> I suspect that
> this is a COMPLETELY BOGUS claim. I suspect that it is perfectly
> possible for capitalist consumption to RISE AT AN INCREASING
> RATE, right up until the breakdown.
I take it Andrew means capitalist consumption in real terms to rise at increasing rate?
Of course this is perfectly possible in the real world. In Grossmann's scheme it would have to come at the expense of accumulation unless idiosyncratic non linear assumptions are being made about the rate at which unit values decline as well, given how steep the absolute decline in value available for capitalist consumption is.
Perhaps the insistence to enjoy a rising rate of consumption gains year after year is the secret behind the rise of the Wall Street model by which the rentier class has been able to enforce its value share in the social product or perhaps even increase it at the expense of capital accumulation. Breakdown would thus deferred by a a slow down in the rate of accumulation--that is at the expense of permanenent crisis conditions. Certainly a possibiity. I am not betting against it.
I never specified whether capitalist consumption begins to fall in value or real terms. That Andrew has clarified that an absolute fall in value terms need not mean a fall in real terms is a real advance in our discussion.
The same criticism works at the level of the proletariat. Grossmann uses the artifice of a constant rate of exploitation which on the assumption of a decline in unit values means a rising real wage. And as Kenneth Lapides has pointed out, Grossmann's wage theory is marked by confusion over the value of labor power, the price of labor power, the real wage, the relative wage.
Now Grossmann thought the real wage had to increase on account of the increasing intensity of labor; out of defensive battles the working class would have to win some gains here. Since the use of more sophisticated capital equipment requires an educated workforce, there is some additional reason to think wages must be high enough to allow families to support their children in school for a longer time as well, and this could be additional reason for real wage gains. And it is ridiculous to think that the proletariat would not enforce gains in its real wage as the capitalist class became ever more fantastically wealthy--there would be some attempt to attenutate the increases in their relative poverty. However, it is possible for the real wage to rise for all these reasons (the Okishio Theorem's foundation in a constant real wage seems to be nothing less than outlandish) while the rate of exploitation still rises which then leaves indeterminate the point of breakdown.
best, rakesh