Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
- 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 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 the major sites of surplus generation and decision-making > for what is to be done with the surplus in modern capitalist economies. I > wonder the extent to which the assertion that households have to be > producers/recipients is due to the requirements of methodological > individualism. > > eric == Households are suppliers/producers of labor power, no? Ian
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
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 the major sites of surplus generation and decision-making for what is to be done with the surplus in modern capitalist economies. I wonder the extent to which the assertion that households have to be producers/recipients is due to the requirements of methodological individualism. eric
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
[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 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? Doug
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
One would also want to put insurance premia paid back into the surplus (they are typically subtracted from profits) in order to treat insurance symmetrically with self-insurance ... -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 June 2002 02:12 To: [EMAIL 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 to capitalist >surplus. No but it's a subtraction from it. The concept is that households are the ultimate holder of business debts - financial institutions are just intermediaries. Doug ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
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 with, the surplus is what is left after "necessary product" is subtracted from output. The surplus goes to various economic actors, but it is still the surplus regardless of who gets it or regardless of what story they tell about why they should get it. Going into pendantic mode ... For instance, presuming the ever popular population corn economy, if I lent you 10 bushels of corn. You planted the corn using wage labor and no tools. Say you end up with 20 bushels of corn. If the workers get 4 bushels in wages, then the surplus you have is 6 bushels of corn (20 - 10 - 4). Included in necessary product is the 10 bushels of corn you gave to me. You give it back to me (thank you!). But I also want interest, say $1. You give me this $1 by taking it out of your 10 surplus. You now have 9 of the surplus while I have 1 of the surplus. But the total surplus remains 10. Here, the business profit is $9 while net interest is $1. But, still, the surplus is $10: profit plus net interest. I might CLAIM that I got the $1 as a reward for my risk-taking, waiting, or some other silly idea. Or, because I was the ultimate holder of corporate debt. But, regardless of what I think was the reason I got the $1 it remains a fact that I got $1 of the surplus. At least that's how I see it. Eric ./
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 to capitalist >surplus. No but it's a subtraction from it. The concept is that households are the ultimate holder of business debts - financial institutions are just intermediaries. Doug
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
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 > surplus. why not? aren't there capitalist households? JD
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
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 payment for the use of their money capital) but the money to pay them came out of the surplus. And, so, net interest payments to persons should be added to corporate profits and proprietors' profits to get total surplus. (The same holds true for tax payments and distributed profits, both of which are already included in corp and proprietors' profits.) So now, until I received a message from someone else: surplus = corp profits + proprietors' profits + net interest = 767 + 84 + 554 = 1,400 billion dollars Eric
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
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 such a number doesn't add to > capitalist > surplus. > > For what it is worth: > Corporate profits + Estimated profit part of proprietors' income > = $767 billion + $84 billion = $851 billion. > > This is a crude estimate of the amount of capitalist surplus, but it is > likely in the ballpark. > > Eric > . >
