→Misusing sources: new section |
Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
Jurriaan, why did you reinsert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall&diff=614728882&oldid=613939232 all this stuff] even after I pointed out problems with synthesis, original research, and misuse of sources? These articles are not your personal soapbox, and you are not exempt from wikipedia's policies. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
Jurriaan, why did you reinsert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall&diff=614728882&oldid=613939232 all this stuff] even after I pointed out problems with synthesis, original research, and misuse of sources? These articles are not your personal soapbox, and you are not exempt from wikipedia's policies. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]], looking at that editor's contributions, it would appear that some "vandalism" on other articles may need restoring, and someone may need to read [[WP:NOTVAND]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:50, 28 June 2014
Economics B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Socialism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Translation
There is a french translation : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baisse_tendancielle_du_taux_de_profit I don't know how to add a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.178.85 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Preconditions of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
1) In a branch, firms, which, with a given amount of invested capital, can produce the most, have an advantage against competitors. Therefore firms try to out-produce each other.
2) To increase production (or production capacity) firms can enlarge their enterprise by investing their profits on the basis of the given technique. More workers, more means of production are used with the same technique.
3) To increase production (or production capacity) firms can increase investments per worker in order to increase production per worker. The technical composition of capital rises thereby.
4) In order that for a firm it is rational to use profits to increase the technical composition of capital (the capital intensity) by a certain percentage, it is necessary that thereby production per worker is increased by a larger percentage. Otherwise more production could be achieved by investing profits in capacity enlargements on the basis of the existing technique.
5) Therefore, an incentive for firms to use profits to increase the technical composition of capital by a certain percentage exists, if thereby production per worker can be increased by a larger percentage.
6) In so far as this incentive is given, firms will try to increase the technical composition of capital as much as possible. They will try to increase it, if possible, by a percentage, which is larger than the preceding rate of growth of the productivity of their workers. (They might use only their profits to finance more investments per worker, but they can also borrow money from banks or merge with other firms. Capital concentration – growth of single firms – goes hand in hand with capital centralisation – the number of firms declines in order to allow even higher growth rates for the remaining firms.)
7) If this continues to happen, if an increase in the productivity of labour in firms is followed by an even larger increase in the technical composition of capital, then it follows mathematically, that growth of employment will slow down, employment will even shrink sooner or later. According to the labour theory of value, this means that the rate of profit must decrease. (It might suffice to say, that employment must finally shrink. This is sufficient for a tendency for crisis to come about.)
8) So, the condition for a slowing down of employment growth or for a falling rate of profit is, that firms have an incentive to increase the technical composition of capital more (in %) than the productivity of their workers has increased (in %).
9) If this incentive is given, firms are caught in a rationality trap or in a prisoners’ dilemma. It is rational for individual firms to increase the technical composition of capital more than labour productivity has risen, but for the collective of firms, for the economy as a whole, this leads to crisis.
Alex1011 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Change to "Marx's Argument" Section
I don't mean to be presumptuous or mean, but I took the liberty of changing the intro to this section in order to more accurately reflect Marx's own explanation and the terms he uses in that explanation, as found in Capital, vol. 3, chapter 2 and chapter 13, as well as to draw the connections between these terms as Marx draws them. The previous intro offered a general idea of Marx's argument, but in such as way as to confuse some of the key elements going into that argument. The use of "technology" in place of Marx's "constant capital," for example, gives us only a tiny fraction of the ingredients that go into constant capital. The intro was right to point out the pardoxical character of the decline in profits in spite of rising productivity, but failed to point out the relation of surplus value to variable capital inherent in the term productivity; and thus the reason behind the paradox remained somewhat obscure, when in fact Marx's argument makes this relation plainly evident.
I also added Marx's argument in mathematical terms.
The rest of the section is good and I left it as is.
--Rainercale 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You say "and since profit equals surplus value divided by total capital ...", don't you mean "since the rate of profit equals ..." I believe that "profit" is different than "rate of profit" and is arrived at by a different calculation (profit = revenue - (variable expenses + depreciation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.56.57 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Addition to Criticism of Marx's Interpretation of TRPF section
I added a fourth response to the criticism.
The page in general could use better documentation of its sources.
--Rainercale 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Philosophy? Why not Economics?
I understand that the theory of TRPF has been discredited by modern economists. But I don't quite see why this article falls under the domain of philosophy rather than economics. It is apparent that this theory once pervaded economic thinking, especially during the Great Depression and the aftermath of WW2. I won't claim to know how the WikiGods organize articles into projects, but it seems to me that this should be categorized as Economics instead of Philosophy. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Amen friend....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Unqualified editors, back off!!!
I am very annoyed to find that the article which I originated, has been edited by people who obviously do not know what they are talking about, resulting in a lot of deformed waffle in the article, instead of a clear explanation of the concept and its implications User:Jurriaan 19 July 2009 13:10 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.183.8 (talk)
The Correct Adam Smith Quote
Book I, Chapter X, Part I, Pg.132 in The Modern Library Classics edition (unabridged)..The paragraph heading is "and higher profits". I feel qualified to assist you since I read the whole text....Now get out from under your bridge, dust your ego off and make it right. Gee whiz if you can,t hack this striving for perfection ditch it!!--Oracleofottawa (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Okishio
I don't see how the Okishio argument is at all relevant to the Marxist articulation of the falling rate of profit. Okishio says, if unit prices remains the same, the rate of profit will rise, but that's obvious to anyone with half a brain. Marx's point, however, was that unit prices will not remain the same.Alexandergreenb (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"In terms of mainstream economics"
The section entitled "In terms of mainstream economics" pretty much has nothing to do with mainstream economics, aside perhaps from the first sentence. In mainstream economics the falling rate of profit is a result of diminishing returns to capital and that's it. Volunteer Marek 00:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
TRPF or LTFRP?
see above; Marx uses the term 'law of the tendential falling rate of profit' and its abbreviation is thus LTFRP not TRPF.
Also, reference #2 should be removed. It leads to an irrelevant source (http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=9836) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Spruce-up
I have tried to spruce up the article I started, and bring it up to speed with current controversies. I have fitted the references into notes.Jurriaan (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Reduction edits?
At this stage the article has about 17,800 words, 97,700 characters, 1,500 lines and 136,000 bytes. If that is too long, I would like to hear that from readers first, and I would prefer people to discuss this rationally, before Nikkimaria once more autocratically runs roughshod over the article to reduce its size by any means possible.Jurriaan (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have noticed that User:Nikkimaria is cutting out chunks of the article and condensing things, without explanation or discussion. I guess that means my contribution therefore ends. If people want to see the uncut full version, they can consult the version of 22 May 2014 in the archive annex of this article.Jurriaan (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies?
In writing this article, I have done my best to cover all the main controversies in the Marxian tradition, as well as noting ideas outside that tradition. I cannot help it, if criminal editors destroy the valid content of the article by simply removing referenced text that explained different points.Jurriaan (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Salon link
It is perhaps of interest that Salon.com hyperlinked to this wiki article [1] so, despite attacks against the article, I have not done so badly, it seems.Jurriaan (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Misusing sources
Jurriaan, why did you reinsert all this stuff even after I pointed out problems with synthesis, original research, and misuse of sources? These articles are not your personal soapbox, and you are not exempt from wikipedia's policies. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- bobrayner, looking at that editor's contributions, it would appear that some "vandalism" on other articles may need restoring, and someone may need to read WP:NOTVAND. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)