> 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.
Thank you for the reference on tech comp of capital.
A) Isn't the "average rate of profit" just that, an average, w/variations between/among sectors, especially during heightened periods of overaccumulation, crisis, concentration, shake-out, innovation, etc. ?
B) Or does the whole edifice of Marxist value theory dismiss this from the very start by assuming seamless fluidity of K invest/rapid diffusion of best-practice production technologies between/among sectors ?
C) Or does the whole edifice of Marxist value theory assume away the problem at the outset by asserting that the market price system redistributes surplus value from low c/v sectors to high c/v sectors ?
While I agree w/the criticisms of naive empiricism, if Marxist value theory presumes the above, it seems to rest on some awfully shaky foundations, and to lose a degree of its interpretive use-value.
> BTW, when you say good night! in Spanish do you say
> Buenos nachos!
> or
> Buenas noches?
I say neither, but you have exposed me for the oafish, monolingual gringo that I am.
Best,
John Gulick