>Devine, James wrote: > >>Rakesh writes: >Doug H and Fred M have both argued that spike of >>profit rate (as conventionally measured) especially in the 90s was >>a result influx of foreign capital, which reduced borrowing costs. < >> >>I missed this. I don't know what Doug and Fred argue here, but I >>think Marx's theory that the profit rate is determined >>independently of -- and largely constrains -- the interest rate is >>a good one. Since I see the profit rate as determined by >>accumulation, technological change, class struggles, etc., I don't >>see how a temporary spike in interest rates could determine the >>profit rate. BTW, the profit rate I use has both interest and >>non-interest profits in the numerator. >>JD > >I missed that too. I think the reason for the rise - it was much too >long and extended to be a "spike" - in the profit rate from 1982-97 >was the result of wage cuts, speedup, quicker turnover time, >outsourcing, etc. etc. Most of the things in Marx's "countervailing >factors" were in play, and successfully.
why not cheaper circulating capital, raw materials in particular--as Prabhat Patnaik argues? of course that makes us think out of the national box; maybe if capital is a global social relation, a national rate of profit has no more significance as to the state of the system as a whole than would the profit rate in global shoe or oil industry. am i wrong that you have often said that much, if not most, of the increase in the profit rate as you were measuring was the result of a decline in interest costs? Rakesh
