# Value Stuff

Wed Feb 28 01:40:06 MST 1996

```Thank you John for replying.

I can only answer your question by reposting my original message, with
some extra explanation.

All my equations are "whole economy" equations.

Both my sample "Year 2"s are intended to follow from "Year 1". Year 2 (i)
seems to follow from 1, but in fact doesn't, because the capitalists'
capital this year can be made using less labour than it could have been
last year. So Year 2(ii) is an innaccurate guestimate, which I would
like to be able to quantify.

>Year 1 :
>
>variable capital = 5000
>rate of surplus value = 100%
>surplus value = 5000
>constant capital = 5000
>rate of profit = 50%
>
>Year 2 (i) :
>
>variable capital = 10000 ( = 5000 + 5000 )
>rate of surplus value = 100%
>surplus value = 5000
>constant capital = 5000
>rate of profit = 5000 / ( 10000 + 5000 ) = 33%.
>
>is innaccurate, since by original 5000 worth of capital has been devalued,
so
>we might have something like :
>
>Year 2(ii)
>
>variable capital = 1000 ( = 3500 ( perhaps ) + 5000 )
>rate of surplus value = 100%
>surplus value = 5000
>constant capital = 5000
>rate of profit = 5000 / ( 8500 + 5000 ) = 37%.
>
>My problem is that I can't quantify that "perhaps".

PS.

Harman is always right, but sometimes misunderstood. :-)

Noone is arguing that if the balance between Depts 1 + 2 changes,
then the rate of profit must be falling.

What I understood him to be arguing was that the "devaluation" effect
can't override stop the organic composition of capital rising, and
this argument is related to the relationship between Dept 1 + 2.

--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

------------------

```