>>So let go of that crude empiricism that has you in its grip, the
>>force that has convinced you that the FROP is some statement about
>>the trajectory of profit rates that you can test to see if it is
>>"correct".
>
>Yes, that crude empiricism again. David Laibman told me, after
>hearing my criticisms of efficient market theory, that you can't
>refute a theory with empirical observations, only with another
>theory. I think that's silly, but I guess I'm just a crude empiricist.
What empirical observation would refute Roger's reading of Marx below?
***** ...FROP is not a theory of terminal anything. That's why Marx called it a tendency, albeit a central or "inherent" one, with clear and powerful counteracting tendencies also in play....Capitalism is about the extraction of surplus value on an expanding scale (M-C-M'). But increasing s/v by simple ways such as production speed-ups and longer working days quickly reach limits. Thus the major way capitalists seek to raise s/v, Marx reasoned, is through the progressive mechanization of production--mainly labor saving technology....This creates a downward pressure on profits since the base for creating surplus value, productive labor, is reduced and the value on which a return must be earned, constant capital (plant and equipment), expands. But this tendency for profit rates to fall can be counteracted by the fact that surplus value can indeed rise dramatically for several reasons (not all discussed by Marx or even existing at the time he wrote) including some (technological) production changes, Baran and Sweezy's "epoch making innovations" (automobile, etc.) which foster new industries, products, etc. Second, due to efficiencies in capital goods industries, the value (cost) of that plant and equipment doesn't rise nearly as fast as its mass, so that counteracts some of the pressure for profit rates to fall. He mentions four other counteracting causes too, as you know.
>From the idea of capital as self expanding value and the existing material
conditions, Marx developed the FROP and its counteracting tendencies.
Despite occasional statements to the contrary..., Marx established no a
priori proof that the rising OCC would necessarily dominate the
counteracting forces....
Capital must expand, but conditions change and with them come new contradictions for capital and capitalism. It is up to us, then, to evaluate the forces that come to play on profit rates. Rising OCC is still a factor, but it's only one. *****
Roger argues that empirical phenomena we can observe (like profit rates) are generated by many causal powers (like the FROP, "epoch making innovations," efficient production of capital goods, the growth of service labor, etc.), some of which counteract others. What is your objection to Roger's explanation? And evidence to support your objection?
Yoshie