I'll let everyone else go out on a limb on this one. There are so many
factors off-the-books that comparing profits from decade to
decade can't be
a question of comparing REPORTED profits. One item that would reduce
reported corporate earnings if it was on the books is the issuing of stock
At 10:21 AM 1/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
I do not see Jim's calculations as incompatible with Doug's table. If we
calculate the intrst/profit ratios from Doug's table (see below) we get a
picture of rather wide fluctuations. A similar conclusions can be reached
from Jim's calculations, as his
Doug Henwood wrote,
Corporations also want to report the highest possible profits to their
shareholders, esp in these days of heightened rentier scrutiny. So I think
this off the books stuff may be exaggerated.
"Off-the-books" can also refer to (non)expenses treated in such a way as to
fluff
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--_=_NextPart_000_01BE3B45.993A5970
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 1999
RELEASED TODAY: The proportion of full-time employees with medical care
Tom Walker wrote:
I'll let everyone else go out on a limb on this one. There are so many
factors off-the-books that comparing profits from decade to decade can't be
a question of comparing REPORTED profits.
Corporations also want to report the highest possible profits to their
shareholders, esp
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Nathan Newman wrote:
But isn't looking at profits as a share of US GDP besides the point? The
real measure should be percentage of the global capitalist economy's GDP.
That US corporate profits are holding even during a global depression
seems to be a rather strong
I'll let everyone else go out on a limb on this one. There are so many
factors off-the-books that comparing profits from decade to decade can't be
a question of comparing REPORTED profits. One item that would reduce
reported corporate earnings if it was on the books is the issuing of stock
Doug:
Profits are hihgly manipulatable. The following was posted a few months ago,
but relevant to this discussion.
One more factor to take into consideration is "creative" corporate accounting
procedures. With a view
towards the importance the market assigns to corporate earnings, distortive
Businessfolks not only have to pursue profit, but also avoid those
decisions that would make them look like total assholes in retrospect.
Historically these two vectors have had some fascinating interplay.
How 'bout just one more 5-o'clocker, ole buddy?
Dennis R Redmond wrote:
the US and the EU are still growing, albeit sluggishly
Some talking head on CNBC said yesterday that "the slowdown in Europe is
gathering steam," a pretty funny turn of phrase. But is it true? Can you
Yurpeans help out here?
Doug
I took a course once at the NYU grad school on Financial Accounting. After
a few weeks a classmate asked the instructor: "Which are the real books?"
A pause, then the instructor answered "The real books? You keep them
upstairs."
Gene
Doug:
Profits are hihgly manipulatable. The
G'day Ellen and Jim,
Jim writes:
IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the
strength of the US profit rate
I get confused here. Many 1998 annual reports within the Fortune 500
pointed at DECLINING profits, no? And might we not be conflating 'core
business'
Here's a followup to yesterday's post on U.S. corporate profits. This is
from NIPA table 1.16, covering nonfinancial corporate business only. EBIT
is Wall Street jargon for "earnings before interest and taxes," the sum of
columns one and two. Interest is deducted before reporting profits (unlike
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Most of the improvement in US corporate profitability is the result of
-lower interest costs. Add together profits and interest (to get some
-measure of the corporate surplus) and there's
At 09:59 PM 1/7/99 +0100, Doug wrote:
OK, so here's my summary based on table 1.14 from the US national income
product accounts. I'm away from my reference books, but as I remember the
convention, net interest is paid by business to households.
In the SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS, they treat
I do not see Jim's calculations as incompatible with Doug's table. If we
calculate the intrst/profit ratios from Doug's table (see below) we get a
picture of rather wide fluctuations. A similar conclusions can be reached
from Jim's calculations, as his different base years represent high, mid
16 matches
Mail list logo
