Doug, Gee, Solow and Samuelson never thought of it either, when defending the
idea of the production function. Luckily they had Joan Robinson to call it to
their attention.
But you and I are talking about different profit rates, as Daniel Davies has just
pointed out.
Gene Coyle
Doug Henwood w
I think you missed Doug's sarcasm, or I have missed
his seriousness.
the public sector people are quite well educated. sometimes
they are given things to do that are impossible to do well.
but they still have to do them. they are not paid as well as
some in the private sector, but you would be
To be fair, although there are known serious problems with depreciation, the
WorldCom and Global Crossing affaires aren't really relevant to the
statistics Doug quoted. The assets of WorldCom and Global Crossing are
worth exactly what they were worth before the meltdown, as stock market
movement
Eugene Coyle wrote:
>How do you adjust for the change in "capital" in telecom companies, before and
>after the melt-down? What's the denominator?
Gee, better contact the folks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. I
bet they never thought of this!
In fact, I'm sure they've never thought of many
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:48:16 +0100, Davies, Daniel wrote:
>I take your point here (that is, if I understand
>you correctly as saying that we' re talking
>about imperialism rather than poverty per se
>here). But would you have said the same thing
>about Spain twenty years ago?
No. Spain had a rat
-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 April 2002 19:45
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:25116] Re: RE: Profit Rates -- From Michael Yates
>What do you meant that poor countries accrue interest liabilities that they
>don't pay? I wa
Gene, this is one of the great secrets of economics. Of course, everyone knows,
as Jim mentioned, that we have no theory of depreciation, but we go on pretending
that out data is of good quality.
Eugene Coyle wrote:
> How do you adjust for the change in "capital" in telecom companies, before an
How do you adjust for the change in "capital" in telecom companies, before and
after the melt-down? What's the denominator?
World Com
Global Crossing
etc.
I vote with the Cambridge UK folks.
Max Sawicky wrote:
> but according to the Cambridge UK folks, you can't measure
> capital stock t
Max writes:>but according to the Cambridge UK folks, you can't measure
capital stock to begin with . . .<
you can measure aggregate capital stocks (K), simply by multiplying price
times quantity of each type and then adding up, but the question is what
that measurement means. The Cambridge UK fol
Daniel Davies:
>> Isn't it the case that more money flows from the poor countries
>>to the rich ones than vice versa? Repatriated profits, interest, etc.
>>are greater than than the inflow of money to the poor countries.
>
>Vastly depends on your definition of a "poor country". If you mean
>no
but according to the Cambridge UK folks, you can't measure
capital stock to begin with . . . To me the interest rate(s) is
more meaningful, since at least it is observed and is the
object of literal transactions, unlike "capital."
profits are susceptible to what I suspect are flaky inventory
val
11 matches
Mail list logo
