The purchase of constant capital is not a gift to society; it is the means by which surplus labor can be absorbed and the absolute consumption of the rentier
class increased. Marx at times gave the wrong impression that the entrepreneur was an ascetic, opening the door to Weber's characterization of capitalism as a kind of rational social ascetism. I think Doug (as well as Levy and Dumenil in their book on neo liberalism) is correct to focus on the rentiers.
If constant capital is not accumulated and the capital base of society renewed and competitiveness thereby achieved, it's because 'expanded reproduction' would have swallowed up so much of surplus value (so much of surplus value would have to retained) that the rentiers would suffer declines in their consumption standards. Once accumulation no longer serves to boost or even maintain the consumption of rentiers, it's penalized or the conditions have to be set for accumulation to serve again the rentier class (anti labor legislation, repeal of anti trust, regressive taxation, export of productive capital, unequal terms of trade, etc.). It helps of course if all this can be done in the name of the nation.
Goldner's argument above depends on a shortage of surplus value vis a vis some level, but I don't understand the explanation for this.
Also not sure what is meant by excessive anticipations of income... Price of equities rises even if there are absolute declines in the capitalized anticipations of income as long as the rate of interest is falling.
Rakesh