Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

[Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Andy

Sorry I'm going to have to duck out of the detailed discussion needed on
this one. So in (probably unhelpful) 'sound-bite' form the main problem
appears to be that your (5) presupposes capitalist firms, hence
capitalism, survives, hence that profits exist. Hence it appears to
presuppose what the argument 1-5 is intended to explain.
 

Paul
----

The real problem to my mind is not explaining surplus value
- that drops directly from the matrix formulation of production
  by von Neumann and Leontief.

The real problem is explaining how this comes to have a monetary
representation - where does the money come from.

If we assume a capitalist economy growing at some fraction
of its von Neumann growth rate then the aggregate circuit

m-c-m'-c'-m''-c''-m'''

implies an exponential growth in m.

However we know that during the 19th century the average growth
of world gold stock was under 1% per year - see the accompanying
table that gives growth of stock in million troy ounces.

This would appear to set a maximum rate of profit of under
1% per annum in the 19th century under the gold standard.

How did the process m-c-m' occur given these constraints.

Attachment: goldprod.pdf
Description: goldprod.pdf