tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post6007521186873942498..comments2024-03-28T19:49:43.203-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: EARLY MORNING MUSINGRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-49121093524563176672021-09-28T16:54:50.979-04:002021-09-28T16:54:50.979-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Business Leads Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06682586770344781777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-39179077767765475912014-05-09T17:20:56.236-04:002014-05-09T17:20:56.236-04:00"housing built to be rented out at a profit c..."housing built to be rented out at a profit capital" is categorized as nonresidential. So hotels are nonresidential and of course capital.phwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793128310263047826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-70775943587730254002014-05-09T15:46:41.333-04:002014-05-09T15:46:41.333-04:00Is residential housing built to be rented out at a...Is residential housing built to be rented out at a profit capital? Is a corporate hotel chin like Howard Johnson or Marriott capital? It generates a profit. Lord knows, it exploits its workers, by any definition of "exploits."Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-68220224986076620582014-05-09T15:40:51.689-04:002014-05-09T15:40:51.689-04:00Very simple. A distinction between residential vs....Very simple. A distinction between residential vs. nonresidential housing. Michael may have been referring to residential housing. Nonresidential housing is of course capital.phwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12793128310263047826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-7328742057003331192014-05-04T23:00:23.545-04:002014-05-04T23:00:23.545-04:00Nice story you put together on your walk. Consider...Nice story you put together on your walk. Consider, though:<br /><br />1. After the deeds are misrecorded, the renters collect rent on the other person's condo, but they both pay rent on the one they live in and pay the mortgage on the one they own.<br /><br />2. Much the same story could be told about automobiles. So should Piketty count all them, too, in addition to the capital invested in the corporations that make them?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12569706028827689017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-62028904723088720512014-05-04T08:44:10.536-04:002014-05-04T08:44:10.536-04:00I think one needs to consider several things when ...I think one needs to consider several things when it comes to Piketty's definition of capital and people tend to focus on just a few of them. And I think here both of Roberts and Galbraith.<br /><br />Against Piketty.<br /><br />Piketty's inclusion of housing and financial capital is controversial even beyond Marxist considerations.<br /><br />Here it is useful to consider why GDP accounting includes private housing as an item within gross capital formation. <br /><br />Basically, it is an arbitrary choice: it is based on the convention that an item whose useful life exceeds 5 years is an investment, whereas an item whose useful life is less than 5 years, but more than 1 is a durable good (an item lasting less than one year is just consumption and an item whose life ends immediately is a service).<br /><br />That is the only reason why the family car, TV set or fridge are classified as durable goods, but the family home is considered an investment. <br /><br />So, if Piketty includes private housing, why not the family car, or the LCD TV? If he excludes family car and LCD TV, why not private housing?<br /><br />And this is a fundamental matter: according to Piketty, "middle-class" wealth is basically represented by housing (plus financial assets, which are not included in GDP), which, beyond that imputed rent included in GDP, does not produce any actual return.<br /><br />In Piketty's favour.<br /><br />Piketty did not design the data collection process: he is using existing data, collected over the course of centuries by people working independently of each other. <br /><br />Those who determined what data was to be collected did not think, either, of the needs of 21th century scholars, not even of 19th century Marx: they thought of assessing taxes.<br /><br />So, in my opinion, the questions are: <br /><br />(1) do we use the data available, even if they are not ideal? or <br />(2) do we give up the chance of studying long-term wealth evolution?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-44711497712368186422014-05-01T19:59:41.250-04:002014-05-01T19:59:41.250-04:00I don't know if I can address your question fo...I don't know if I can address your question for Roberts directly Wolff, but I think there are two issues in what you're saying.<br /><br />The first is the quote:<br />"Husson also points out that Piketty’s merging of the definition of capital, as Marx sees it, into wealth, by including housing and personal financial assets, distorts the real laws of motion of capitalism."<br /><br />This is not claiming that housing cannot be used as capital. Marx's definition of capital, so far as I can tell, is that it's value in motion, under girded by a social relation that preserves this motion. Money, credit, finance, etc, can all operate as capital, but for capitalism to reproduce itself in the long term it needs to create surplus value, and that is only done from the exploitation of productive labor. So it's not at all clear to me why you say this:<br /><br />" It provides services rather than goods to consumers, but it is a for-profit enterprise, and the money invested in it surely counts as capital. How could it not? Surely Marx, more than anyone, would have argued that capital is not stuff, but surplus value extracted from workers and turned into a source of further surplus value."<br /><br />Just because capital is value in motion does not mean the motion creates SURPLUS value. This is part of Marx's point in volume III regarding money capitalists and fictitious finance capital. I can lend you $10, on the promise that you pay me back $15. And a year from now after your relative gives you cash for Christmas, you can give me that $15. I've acted as a money capitalist, and I've made a profit, but the whole process has not created more SURPLUS value for capitalism.<br /><br />So I think you're making an error in how you read that first quote. The laws of motion of capital require the production of surplus value, and while housing might be profitable, and capital intensive, that doesn't mean it's generating a surplus...no?<br /><br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-90574724071334412742014-05-01T19:30:02.222-04:002014-05-01T19:30:02.222-04:00I can't pretend to adequately understand it, s...I can't pretend to adequately understand it, so won't even try to summarise it, but Roberts expands on this issue in another post:<br /><br />http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/a-world-rate-of-profit-revisited-with-maito-and-piketty/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08344190302931892131noreply@blogger.com