IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Hi Vicenç >>> The question then would be: are we producing more goods and >>> are we able to produce more services with the existing money >>> capital or do we just have more money capital? >>That is why you have to look at statistics for real GDP rather than >> just nominal GDP, right? > Then you think that deflating GDP you have a proper knowledge of the real output and that it is comparable with previous periods. No, I just think that you can make a statistical adjustment to see how GDP has changed independently of changes in the average price level (inflation or deflation). This isn't that hard to do statistically (contracts with cost-of-living agreements have a similar calculation which allows one to see how real wages have changed and adjust accordingly) but, of course, it doesn't resolve other issues concerning GDP accounting. > An example to the contrary, the sports shoes manufactured in Asia > may have 10% of third world labour costs devoted > to production and 90% of first world well paid "services" value added. I agree that there are accounting issues associated with MNCs. E.g. the corporations, for tax-liability reasons, may 'cook the books' and make it appear as if revenues generated from one location/subsidiary were generated in another. Among other things, this creates some problems for GDP accounting. > Anothe example, when introducing technical changes, only one part goes to > lowering price the other goes to increasing profits (or wages): The > conclusion, a product with more profit per unit of real costs, whatever > system you use to measure it. Irrespective of competition forces. How does that lead to problems concerning the meaurement of aggregate (rather than individual) profit? The increase in individual profit for one firm _may be_ offset by a loss in profit by other capitalists. I.e. there is a redistribution of surplus value and profit with technical change. > Profits in relation to the output real measure (the work embodied) > seem to have increased, accumulating - apparent - wealth. Increasing the > impression of rate of profit increase. > Am I right? Rates of return on investment have been going up, haven't they? This, though, doesn't mean that rates of profit have also been going up since these two rates are measured quite differently. E.g. where there is fictitious capital, RRIs can go up but 'eventually' .... In solidarity, Jerry
- [OPE-L] CFP: Rethinking Marxism 2006, glevy Thu 16 Mar 2006, 11:32 GMT
- [OPE-L] Measuring the rate of profit, ope-admin Thu 16 Mar 2006, 11:30 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Measuring the rate of profit, Jerry Levy Thu 16 Mar 2006, 13:18 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [OPE-L] Measuring the rate of profit, ope-admin Sat 18 Mar 2006, 14:27 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Measuring the rate of profit, Jerry Levy Sun 19 Mar 2006, 13:04 GMT
- [OPE-L] The Limits Of Matticks Economics-Ron Rothbart, glevy Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:46 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] The Limits Of Matticks Economics-Ron Rothbart, Paul Bullock Sat 25 Mar 2006, 20:57 GMT
- [OPE-L] Leopoldina Fortunati on the meaning of the mobile phone, glevy Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:31 GMT
- [OPE-L] Marxian trivia question, Jerry Levy Tue 14 Mar 2006, 22:28 GMT