RO: . . . So capital consumption allowances in the GDP can be taken as a reasonable proxy for the marxian concept of circulating constant capital. . . .
Seems like replacement cost derives from the value of capital goods in production, which in turn derives from the value of output to consumers. So can we conclude that the prices of consumer goods are a "reasonable proxy" for the value of final output? Or that, putting income distribution aside, prices reflect consumer preferences? Can utility theory and market socialism be far behind?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. . .
their subsistence needs (should wages exceed labor's subsistence), the costs
of government at all levels . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the Army Corps of Engineers builds a dam, aren't they productive labor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
. . . Marx explicitly included that as
part of labor's subsistence needs. It doesn't matter if the education is
provided for by gov't through taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
Isn't there a timing issue with including education expenditures as variable capital in the year spent? Since the contribution to subsistence happens over a future period, it can't really be subsistence in respect of the current period. (One could 'subsist' for the moment with somewhat less of it.) If a kid goes to school for 21 years straight, how can all intervening expenditure be "subsistence"?
Finally I'd like to echo something I think came from Henwood -- that the cost of reproducing productive labor is a concept exceeding squishy. Whatever standard of living people will settle for seems pretty malleable, once you get past biological subsistence.
n.b. Gross National Product is still called Gross National Product. It just isn't reported as prominently as GDP. I *think* one additional reason the practice was changed was conformity with other OECD nations, which use GDP. RO probably knew that but used a sub-optimal choice of words.
mbs