: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20611] RE: Re: Re: Stupid profit rate question
Sorry if I misinterpreted.
I agree that corporate influence is an eternal problem,
but it is the least interesting one analyti
Sorry if I misinterpreted.
I agree that corporate influence is an eternal problem,
but it is the least interesting one analytically.
Even if without any such influence, there is an
intrinsic problem of contracting in some areas simply
because running a contract system has costs,
both government
Max, I never intended to implement contracting out would be easy. You
gave a number of examples of government screw-ups. Won't they be almost
inevitable so long as the government is permeated with corporate
influence?
"Max B. Sawicky" wrote:
> MP suggested contracting was an easy alternative,
tivities because it
is claimed that this is the best way to get innovative science done.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 11:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20588] Re: Re: Re: Re: Stupid profit rate q
Retorts Max:
So snap judgements founded on ideology about
the mere identity of ownership and management
(public or private) are of limited use. But do go on
with your bad self.
=
It is in eliciting these rather more considered ruminations on the
problems of redistribution that I have ma
.
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20575] RE: Re: Stupid profit rate question
The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system,
evaluate contract proposals, monitor
. . . And then, only *after* the collapse/bankruptcy
of some monopolistic utility (e.g. Enron, Railtrack,
NATS), will the state "intervene" to clean up the
mess and shore up a fundamentally bankrupt
system.Michael K.
Public ownership and management are more
appropriate in some cases tha
Sez Max:
The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system,
evaluate contract proposals, monitor contract compliance,
enforce contracts, and have substitutes (possibly itself) in the
event of non-performance. It ain't like ordering pizza. Taxing
is definitely easier.
=
The gov d
I was not advocating contracting out. I only mentioned it because Max
suggested difficulties of running a production unit.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:45:32PM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> 12/11/01 8:43:48 PM, "William S. Lear"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at
12/11/01 8:43:48 PM, "William S. Lear"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 18:04:18 (-
0500) Max Sawicky writes:
>>The Gov would have to organize a competitive
bidding system, . . .
>
>Why have bidding? Why not just set up a public
company that hires
>staff to run thi
On Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 18:04:18 (-0500) Max Sawicky writes:
>The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system,
>evaluate contract proposals, monitor contract compliance,
>enforce contracts, and have substitutes (possibly itself) in the
>event of non-performance. It ain't like
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 3:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20575] RE: Re: Stupid profit rate question
> The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system,
> evaluate
The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system,
evaluate contract proposals, monitor contract compliance,
enforce contracts, and have substitutes (possibly itself) in the
event of non-performance. It ain't like ordering pizza. Taxing
is definitely easier.
If the Gov is renting capi
Several people mentioned that taxing is easier than running businesses. Maybe
so, but the experience of running businesses may prove valuable. Also,
business may well be able to use its influence to undermine the taxing more
easily than to create a reprivatization. Finally, both Bill and Gene
Bonjour.
The perpetual come back of "the question of profit rate" is a theoretical
fascinating thing. It means that this question is not yet resolved, despite
the abundant litterature about it. Do you remember Marx's question ("WO
kommt das Geld zur Versilberung des Mehwerts her?" zw.B, 20.K) wh
Sez Max:
Don't own; just tax. Fewer headaches. -- mbs
=
"The Fiscal Crisis of the State", by James O'Connor, new edition
available from Transaction Publishers, 2001. The same headaches for a
lot less tangible return, and no challenge to the hegemonic sanctity of
private property -- indeed
- Original Message -
From: "Eugene Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bill, go for the big drug take-over!!!
> Years ago Wassily Leontief (Nobelist?) took up a question in
the
> Harvard Law Review -- whether the government ought to get the
patents from
> research done with public mon
Bill, go for the big drug take-over!!!
Years ago Wassily Leontief (Nobelist?) took up a question in the
Harvard Law Review -- whether the government ought to get the patents from
research done with public money -- and concluded that it should. "On
Assignment of Patent Rights on inventions
Don't own; just tax. Fewer headaches. -- mbs
I'm just wondering with which markets we should start our program of
public ownership. Bill
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20537] Re: Re: Stupid profit rate
question
Bill wrote
On Monday, December 10, 2001 at 17:31:20
(-0800) Michael Perelman writes:
>Bill, turnover rates are an important factor. If a
supermarket sells a
>loaf of bread each day. The bread costs $1 and it sells for
$1.01
Yes, the criterium that you suggest is appropriate, but mark-ups can be
misleading.
"William S. Lear" wrote:
> I guess I should say that what I'm interested in is a measure of which
> markets are good candidates for public investment. It seems that if
> you have high profit *margins*, low unit
On Monday, December 10, 2001 at 17:31:20 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes:
>Bill, turnover rates are an important factor. If a supermarket sells a
>loaf of bread each day. The bread costs $1 and it sells for $1.01. But
>it makes $3.65 per year on the bread.
I guess I should say that what I'm in
Bill, turnover rates are an important factor. If a supermarket sells a
loaf of bread each day. The bread costs $1 and it sells for $1.01. But
it makes $3.65 per year on the bread.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:20:42PM -0600, William S. Lear wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2001 at 16:15:35 (-0800
The answer -- and which of these you want to look at -- depends on the amount
of capital per unit of sale. For example, supermarkets are always touting the
claim that they make only 1% or 2% on sales. But what do they make on
capital? Somewhere upwards of 15 or 20 or 25% or more?
Other indus
The first year, that would be the profit rate. God knows what the profit
rate should be the second year. What is the depreciation rate? How is it
affected by the business cycle?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:18:45PM -0600, William S. Lear wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2001 at 16:03:05 (-0800)
On Monday, December 10, 2001 at 16:15:35 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes:
>Jim is right. What is the cost per unit? Does it include the
>depreciation of durable plant and equipment? If so, the invested value of
>the durable plant and equipment would be in the denominator.
>
>Because economists
On Monday, December 10, 2001 at 16:03:05 (-0800) Devine, James writes:
>> How does one calculate the profit rate for a given unit cost? I'm
>> assuming it is:
>>
>> 100% * ((profit - unit cost) / unit cost)
>>
>> Is this correct?
>
>If you replace "profit" with "price per unit," that's more
Jim is right. What is the cost per unit? Does it include the
depreciation of durable plant and equipment? If so, the invested value of
the durable plant and equipment would be in the denominator.
Because economists and accountants have no realistic way of putting a
value on durable equipment,
> How does one calculate the profit rate for a given unit cost? I'm
> assuming it is:
>
> 100% * ((profit - unit cost) / unit cost)
>
> Is this correct?
If you replace "profit" with "price per unit," that's more like a profit
margin.
a profit _rate_ would measure total profit [(price - un
How does one calculate the profit rate for a given unit cost? I'm
assuming it is:
100% * ((profit - unit cost) / unit cost)
Is this correct?
So, if something has a unit cost of 2 cents, and sells for 1 dollar,
the profit rate is:
100% * ((100 - 2) / 2)
or, in this case, 4,900%??
Bi
30 matches
Mail list logo
