Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 15:46:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu
Subject: Moral depreciation



I'm not sure the following message got through since John capitalized 
some leters he probably shouldn't have.  If you've already received this 
message, please excuse.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 15:29:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: glevy-AT-acnet
To: "John R. Ernst" <ernst-AT-pipeline.com>
Cc: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Value - Steve's paper: Part 3

In answer to John Ernst's question concerning "moral depreciation", as I 
understand it, the Neo-Ricardians don't deal at all with this issue since 
there is no technical change in their model.  If I am mistaken, then 
someone on the list should correct me.

"Moral depreciation" concerns the turnover and depreciation of constant 
fixed capital and occurs when capitalists are unable to realize all of 
the value of their constant fixed capital after technological advances.

This is an issue of great importance, it seems to me, in developing 
Marx's theory of technological change.  Any capitalist will tell you 
about how they have to write-off the value of capital equipment as a 
result of forced obsolescence.  Personal computers are an illustration of 
this process that all members of this list should be able to understand.  
If you purchased a computer a few years ago it has already become 
obsolete even though the use value embodied in the computer has not been 
used up.  The process of competition, according to Marx, brings about 
this "moral depreciation" and results in lost capital values for 
capitalists and "closetware" for us.

On Sun, 14 May 1995, John R. Ernst wrote:

>  
> Jerry, 
>  
>  
> How do the so-called neo-Ricardians deal with Marx's notion of 
> "moral depreciation"?     
>  
>                                                 John 
>  
>  
> 



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

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