Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus

[enilsson@xxxxxxxxx]

Doug wrote,
> The concept is that households are
> the ultimate holder of business debts - financial institutions are
> just intermediaries.

It depends on your theory, I guess. What you say above is reasonable from the
point of view of some economists.

But in the crude marxist theory I work with, the surplus is what is left
after "necessary product" is subtracted from output. The surplus goes to
various economic actors, but it is still the surplus regardless of who gets it
or regardless of what story they tell about why they should get it.

Going into pendantic mode ...

For instance, presuming the ever popular population corn economy, if I lent
you 10 bushels of corn. You planted the corn using wage labor and no tools.
Say you end up with 20 bushels of corn. If the workers get 4 bushels in wages,
then the surplus you have is 6 bushels of corn (20 - 10 - 4).

Included in necessary product is the 10 bushels of corn you gave to me. You
give it back to me (thank you!). But I also want interest, say $1. You give me
this $1 by taking it out of your 10 surplus. You now have 9 of the surplus
while I have 1 of the surplus. But the total surplus remains 10.

Here, the business profit is $9 while net interest is $1. But, still, the
surplus is $10: profit plus net interest.

I might CLAIM that I got the $1 as a reward for my risk-taking, waiting, or
some other silly idea. Or, because I was the ultimate holder of corporate
debt. But, regardless of what I think was the reason I got the $1 it remains a
fact that I got $1 of the surplus.

At least that's how I see it.

Eric
./