Re: Capital: Its Presence, Use and Control

["Robyn Miller" <lady-r@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
> From: Per Gunnar Berglund <pgb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT   <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Capital: Its Presence, Use and Control
> Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 10:38 AM
>
> Robyn,
> Yes it does affect John's position. The idea of substitution of capital
for
> labour (or the reverse) is effectively ruled out _in the aggregate_ by
the
> multiplicative approach (this does not invalidate microeconomic
> substitution). The notion of gradual increase of the share of capital
> income in the national income goes down with the notion of substitution.

Okay, but even if capital and labor increase proportionally (neither
increasing exponentially at the expense of the other), does this imply that
rentiers can be disposed of with steps short of a military revolution.
They still exist.  They still have interests to protect.  They are still a
growing class of people (they are, however, growing proportionally with
increases in population).  People will still save.  Companies will still
invest.  Governments will still indirectly regulate profits through
measures such as the minimum wage.  How exactly does this metamorphasize
the picture painted by Mr. Gelles?

                                                                Robyn M.
>
> Best,
> Per
>
>
> Per Gunnar Berglund
> Lilla Sallskapets vag 60
> 127 61  SKARHOLMEN
> SWEDEN
>
> Voice/fax +46-(0)8-883065
>
>
> ----------
> Robyn Miller wrote:
> > This is an interesting philosophical point, but since it does not
impact
> > output's fundamental characteristic of being a positively correlated
> > function of both capital and labor, I am not sure that it neccessarily
> > affects John's conclusions.  As is the case with John's "Additive
World,"
>
> > output can only be increased by one of three mechanisms:
> >
> > 1)increased capital
> > 2)increased labor/labor productivity
> > 3)an increase in both capital and labor/labor productivity
> >
> > I agree that framing capital and labor in a multiplicative relationship
> is
> > a more sohisticated (and probably more accurate) way to look at their
> > impact on output - but I just don't see how this negates Gelle's
> position.