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 options to other than senior management. I think you could argue that options issued to senior management is still profit. But options issued to employees in lieu of other compensation could be viewed as incentive pay -- virtual piece-rates. > >-----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 little change since the >early >-1980s as a share of GDP. > > >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 indicator of expanding profit margins. > >How to measure what the proper GDP that profits should be measured against >is a tough issue, since merely listing global GDP would include certain >non-monetarized sectors or state protected sectors that multinationals are >really not involved directly in exploiting. > >But as with trade numbers, I am suspicious of numerical measures of value >that ignore the wide disparity in wage levels around the world. It may be >true that profits are largely stagnant on investments in the US and >Europe, yet if multinationals are making super-profits in the third world, >they may be at levels of wage exploitation whose obsenity is camoflagued >by ignoring wage disparities between different countries where the >multinationals operate. > >--Nathan Newman > > > > > > > Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
