If productivity remained constant, then, irrespective of changes in consumer preferences, exchange-values would remain constant. A rise in demand for commodity A, as against B,C,D,E might result in a temporary rise in the market price of A, if supply did not adjust quickly, but, because the value of A remains constant, any rise in its market price, relative to B,C,D, E will lead to higher profits in its production, thereby, causing an increase in its production, thereby, causing an increase in its supply relative to them, and so market prices reverting to their previous levels. This is also why "demand-pull" is not an explanation of inflation. The additional monetary demand is itself a consequence of excess liquidity.
However, as described previously, this is never the case. Social productivity constantly rises so that, overall, values are reduced. If the value of the money commodity remained constant, and currency expanded proportional to the increase in social labour-time, for which it is the universal equivalent, then unit prices of commodities would fall. The values of some commodities are reduced more than others, because productivity in some spheres rises faster than in others. So, because exchange-value is an indirect and contingent measure of value, exchange-values also continually change, and not in the same proportions as values. For example, a rise in social productivity causes all values to fall by, say, 2% p.a., but a greater increase in productivity for the creation of calculators causes the exchange-value of them to other commodities to fall. As their price falls, demand for them rises, and that enables larger-scale production, which brings economies of scale, raising productivity in that sphere more, so that their exchange-value falls more, and so on. Larger scale production makes the introduction of new and better machines possible, and that raises productivity even more, so that the exchange-value of calculators falls further.
This is always the case with industrial production, but it also depends on raw and auxiliary materials. In this sphere, productivity is not determined, solely, by the use of machines etc. it is also dependent on Nature. Bad weather may cause harvests to be reduced or fail, existing mines can become exhausted, expansion of production on to new lands might face less fertile land, and so on. In terms of minerals, existing mines, and oil wells can become economically exhausted, given any level of technology, so, in the short-term, productivity can fall, and, because they supply materials to industry, these higher costs can lead to lower productivity in some spheres.
As Marx describes, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 9, that is only a short-term phenomenon. When industrial production expands, and runs up against these limitations in materials/primary production, it leads to new lands being brought into cultivation, new mines opened etc. These new facilities are more fertile than those they replace, and, as they also tend to be developed using the latest technology and equipment, when they are operating at their optimal levels, the value of their output is lower than that of the previous facilities. New more efficient means of drilling for oil and gas, fracking and so on, were developed, and, today, despite the recent spike, the price of oil is lower than in the 1970's, in real terms, despite it being claimed, back then, that the world only had another 20-50 years supply of it left! The huge new farms opened up in North America, in the 19th century, massively reduced the value of agricultural commodities, and, again, despite the current spike, due to NATO's blockade of Russian exports, the opening up of large new farms in Africa and elsewhere, is doing the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment