On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Sabri Oncu wrote:
Shane:
The measure of (in Marxian terms) "profit" comprises, on an after-
tax
basis: net rental income, net interest income, total executive
salaries,
total dividend income, and (net of properly computed capital
consumption)
corporate retained earnings.
For us mathematicians such words as "properly computed" are vague.
What does "properly computed" mean?
The vagueness is quite intentional, because measurement of capital
consumption involves guesstimation of the economic lifespan of every
individual capital asset, plus an arbitrary allocation of that "moral
and physical wear and tear" over periods of time in that lifespan.
Accounting conventions and tax codes can be roughly accurate
summations only by accident. Since fixed constant capital is consumed
over time and so enters as value into the social gross product, the
*magnitude* of that value in any accounting period must
aggregate to a single number. But the impossibility of properly
calculating capital consumption is far from the only, or worst,
difficulty in the empirical calculation of aggregate surplus value.
All the other components of surplus value, however well-defined in
theory, likewise have very problematic empirical elements, especially
involving the real incidence of taxation.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
