> No offence, but you're considering this from the point of view of an actual,
> tangible "value" rate. If value is completely relative (i.e. determined
> contingently) then this argument doesn't work. Output and input merge into
> each other... etc...
>
> But, okay, let's give those that produce "inputs" a lead (nonsense, because
> they're tied into the economy...)... anyway. They're producing inputs...
> let's say "copper"... where is it going? Its going into a mass production
> process which is worldwide. People don't give a rat's ass where they're
> buying their raw material from... this is secondary. Competition kicks in
> when this "copper" is used along with workers. What happens? Well, anyone
> can buy copper and workers, so... competition... presumably...
I don't know what you mean here... can you elaborate? What's an 'actual, tangible "value" rate'?
> Well, I haven't read it... and I will... but Brenner seems convincing. He
> puts forward something I see every day... which is scary, I'll grant... but
> its not so abstract!
Sure, but the fact that something seems to explain stuff you see every day gives you no reason to choose it over alternative explanations for the same stuff. Also, casually noticed newspaper headlines are a poor substitute for properly constructed data.
And in another post:
> But, just a moment, I will respond properly... but this seems way off.
> What is this notion of "zombie capital"? So it re-invests rather quickly?
> Where?
> I mean this is the essential point in Brenner... where? Where does it
> invest? Because, within Brenner's argument, even if it hangs in there it has
> to invest... so... where?
By 'zombie capital' I'm referring specifically to the physical plant Brenner claims remains in use for years despite being unprofitable relative to new physical plant, or relative to physical plant newly located in lower-wage-cost areas. So it doesn't do its own re-investing. Rather, Brenner's argument is that so long as revenue at least covers the user cost, its owners will keep it running even if it's at below-average profitability because the purchase cost is already 'sunk'. The counter-argument is that while this is certainly true for a while, Brenner greatly overestimates depreciation time. Hence 'zombie capital', or undead plant.
Mike Beggs scandalum.wordpress.com