Don Braytom wrote:
>
>First, let me see if I understand the theory of overproduction.
>
>If a community develops  a medium of exchange (hereinafter
>referred to as money ) which is possible to have accumulate,
>individuals will develop various types of pockets into which
>it may be accumulated.  In the modern context, this varies
>widely: from mattresses to checking and savings accounts
>to instruments of investment.  Accumulated money, like the
>potential energy of gasoline in a tractor, may be better
>controlled than immediate barter, like the use of horses.
>One who has had the will and ability to do the accumulation
>now holds an advantage over those who must act ad hoc
>with their efforts because he can use time and reason to
>plan its expenditure.  Most likely, the plan will have the
>objective of fulfilling a need in the market,

No in the "modern", ie capitalist, context the OBJECT is to accumulate more
money, the STRATEGY would be to fulfill "a need in the market".

 an accumulated
>scarcity, as it were, which is merely people with a willingness
>and ability to pay for a product or service. Underproduction
>occurs when the planning results in a quantity which does
>not fulfill  the need.   Overproduction occurs when the
>planning succeeds in fulfilling the need so that the
>willingness to buy goes away (I might add that the latter
>occurs most often when an unexpected and significant
>advance in technology occurs serendipitously or when the
>planning provided for research to develop such an advance).

"Overproduction", in the marxist context, occors when the process results
in no further profit, not necessarily when the need is fulfilled. As such
the problem is one of under-profitablity, rather than overproduction.
Although overproduction could be the reason for the crisis of
profitability, it it not necessarily so. I guess socialists must take the
blame for this misunderstanding because we are sometimes sloppy in use of
language.
>
>I realize that this scenario emphasizes the benign and avoids
>the malignant side of what you might call overproduction.
>Lets get into that after you comment on the above.
>
I'm interested. Go on.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Bill Bartlett