A while back I forwarded a message concerning this subject to Anwar
Shaikh. Here is his reply--better late than never! Mat
-Original Message-
From: Anwar Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:12 PM
Response to Eric Nilsson
Dear Eric
The issue you raise is
PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:26582] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
Eric Nilsson wrote:
Doug wrote,
Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households, right? It's
an expense for business and an income for households.
Yes indeed that is the case. I guess such a number doesn't add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug wrote,
The concept is that households are
the ultimate holder of business debts - financial institutions are
just intermediaries.
It depends on your theory, I guess. What you say above is reasonable from the
point of view of some economists.
I was just
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26584] Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
for a quick dirty estimate of the surplus, use total property income (as a percentage of the private sector's product): interest plus profit plus rent. JD
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6
Doug wrote,
I was just citing the convention of the NIPAs. Conceptually, the
people who make up households have to be the producers and recipients
of everything, since corps are just legal fictions, no?
It is a fiction that corporations are quasi-persons. Regardless of that,
corporations are
- Original Message -
From: Eric Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:26600] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating
Surplus
Doug wrote,
I was just citing the convention of the NIPAs. Conceptually, the
people
Ian wrote,
Households are suppliers/producers of labor power, no?
Yes, but this does not mean that your economic theory must underline (or
start with) the role of households.
My starting point for understanding economic behavior in capitalism is the
process of surplus generation within the
Eric Nilsson wrote:
Ian wrote,
Households are suppliers/producers of labor power, no?
Yes, but this does not mean that your economic theory must underline (or
start with) the role of households.
I just meant households as a synonym for people. Institutions and
social structures like
Doug wrote,
Institutions and social structures like classes configure those
people in arrangements that make possible surplus generation
and distribution. But the start and end of any economic activity has to be
human
beings doing stuff together.
True. But this do not imply you have to
Sabri Oncu wrote:
How do you like my reformatting Eric? Apparently, I wrote some C
programs. Don't like those object oriented languages though. I am
yet too see their alleged advantage.
What do you say Ravi?
i like to believe that they exist to protect the novices from the
sort of
- Original Message -
From: Eric Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:26603] RE: Estimating Surplus
Ian wrote,
Households are suppliers/producers of labor power, no?
Yes, but this does not mean that your economic
For the NIPA aware.
If you want to come up with a crude estimate for the total surplus generated
by capitalist firms within the US economy, is there anything particularly
wrong with simply summing up various data taken from the National Income
data in NIPA (table 1.14)?
To wit:
Eric Nilsson wrote:
For the NIPA aware.
If you want to come up with a crude estimate for the total surplus generated
by capitalist firms within the US economy, is there anything particularly
wrong with simply summing up various data taken from the National Income
data in NIPA (table 1.14)?
Doug wrote,
Conceptually and practically, it's difficult to separate the labor
income from capital income components of proprietors' income.
Following the recommendation of Mayo Toruno, I'm multiplying proprietors'
income by the ratio of (corp profits / (corp profits + employee comp)). This
Part of properietors' income is really a quasi-wage, and part of
wage salary at the top is really a quasi-capital payment.
I would say net interest paid (not personal interest received)
and rent belong too.
mbs
For the NIPA aware.
If you want to come up with a crude estimate for the
Max wrote,
I would say net interest paid (not personal interest received)
and rent belong too.
I'm not sure about rent as my concern is with surplus generated within an
economic relationship involving wage labor (i.e. capitalism).
The rental income in NIPA is for PERSONS (except for those who
Eric Nilsson wrote:
Of course, I'm not entirely sure whether net interest payments should be
included as profit from lending something scarce (money) need not be profit
from capitalist activities. But I haven't quite figured this out yet.
Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households,
:26570] RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
Max wrote,
I would say net interest paid (not personal interest received)
and rent belong too.
I'm not sure about rent as my concern is with surplus generated within an
economic relationship involving wage labor (i.e. capitalism).
The rental income in NIPA
Re Max's
what about a corporation whose business is rental real estate
that includes improvements to the land?
Such an activity would affect general corporate income, I guess.
Eric
.
Doug wrote,
Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households, right? It's
an expense for business and an income for households.
Yes indeed that is the case. I guess such a number doesn't add to capitalist
surplus.
For what it is worth:
Corporate profits + Estimated profit part of
Part of profits are paid to households too.
I don't see how you can include profits but not net interest paid.
mbs
Doug wrote,
Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households, right? It's
an expense for business and an income for households.
Yes indeed that is the case. I guess
Max wrote,
Part of profits are paid to households too.
I don't see how you can include profits but not net interest paid.
I feel like Reagan, who allegedly was convinced by the last person he talked
with ...
I think I now would include net interest--these payments go to persons (as a
Eric writes:
So now, until I received a message from someone else:
surplus = corp profits
+ proprietors' profits
+ net interest
= 767 + 84 + 554
= 1,400 billion dollars
How do you like my reformatting Eric? Apparently, I wrote some C
programs. Don't like
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26574] RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
Doug wrote,
Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households, right? It's
an expense for business and an income for households.
Eric wrote:
Yes indeed that is the case. I guess such a number doesn't
add to capitalist
Title: RE: [PEN-L:26569] RE: Estimating Surplus
Duménil Lévy, if I remember, split proprietors' income 50/50 between labor capital incomes. They also provide a variety of different estimates. Which you use would depend on what your purpose is. For studying time series, most of DL's
Eric Nilsson wrote:
Doug wrote,
Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households, right? It's
an expense for business and an income for households.
Yes indeed that is the case. I guess such a number doesn't add to capitalist
surplus.
No but it's a subtraction from it. The concept is
Doug wrote,
The concept is that households are
the ultimate holder of business debts - financial institutions are
just intermediaries.
It depends on your theory, I guess. What you say above is reasonable from the
point of view of some economists.
But in the crude marxist theory I work
Jim D wrote,
Which you use would depend on what your purpose is. For
studying time series, most of DL's estimates of the profit
rate mostly move together.
I am hoping to use it to provide students an estimate of the size of the
surplus. A quick and dirty estimate is all I want.
If I was
28 matches
Mail list logo
