From: OPE-L Administrator (ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 07:05:03 EST
From: Paul Cockshot <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 18:23, S.Mohun wrote: > clyder@gn.apc.org wrote: > > > > Response: I don't follow this. But empirically it is wrong. Over > the period 1964-2001 for the US economy, we have > > > 1964-1972: OCC greater than VCC > > > 1973-1991: VCC greater than OCC > > > 1992-2001: OCC and VCC virtually identical. > > > > > > To give some idea of orders of magnitude: > > > In 1964 TCC = 41.06, OCC = 3.67, VCC = 3.48. > > > In 2000 TCC = 66.13, OCC = 4.46 and VCC = 4.45 > > > > > > > Could you please give the dimensions of the units involved. > > TCC: (Net Fixed Assets of productive sectors in) chained 1996 dollars > per hour (of productive labour) Why do you not use hours as the valuation of the fixed assets - is it because you only have aggregate figures? > OCC: (Net Fixed Assets of productive sectors in) chained 1996 dollars > per chained 1996 dollar (of the gross wages paid to productive > labour). The denominator is deflated by an implicit price deflator for > NDP, so the real wages are product wages. > VCC: (Net Fixed Assets of productive sectors in) current prices per > current dollar (gross wage cost of productive labour) > > > > > I assume that OCC and VCC are supposed to be dimensionless, but > there must be some implicit imputation of a stock to variable > > capital in this. When doing so, what time period do you use. > > Annual BLS data adjusted to match NIPA data. > Then your dimension of OCC should surely be: $/($/year) = years
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 00:00:00 EST