OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics and financial services



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


Paul, you say: "The mass of surplus value can not
be altered by activities in the 3rd sector producting luxuries etc."

Suppose a system producing 10 iron, 10 corn and 100 luxuries, with 10, 10 and 100 workers respectively. As distribution can be any distribution, this would be possible. Do you mean that wages and profits in this third sector come from the two former? I don't think so. Another, very different thing, would be if this third sector were public administration. Then productivity in the two productive sectors would have to be much higher that in the other sector in order for them to be able to pay taxes and redistribute such a quantity of surplus value.

In my opinion, in the first case we have new areas for accumulation of
capital and production of new surplus value. In the second case we would
have new areas outside value production that would reduce the potential of
accumulation of capital.

Diego



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]