From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Oct 01 2007 - 07:27:15 EDT
--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote: > Remember Ajit I said that I have not read Brenner, > so I was acting > as devils advocate here, trying to make a coherent > reconstruction from the > summary that Gerry posted. > In part what is at issue is a matter of how one > defines profit. I agree > that in the Ricardian view interest is paid out of > profit, and is a share of > profit. Marx would also agree that interest payments > by capitalists are > paid out of surplus value but he does not treat the > latter as identical > to profit, distinguishing between profit of > enterprise and interest. > > Whilst at a high level of abstraction, concerning > only the relationship > between the major classes, it is legitimate to treat > interest as a share > of profit, at a lower level of abstraction the > difference becomes significant > as Steindl and Sweezy argued in the the 50s. High > interest rates will reduce > the ratio between dividends and capital stock, since > less is available to distribute > as dividends, thus the apparent profitability > experienced by equity capital falls. > ( in practice this would be expressed as a fall in > the price of equities ). > But we know that there has been a long term rise in > the price of equities, > and, over the last 20 years interest rates have been > relatively low. But > from Brenners perspective this might be seen as an > aberation from the > long term history of capitalism brough about by > anxieties on the part of > the Fed to avoid recession. Suppose that instead of > the dollar being > fiat money, it was still tied to gold. Would the Fed > have been able to > sustain these low interest rates? Would equity > prices have continued to rise > for so long? ___________________________ This is quite interesting. All this time the left and post-Keynesians have been blaming Milton Freedman and the central banks for following tight money policy. Now, all of a sudden the central banks are to be blamed for being too Keynesian and not following Freedman. In my opinion, Keynes and also Sraffa were of the opinon that rate of profits is a conventional margin on given rate of interest. From this point of view a lot of class struggle and political economics of the ruling class could be descerned in the interest rate policy. It has been one of the explanations of a shift in income distribution from the working class to the propertied class because of the Freedmanite monetary policy. So I don't know how to place Brenner's thesis in this context. ________________________________ > > However the factor that Steindl focused on was the > tendancy for the gearing > ratio of industrial capital to rise, and thus for > the amount of retained profits > to fall. He argued that this can result in lower > rates of accumulation. > This cause is independent of the rate of interest > since a higher gearing > ratio means, at any given rate of interest, the rate > of profit of enterprise > will be lower. ________________________ But what those people who are getting high rate of interest are doing with it? The problem with this story is that it does not have a theory of interest. What determines the rate of interest? ______________________ > You say " What if you are investing your own > savings only? the rate of profits takes interest > into > account." > > If you were that would be true, but one has to ask > whether the dynamics > of accumulation make that a typical case? > > I would say that accumulation out of a capitalists > own savings whilst > it may be the aboriginal condition, is not > characteristic of a mature > capitalist economy. Given that there is always a > dispersion of profit > rates relative to the rate of interest, the > population of capitalists > polarises into those whose current business, whilst > profitable > gives less than the rate of interests, and those > whose rate of profit > is greater than the rate of interest. The former > group will tend to lend > money at interest to the latter. So over time the > former group transform > into a class of rentiers, gaining their profits from > interest rather than > direct commericial profit. ____________________ But wouln't it be crazy for the capitalists to continue to invest if their rate of profits is lower than the going rate of interest? Remember, the story is about the long-term trend, so these capitalists will have to be simply crazy. ____________________________ > > What happens then when the rate of interest rises - > a section of the > firms who had previously borrowed to accumulate will > find that their > current rate of profit not longer suffices to meet > the interest payments. > In order to continue operations they have to rely > upon lines of credit > extended by the banks, which in turn further raises > their gearing ratio, > making it harder in the future for them to carry out > internal accumulation. _____________________ As I said above, it does not sound like a plausible long-term story. __________________ > > I can conceed your point on the misleading nature of > the ratio c/v, but my > argument could be more clearly expressed by saying > that the ratio of capital > stock, evaluated in person years, to the current > productive working population. > If this rises, the rate of profit falls. I would > anticipate that the > Chinese economy, which has such a high rate of > accumulation, and now, > a relatively stable population, will be experiencing > such a rise in capital > stock relative to population. This will tend over > time to reduce the rate > of profit in China. I would doubt that net > accumulation in the USA is currently > fast enough to significantly act to reduce profit > rates. _________________________ I'm not convinced. Let's leave the question of C/V aside. Unless you have a theory of barier to growth, as long as techniques remain the same, why should the rate of profits fall. And why should technology become less efficient, unless you have some kind of diminishing returns. So the fall in the rate of profits must be explained by rise in wages. ________________________ > ------------------------ > > c) An increase in unproductive employment can > > consume surplus value and lead > > to a lower rate of profit. This may well have > > been occuring recently. > ____________________ > How is surplus consumed cannot reduce the rate of > profits; but, of course, it can reduce the rate of > accumulation as Smith argued. > -------------------------------- > > It depends on where the unproductive workers are > employed. > If they are just personal servants, yes it has no > effect > on profit, since they are paid out of distributed > profits. > If on the other hand they are advertising and > sales staff for example, their wages appear in the > accounts > like any other employee even though, in aggregate, > from > the standpoint of the whole economy, they are > unproductive. > They will thus tend to lower the rate of profit by > increasing the wage bill prior to profit being > calculated. _______________________ This is an interesting point, which I hope you could develop further. This could be your new source of diminishing returns. But you will have to explain why this source of cost must increase proportionately more as output rises. One may expect that with rise in output, the share on ad. etc. may fall. But there is a theoretical potential here in trying to work it through monopolistic or oligopolistic competitive models. _________________________ > > You ask, speaking of the surplus: > --------------- > If it is consumed one way or the other, how could it > reduce aggregate demand? > ---------------- > > I think one has to view Brenner as being in the > Sweezy tradition > and speaking of the reduction in aggregate demand > that would > occur were it not for remedial action by the state. > Sweezy arguing > that it was military expenditure, Brenner arguing > that it was > the extension of consumer credit. > Whilst military expenditure can go on and on, > consumer credit > does have limits to its extension. As the level of > personal debt > rises, the incidence of default rises and the > process must > come to a halt. > > > Paul Cockshott ____________________ But you would agree that Sweezy did not have a well nit theory. Long-run trends must be worked out on the analysis of real economy not on bubbles and speculations.Cheers, ajit sinha > > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of ajit sinha > Sent: Sun 9/30/2007 2:18 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Robert Brenner, "That hissing? > It's the sound of bubblenomics deflating" > > At last something to bite on! > --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote: > > > Ajit, I think that there are more unbound > variables > > in the system than you allow. > > > > Consider first the issue of rate of profit. You > are > > quite right to point out that > > one would expect this to be negatively correlated > > with wages, so that lower > > wages would tend to imply higher profit rates. But > > there are several possible > > confounding variables. > > > > You identify rent among these and say that this > > would only be relevant in the case of > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT