Re: zero average profit

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 04:16:30 EDT

Ian Wright wrote:

> Hello Allin,
> >"Only individual capitals can have non-zero absolute profit".  I
> >disagree.  Profit is the difference between income and outlay or
> >costs.  In my toy example the capitalists (in aggregate) had outlay
> >or costs of 50 (their wage bill) and income of 100.  Of course, their
> >total _expenditure_ (including their purchases of luxuries produced
> >during the unpaid portion of the social working day) was 100, and
> >equal to their aggregate income.
> Ah, I understand now. This was the flaw. I was conflating changes
> in aggregate money holdings with profits. Therefore my previous post
> does not apply to the profit rate but applies to aggregate money
> holdings. I'll take your advice and read Kalecki on this. Thanks
> for pin-pointing the source of my confusion. Are there any particular works
> of Kalecki that you'd recommend?
> -Ian.

It is probably best to read the collection
'Essays in the dynamics of the capitalist economy' first and
then read 'Theory of economic dynamics'

> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

Paul Cockshott
Dept Computing Science
University of Glasgow

0141 330 3125

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT