Unfortunately, supporters of TOFE did not manage to the optimum plan of functioning of economy that it is possible to explain with the following reasons. First the problem of determination of abstract usefulness of the benefits was not solved in practice. Secondly, this theory in a floor ache to a measure after all did not overcome cost approach that was expressed, in particular, in understanding of the condition of achievement of the optimum plan. It was is formulated as equality of public usefulness of all benefits to socially necessary costs of their production. Thus it turned out that usefulness of the benefits is defined by costs of their creation that quite corresponds to logic of the cost concept.
Concrete work provides creation of new costs. The increase in volume of concrete work means a gain of resources as most concrete work, as well as work abstract. Really, one costs provide restoration of labor in physiological sense, others are used during the training, professional development of, etc. Therefore V. I. Kornyakov considers that the of concrete work is not "expense", and "arrival" of society. Therefore, it is necessary to speak not about "expenses", and about "receipts" of concrete work.
Secondly, borders of use of new equipment and a are unfairly narrowed. As only the economy on a salary, but not the total amount of the released live work is taken into account, very many NTP at such calculation can be.
or such problem in general is unsoluble, or the economic theory pays still insufficient attention to a factor. More correct to us furnishes the second explanation. It is necessary to have more accurate how the human factor works, what impact it has on achievement of economy of work.
The gain of real public wealth is connected with increase in volume of the material and spiritual benefits, i.e. potrebitelny costs. Therefore the potrebitelny cost (usefulness) as economic category in the center of attention of rational model of a.
Supporters of rational model consider that in conditions the cost concept prevailing now in literature and in economic practice more and more shows the limitation and has to be replaced essentially by other, potrebitelno-cost, approach. In justification of this conclusion it is possible to adduce two arguments.
which consists in release of live work. Such the concrete work creating a potrebitelny provides these or those useful properties of the separate benefits which then in the sphere of consumption of these benefits provide economy, release of work abstract.
In the third, distinctions "expensive" and "creating" ) are shown in the course of technical rationing of work. The output quite often is defined in normo-hours. The number of the normo-hours worked workers - coincides with the actual operating time only in that case when rated tasks in accuracy it is carried out. If norms are not carried out, the number of normo-hours will be less actually spent. The I fir-trees rated tasks are exceeded, production volume in normo-hours will be more, than, which is actually spent by workers.
Let's consider a problem of measurement of size of work now. Contrary to abstract work it cannot be measured by expenses of working hours. As we already found out, the direct, direct connection between the size of expenses of working hours and a of concrete work does not exist.
Therefore potrebitelny cost as category expresses absolutely other relations, than cost; if cost expresses the relations of people concerning work expenses, a potrebitelny - concerning results of work.
V. I. Kornyakov rather reasonably, in our opinion, draws a conclusion about existence of two values of the worker of a - "expensive" and "creating". Time of concrete work - not "expensive", and "creating". Distinctions between two values of working hours are shown in a number of situations.
From everything told it is possible to draw a conclusion that of concrete work are not actually. Their qualities only expenses physiological sense (abstract work fully possess. First, a resource of these expenses at each this moment opportunities of a human body. Secondly, at implementation of these expenses the certain resources of abilities to work which were available at the moment are irrevocably used. Thirdly, on a work physiological expenses do not act as something, directly or indirectly satisfying physical or spiritual needs of the person. These expenses