I don't know hoe much productivity growth is due to R&D and investment in new plant and equipment, as well as building up necessary cash reserves and acquiring long term assets liquid and other, but isn't that the modern equivalent of "abstinence," where dividents and executive jets are indulgence?
>
> It's weird - Brad picks a pretty wacko example,
> admits its kind of
> wacko, but then claims it's important and conclusive
> anyway. Why does
> Marx make smart people do silly things?
>
> Doug
I taker that the point of these examples is tos how what is true, that not all profit is due to the exploitation of labor -- even if a lot of it is. I think there is a respectable argument to be made that on average exploitation is the only reliable source of profit, even if companies that do not invest in R&D. plant and equipment, and acquisition of assets that allow them to borrow are doomed. That is because on balance none of these provide a market-wide competitive advantage. Reserach-intensive companies are balanced by research-lite companies, savers are balanced by spendthrifts. The average company invests only the average amount in R&D, =technical improvements, etc. The only long run source if profits is the exploiattion of labor. Even if the average company takes only the average amount of surplus value, it has that much profit if it can realize it in the market.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest