著者

森本 壮亮

出版者

桃山学院大学

雑誌

桃山学院大学経済経営論集 (ISSN:02869721)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.57, no.3, pp.237-269, 2016-03-03

---

This paper introduces the full story of the Okishio theorem. Although it has been considered to be an objection to Marx's law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit, the real purpose of the theorem was to clarify an absurd character of the capitalist choice of technique. Also Okishio argued that the reason of the constant or falling rate of profit should be the rise in the real wage rate. When Okishio submitted the theorem, the rate of profit was not clearly falling in Japanese economy. However Japanese economy considerably changed. The surge of the real wage rate from the mid 1960s to 1973 caused the rise of the organic composition of capital and the fall in the rate of profit. Contrary to the popular interpretation of the Okishio theorem, this scenario was precisely what Okishio supposed. The bubble burst caused one more fall in the rate of profit and capital turned surplus. The result is the helplessness of the monetary policy. Even though the Bank of Japan has tried to supply money by extraordinary ways, neither capital accumulation nor "money stock" has increased. Although economists including Marxists have not been able to work out this mysterious situation, it is just what Marx wrote in Volume III of Capital .

著者

森本 壮亮 モリモト ソウスケ Sosuke Morimoto

雑誌

立教經濟學研究

巻号頁・発行日

vol.73, no.3, pp.133-156, 2020-01

著者

森本 壮亮

出版者

桃山学院大学総合研究所

雑誌

桃山学院大学経済経営論集 = ST.ANDREW'S UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW (ISSN:02869721)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.58, no.4, pp.101-128, 2017-03-07

---

This paper examines the critique of the Okishio theorem by thetemporal single system interpretation.The orthodox interpretation of Marx’s value theory determines thevalue/price magnitudes by using simultaneous equations. In this process,the magnitude of constant capital is calculated as current cost, and atechnical innovation results in the increase in the rate of profit (Okishiotheorem). Even though it is diametrically opposite to Marx, this story hasbeen widely supported by not only neo-classical economists but alsoMarxian economists.However, the temporal single system interpretation (TSSI) has criticizedthe Okishio theorem since the 1980 s. The TSSI rejects simultaneousequations to determine the magnitudes of values/prices, and uses the logicof the circuit of capital. In this process, the magnitude of constant capital iscalculated as historical cost. Because the magnitude of constant capitaldoesn’t re-valued, the rate of profit falls in case of a technical innovation.The difference between the orthodox interpretation and the TSSIbecomes apparent when technical innovations are incessant. Especiallywhen incessant technical innovations occur in the sector producing fixedcapital, the gap between current cost and historical cost becomes critical.Such incessant technical innovations are characteristic in the moderncompetition of the global capitalist economy, and we see many capitalsstruggling with losses from incessant technical innovations. In this processcapitals face the fall in the rate of profit, and the TSSI reflects the reality.When Okishio submitted the theorem, the rate of profit of Japaneseeconomy did not fall and the Okishio theorem had the economic base.However, the rate of profit of Japanese economy has been falling since the1970 s and the Okishio theorem does not have the economic base any more.From the viewpoint of the historical materialism, the economic base callsfor a change of the superstructure: from the orthodox interpretation andthe Okishio theorem to the TSSI.

著者

森本 壮亮

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.3, pp.54-64, 2014-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

This paper examines Dumenil and Foley's "New Interpreta-tion(NI)" of Marx's value theory as an interpretation of Capital. We can summarize the NI as follows. First, it bridges the dimensions of labor values and prices by the concept of the "value of money," which is defined as the ratio of aggregate labor time to aggregate money value added. Second, it interprets Marx's value theory as a macroeconomic labor theory and the equality between total value and total price as the net one in a given period. Third, it defines the value of labor power as the money wage multiplied by the "value of money," and argues that exploitation is an issue of the distribution of the net value added between workers and capitalists. Although Dumenil and Foley claim that the NI is just what Marx tried to argue in Capital, Marx's texts and manuscripts of Capital show the opposite. Marx's starting point was to criticize classical economists who explained that wage was a proportion of the net value added and exploitation was a distributional issue. The argument of the NI is totally the same with the one of classical economists. In contrast, Marx argues that the capitalist exploitation is for workers to be absorbed into the circuit of capital whose sole aim is to increase the value. Also Marx points out that variable capital, which is used for wage, is the value that workers created not in the present but in the past. These Marx's arguments show that Marx's value theory is quite similar to the "temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI)." Therefore the orthodox(or Sraffian)interpretation of Marx's value theory and the transformation problem is also invalid as an interpretation of Marx. First, although the orthodox interpretation claims that Marx considers exploitation as an issue of the distribution of labor for production, Marx doesn't. Marx's exploitation theory is constructed based on the concept of the circuit of capital, and it is irrelevant to the distribution of labor for production. Second, although the orthodox interpretation claims that the dimension of the transformation is labor time, such claim is both unrealistic and alien to capitalism. Capitalists'criteria are their rates of profit or amounts of profit, not their "rates of profit" of labor time. There is no reason for such "rates of profit" to be uniformed at least in a capitalist society. Thus we conclude that the most appropriate new interpretation of Marx's Capital is the TSSI.

著者

森本 壮亮

出版者

慶應義塾経済学会

雑誌

三田学会雑誌 (ISSN:00266760)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.110, no.2, pp.145(49)-166(70), 2017-07

---

セミナーでは, 欧米で近年提起されている労働価値説の新解釈が報告・議論の対象となった。本稿は, 新解釈にも大別して, New Interpretation, Macro-Monetary Interpretation, Temporal Single System Interpretationの三種が存在することを示すとともに, それぞれの労働価値説について検討し, New Interpretationはスミス的な労働価値説であるものの, 資本循環論を基礎とする後者二つはマルクス的な「資本主義社会の労働価値説」として評価すべきだと主張している。Reviewing both old and new interpretations of Marx's labor theory of value and examining recent discussions thereof, which were the central issues in the seminar as well, this study reconsiders the labor theory of value. From the perspective of the history of economic thought, this paper argues that (i) the labor theory of value is a theory of distribution of labor in a society, (ii) the labor theory of value as interpreted by the "new interpretation" school is not Marx's but Smith's, and (iii) the "macro-monetary interpretation" and the "temporal single system interpretation" are labor theories of value in capitalist society that Marx argued in Capital.特集 : 『資本論』数理化研究の最先端

著者

森本 壮亮

出版者

京都大学経済学会

雑誌

経済論叢 (ISSN:00130273)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.184, no.4, pp.57-70, 2010-10