it) belongs to the faux frais [unproductive but necessary expenses] of > capitalist > production. Its replenishment, must be carried out from the surplus product > and forms, > from the point of view of the entire capitalist class, an abatement of the > surplus-value > or surplus-product, just as, for a laborer, the time required for shopping > for his means > of subsistence is lost time. (v. II, p. 169) > > the point: overhead expenses form no part of variable capital or surplus > value. > > These costs constitute additional capital, but they produce no > surplus-value. They must > be made good out of the value of the commodities. For a portion of the > value of the > commodities must once more be converted into these circulation costs; and no > additional surplus-value is created thereby. So far as this concerns the > total capital > of society it means that a portion of it must be set aside for secondary > operations that > are no part of the process of creating value, and that this portion of the > social capital > must be continually reproduced for this purpose. (v. III, p. 365) > > the point: the capital laid out for overhead expenses is part of the non > surplus-value-creating circulating capital, ie., constant capital. > > In a capitalist society, this surplus-value is divided among the capitalists > as a > dividend in proportion to the percentage of the total social capital held by > each. > In this shape the surplus-value appears as the average profit which, in its > turn, > is separated into profit of enterprise and interest and which, in this way, > may fall > into the hands of different kinds of capitalist...the landlord, in his turn, > pumps a > portion of this surplus-value, or surplus-product, out of the capitalist in > the form of rent. > Hence, when speaking of profit as that portion of surplus-value which falls > to > the share of capital, we mean average profit (profit of enterprise plus > interest) which > has already been limited by deducting the rent from the aggregate profits > (identical > in amount with the aggregate surplus-value). Profits of capital (profit of > enterprise > plus interest) and ground rent are merely particular constituents of > surplus-value, > categories by which surplus-value is distinguished according to whether it > falls into > the hands of capital or of private land. This classification does not alter > its nature > in any way. If added together, these parts form the sum of the social > surplus-value. (v. III, p. 955) > > in sum: empirically, the total surplus value, the numerator in any > calculation of the Marxian rate of profit, comprises total statistical > property incomes plus (what in the 1860's was "a new swindle") the total > of corporate executive (above the level of direct operational > management) salaries. Labor incomes represent expenditures of variable (for > productive workers) or constant > (for unproductive workers) circulating capital. > > > Shane Mage > > > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos > > > > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
