>
> (6) One cannot accept this argument -- or use the falling value
> argument to defend Marx's law of the tendential fall in the
> profit rate -- and, at the same time, advocate Moseley's
> interpretation of Marx's value theory (as Rakesh has done),
> because Moseley is a simultaneist. In other words, it follows
> from his interpretation that riding productivity and falling
> values will RAISE, not lower, the profit rate.
Not necessarily. Take the favorite of Mark Blaug--a technological improvement in the capital goods industry. What Blaug does not consider is that a so called capital saving innovation--let's say a machine that lasts longer and therefore defacto saves (indirect)labor time per unit by transmitting less of its constant value to each unit (all technological progress is ultimately labor saving)--could itself be the product of a more capital-intensive production process, which has the effect of increasing overall the OCC.
The longer lasting, capital saving machine itself would be a counter-tendency to the falling rate of profit (less constant capital need be invested to purchase the means by which to extort surplus labor), but Blaug stops the argument there without questioning whether the machine itself is a product of a more capital intensive or capital using process.
What are the conditions of production of these capital savings innovations by which the bourgeoisie can supposedly forever defer its day of reckoning?
But this is not Moseley speaking here whom I cited in the course of noting how questionable the neo Ricardian assumption is that input values and output values must be equal (see the damning criticism of this in Mattick's chapter on the transformation problem in Marxism: last refuge of the bourgeoisie?) His argument there seems independent of your controversy with him over whether capital saving innovations and the like are causes of or counter-tendencies to the falling rate of profit. And we know that Moseley thinks that it is possible to demonstrate a falling rate of profit despite the fact that he counts as counter-tendencies what you count as causes; there are additional variables he invokes--in particular the rise in the ratio of unproductive to productive labor to which he attaches great importance though it is not clear to me whether he thinks the rise in the OCC has been slow due to capital savings innovations or the stagnation in accumulation itself.
>> I assume this refers to his reworking of Bauer's example. It
> SHOWS nothing. Grossmann merely ASSUMES that capital
> accumulation proceeds at a constant rate despite the FRP. And
> when the crisis comes in year 36 or whatever, the FRP has NOTHING
> to do with it, again by assumption. Rather, Grossmann's
> assumptions eventually force the capitalists to demand more
> investment goods than have been produced. End of story.
1. The assumption that production will tend to become "more capitalized" over time is not arbitrary (c grows annually by 10%, v by %5): Shaikh provides microfoundations for why such upward presure on the OCC is plausible in the context of real world competition.
2. Ever larger scale, more capital intensive production is not undertaken despite but because of the FRP, as each capital attempts to competitively beat off its negative effects on the actual mass of surplus value produced through said larger scale, more capital intensive production. And there are considerable advantages here to first movers.
3. It is ridiculous to argue that the scheme breaks down because not enough investment goods have been produced. Not enough surplus value is available to purchase the additional means of production; moreover, it would not prove profitable to further capitalize surplus value. It has nothing to do with a physical shortage of physical means of production. This is an astonishing mistake.
Your understanding of Marx is very powerful, and should be studied. But there are other Marxists who have been marginalized: Rubel, Mattick, William J Blake--to name a few. Some of these battles remind me of identity politics as everyone defends in the most paranoid manner their own turf.
best, rakesh