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*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- 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