Michael Perelman wrote: > Let me mention a couple of extra complications to the idea of normal profits. > > If you want to have a measure of real profits, let alone normal profits, you have to > have a measure of both inflation and depreciation. We don't. We have seen how > difficult measuring inflation is with the nonsense coming out of the Boskin > Commission. Depreciation is even more difficult to measure. > > Someone said that, for Marx, profits depend on the surplus. But a rate of profit > requires a measure of the capital stock, which is virtually impossible to measure -- > even in theory. So, even average profits remain an abstraction. _____________ I don't know what sense to make of this post. What inflation or deflation has got to do with calculating the generalized rate of profits? It is a measure for a given point in time, it has nothing to do with changes in prices. And if the calculation of the generalized rate of profits is "abstract", then what economic calculation could be characterized as "concrete"? By the way, that "someone" you are referring to must have a name. Guess who that could be? Cheers, ajit sinha > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
