Re: US Trade Deficit As 'World Engine Of Growth'?

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Davidson wrote: [obvious misspellings corrected]

>In my view, you are just confused-- It has nothing to do with final
>demand inflation -- only that the present value of a future stream of
>quasi-rents associated with a new piece of real investment exceeds the
>present cost of producing that piece of investment.

>If only you would read my book perhaps you might understand.

Perhaps if your book answered the question *why* its pv exceeds its
production cost, in a logical way from stated premises, would it be
understandable.  As it stands you seem to contend a "real" or "certain"
present value based on an uncertain future stream of quasi-rents.
In my book that's just as confusing as Gunnar's fundamental disavowal of
profits in a naturally growing (fundamentally without "new" investment)
uncertain economy.

Only if the present is deemed uncertain, or better said indeterminate,
can progress in these discussions be made.  It can then be shown that
capital can only "have been" and not "is" profitable; based not on any
level of wages, but on the degree of direct spending of profit income
within the time limit set by creditors with the power to pull the plug.
  Thereby understanding that the value of a capital isn't "self-
determined", but determined inversely instead, through other capitals;
and that "profit" isn't a malfeasance, but its non-redistribution is.

"New and improved" productive capital can be adequately provided through
depreciation schedules in the private sector; and if need be supplemented
through government assistance, both for the true mega projects and the
aspiring new entrepreneur.  But damning casino capitalism, while at the
same time extolling the virtues of the "real" investor while he's been
robbing Peter to pay Paul, is no more than exculpating the race to the
bottom.
We have to move beyond confusion and contradiction to prevent the latter.

John V