Regarding the measurement of the technical composition of capital as opposed to the value one, the book by Shaikh and Tonak "Measuring the Wealth of Nations" is a must not only for its careful treatment but also for a review of the vast literature. Regarding your disproportionality of productivities between departments as a countervailing tendency to the FROP, this is usually considered not correct because technical change is assumed to take place across all sectors without concentrating on just one sector only. To make this point clear think of Marx's assumption of the movement of capital across sectors leading to a tendency of profit rate equalization as oppossed or being violated by the assumption of the concentration of technical change (and therefore a higher rate of profit) in one sector.
BTW, when you say good night! in Spanish do you say Buenos nachos! or Buenas noches?
Fabian
--
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:15:43 jlgulick wrote:
>FROPPists,
>
>Roger sez:
>
>> It is true that the rising "technical" composition of capital (the
>> physical of means of production relative the the quantity of labor
>> power--in contrast to the organic composition, which is the same ratio in
>> value, not physical, terms) carries with it seeds of countervailing
>> forces, such as a rising rate of exploitation and cheapening means of
>> production. And, as I said, given those countervailing forces, Marx never
>> showed the necessity of falling profit rates. To say nothing of the fact
>> that many new forces on both sides are now important. In short, anyone
>> sitting around waiting for capitalism to collapse because profits dry up
>> ain't no marxist.
>
>How the hell does one calculate the "technical composition of capital" ?
>While I'm no expert on value/crisis theory, I have read Vols 1-2 of
>Capital and this "tech comp of capital" is one thing I've never
>understood. What's the "universal equivalent" which abridges the flesh and
>bones and brain matter of living labor and the ingots andf polystyrenes
>and silcicon chips of dead labor ? I raised this point indirectly earlier
>but no one spoke to it.
>
>And would _someone_ -- Roger, Rakesh, Fabian, _someone_ --
>verify/disconfirm another point I rasied earlier -- that the main
>countervailing tendency to FROP is faster productitivy growth in Dep I
>than Dep II (occasioned by crisis, which compels revolutions in production
>in the means of production) ...
>
>Mucho gracias,
>
>John Gulick
>
>
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com