[ show plain text ]
I think you are right.
To avoid dual socially average rates of profit, it should be excluded from the determination of the social rate of profit.
But we have still a problem. What should it be then?
It would be a social overhead capital. But it is owned privately by individuals.
Like money. Money is a circulation machine that facilitates a social metabolism, in which sense it is a social overhead capital. But it is privately owned by individuals.
(1) The banking capital should be disregarded in calculating the socially average profit rate.
(2) But the profits on the banking capital is a deduction from the social surplus value.
(3) The running costs of the banking capital (office expenses, some salaries of office workers, etc.) is a deduction of surplus value in its final analysis but this requires another mediation (like pure circulation costs).
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Paul Cockshott
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:39 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:3416] Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: equalisation of profit rates
At 23:45 01/06/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I can see a case for this, if one is trying to measure a "social
>rate of profit". The fixed capital in banking is certainly
>accumulated past labour, and it was accumulated by capitalist
>enterprises in the expectation of profit, even if it does not
>serve as a means of extracting surplus value from current
In that case do publicly owned roads enter into the determination
of the social rate of profit?
Were the roads privately owned they would.
Were the whole economy publicly owned they would enter into
the determination of the maximum growth rate of the stock of
social means of production - the Von Neumann analogue of the
rate of profit?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT