nathan tankus | 1 Jul 2012 08:12
Picon

Re: Profits call the tune

"Everyone who plays this game does it by different rules. Many esteemed Marxist profit-watchers adjust the official stats in numerous ways, such as trying to eliminate “nonproductive” activity. While I understand the interest in jiggering the numbers, no known capitalist can see or feel the adjusted rate of profit. What they (and their shareholders) care about is the actual rate of profit, reported in cash money, relative to the amount of capital that had to be invested to gain the return."

This has been one of my longstanding questions about Marxian analysis (I only just recently got back to a more intensive study of Marx. I'm doing a cursory reading, okay listening, of capital volume one and then I'm going to read it physically and take notes. I'm about half way through listening so far).

Based on the above Doug seems to be arguing that profit to enterprise is what really matters when analyzing trends in a capitalist economy. This leads to an obvious question in my mind. Let's assume for hypothetical example's sake that there is a relatively radical political party that has gained large electoral control in our hypothetical country which is in a devastating recession with high inflation (in short it's the 1970's). Could this party restore profitability to enterprise, shrink inflation and lower unemployment by shrinking other sectors such as unproductive labor and rent? It seems to me that this is a logical conclusion from anything I've read from Marxists and Marx. Yet I've almost never seen it discussed.

Fred Moseley has also emphasized the importance of increases in unproductive labor to the 1970's:

 "there were two main causes
of the decline of the rate of profit in the postwar US economy from the late 1940s to the mid-
1970s: an increase in the capital invested per worker, and an increase in the ratio of
unproductive labor to productive labor. According to my estimates, these two trends contributed
roughly equally to the total decline in the rate of profit during this period (see Moseley 1991,
Chapter 4)."

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/PWCRISIS.pdf

Now I'm not arguing for any particular reform position or that this means capitalism should be saved blah blah blah. Nor am i saying it would really be politically possible for such a platform to succeed anywhere. I'm more interested in knowing whether I've got a decent grasp of the argument or whether I'm missing major pieces that make what I'm suggesting technically impossible.


On another note, I'm not so sure unproductive labor should be completely ignored when calculating the rate of profit. I think perhaps executive pay should factor in too. If the executives think they can dramatically increase their compensation through investment they will do so even if the firm as a whole sees a low profit rate or even sees negative quarters.

--
-Nathan Tankus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Jonathan Nitzan | 1 Jul 2012 13:42
Picon
Favicon

Extended CfP -- "Capitalizing Power: The Qualities and Quantities of Accumulation"

We are extending the CfP deadline to July 21, 2012. Note the possibility of financial assistance below.

****

"Capitalizing Power: The Qualities and Quantities of Accumulation"
A Conference of the Forum on Capital as Power
September 28-30, 2012, York University, Toronto
Abstract Submission Deadline: July 21, 2012

KEYNOTE AND FACULTY GUEST SPEAKERS:
Jeffrey Harrod (University of Amsterdam), Herman Schwartz (University of Virginia), Justin Podur (York University) and J.J. McMurtry (York University).

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE:
We may be able to assist presenters by partly covering the cost of travel and accommodation. This possibility is still tentative; it is conditional on our ability to secure sufficient funding.

CFP:
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/322/

LAST YEAR'S CONFERENCE:
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/320/

***

Recent additions and updates to the Bichler & Nitzan Archives: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/perl/latest

Free to repost and circulate with due attribution under the Creative Commons License (attribution-noncommercial-no derivative). To unsubscribe, reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject field.

--

Jonathan Nitzan Political Science | Social and Political Thought York University 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario, M3J-1P3 Canada Voice: (416) 736-2100, ext. 88822 Fax: (416) 736-5686 Email: nitzan at yorku.ca Website: http://bnarchives.net Discussion Forum: http://www.yorku.ca/cmass/forum/
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Michael Nuwer | 1 Jul 2012 17:34
Picon
Favicon

Re: Profits call the tune

On 7/1/2012 2:12 AM, nathan tankus wrote:
>
> On another note, I'm not so sure unproductive labor should be completely
> ignored when calculating the rate of profit.

You may find some support for this view in:
E. K. Hunt, "The Categories of Productive and Unproductive Labor in 
Marxist Economic Theory," Science & Society Vol. 43, No. 3, (Fall, 
1979), pp. 303-325

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Carrol Cox | 1 Jul 2012 18:03

Re: Profits call the tune

You really should read Postone. Or at least Fredy Perlman. It is disputable
whether there is such a thing as "Marxian economics." Marx wrote a Critique
of capitalism (political economy) at its highest level of abstraction, a
level which _never_ exists in practice. Albritton does suggest that there is
a mid-level theory (considering, e.g., "neoliberalism" or "196h-ce British
liberalism" at a lower level abstraction, but still abstraction, not
description of actuality. Albritton calls what you are talking about, an
analysis/description of what is happening now, _history_, not "economics."
Postone suggests flatly that Marx produced a Critique of Political Economy,
NOT a Critical Political Economy. Fredy Perlman argues that Marx simply does
not ask and answer the same questions (e.g., how are prices determined?)
that "economists" try to answer. Perlman's exxay on Commodity Fetishism is
available on the web.

And if what is called economics is _history_, then we have to view the
present _as history_, i.e. from a future perspective. But we can't predict
the future, hence that future perspective has to be a hypothetical one, at a
high level of abstraction. Marx's _Capital_ has one or two paragraphs
referring to a future "socialism," but he give absolutely no details of that
future, merely indicating that the worker will know the meaning of the
product she/he produces (i.e. the meaning of labor will not be beyond the
control or knowledge of the producer). That premise (of a very very loosely,
hypothetical future social order) allows Marx to see Capitalism 'pure' as it
were from a future perspective, historically. Hence if you _must_ try to use
Marx for 'practical' economics, you are seeing 'his' capitalism as a bundle
of _tendencies_, with the conditions which enable those tendencies never
really noticeable.

So probably the question you ask about productive/unproductive labor is
unanswerable.

Carrol

________________________________________
From: pen-l-bounces@...
[mailto:pen-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of nathan tankus
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 1:12 AM
To: pen-l; Doug Henwood
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Profits call the tune

"Everyone who plays this game does it by different rules. Many esteemed
Marxist profit-watchers adjust the official stats in numerous ways, such as
trying to eliminate "nonproductive" activity. While I understand the
interest in jiggering the numbers, no known capitalist can see or feel the
adjusted rate of profit. What they (and their shareholders) care about is
the actual rate of profit, reported in cash money, relative to the amount of
capital that had to be invested to gain the return."

This has been one of my longstanding questions about Marxian analysis (I
only just recently got back to a more intensive study of Marx. I'm doing a
cursory reading, okay listening, of capital volume one and then I'm going to
read it physically and take notes. I'm about half way through listening so
far). 

Based on the above Doug seems to be arguing that profit to enterprise is
what really matters when analyzing trends in a capitalist economy. This
leads to an obvious question in my mind. Let's assume for hypothetical
example's sake that there is a relatively radical political party that has
gained large electoral control in our hypothetical country which is in a
devastating recession with high inflation (in short it's the 1970's). Could
this party restore profitability to enterprise, shrink inflation and lower
unemployment by shrinking other sectors such as unproductive labor and rent?
It seems to me that this is a logical conclusion from anything I've read
from Marxists and Marx. Yet I've almost never seen it discussed.

Fred Moseley has also emphasized the importance of increases in unproductive
labor to the 1970's:

 "there were two main causes
of the decline of the rate of profit in the postwar US economy from the late
1940s to the mid-
1970s: an increase in the capital invested per worker, and an increase in
the ratio of
unproductive labor to productive labor. According to my estimates, these two
trends contributed
roughly equally to the total decline in the rate of profit during this
period (see Moseley 1991,
Chapter 4)."

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/PWCRISIS.pdf

Now I'm not arguing for any particular reform position or that this means
capitalism should be saved blah blah blah. Nor am i saying it would really
be politically possible for such a platform to succeed anywhere. I'm more
interested in knowing whether I've got a decent grasp of the argument or
whether I'm missing major pieces that make what I'm suggesting technically
impossible.

On another note, I'm not so sure unproductive labor should be completely
ignored when calculating the rate of profit. I think perhaps executive pay
should factor in too. If the executives think they can dramatically increase
their compensation through investment they will do so even if the firm as a
whole sees a low profit rate or even sees negative quarters.

--

-- 
-Nathan Tankus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Louis Proyect | 1 Jul 2012 19:15
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Octopus

NY Times June 30, 2012
A Trader Who Swerved, and Crashed
By BRYAN BURROUGH

THE first third of “Octopus,” Guy Lawson’s new book on the 2005 collapse 
of the Bayou Group hedge fund, is what you might expect: an engrossing 
tale of the rise of Samuel Israel III, a cocaine-snorting crook who 
started his firm in the basement of his Westchester County home. If the 
rest were simply the story of Mr. Israel’s inevitable fall, it would 
still be a darn good read.

But on Page 139, “Octopus” — to be published next week by Crown — takes 
a startling 90-degree turn into Crazy Town. By this point, in 2004, Mr. 
Israel, a trader whose main talent involved front-running the stock 
picks of far smarter men, has secretly run Bayou into a $117 million 
hole. He needs a fast hundred million or two to stave off collapse.

It is then, during a trip to London, that a mysterious stranger takes 
Mr. Israel, and the reader, on a bizarre journey down a 
multibillion-dollar rabbit hole. What follows is surely one of the 
oddest Wall Street tales I’ve read in 30 years, and it’s what transforms 
“Octopus” from a good book into a special one.

Which came as a surprise, at least to me. Mr. Lawson is not a financial 
writer, and his last book, “The Brotherhoods,” co-written with William 
Oldham, the story of two New York cops who moonlighted for the Mafia, 
was almost too dense to read.

Nor did Bayou’s story seem all that spectacular. It was just another 
neo-Ponzi scheme that wasn’t as big as Bernie Madoff’s. The only thing I 
remembered was Mr. Israel’s botched attempt to fake his own suicide by 
jumping off a bridge in upstate New York. But Mr. Lawson found gold, by 
securing Mr. Israel’s cooperation in a series of prison interviews in 
which he unspooled his story — little of which, it appears, ever made it 
into the press.

Mr. Israel was a likable rich kid from New Orleans who started as an 
errand boy in a small Wall Street trading outfit in the early 1980s. He 
paints a picture of rampant criminality all around him — insider 
trading, front-running, bags of cash — and contends that all of Wall 
Street was similarly corrupt, a transparent bit of rationalization.

In time, Mr. Israel graduates to trading on his own, chasing fractions 
of points here and there. In 1996, with two partners, he founds Bayou, 
which does well enough to relocate from his basement to sumptuous 
headquarters in a Connecticut boathouse.

Soon, the book says, Mr. Israel has a broken marriage, chronic back 
pain, a nasty drug problem, and a gaudy mansion he rents from Donald 
Trump. But Bayou is a mirage from the get-go. Mr. Israel draws investors 
by claiming to have a proprietary computer program, which he calls 
Forward Propagation. He says it can correctly predict stock movements 86 
percent of the time.

It’s a sham, as is Bayou’s trading record. From the beginning Mr. 
Israel’s trades lose money, more and more each passing month. According 
to the book, he lies to everyone about his record, and his accountant 
rigs up a dummy auditing firm to bless it all. Amazingly, no one notices 
— not his competitors, not federal regulators, not even his clearing firm.

Desperate to claw out of his $117 million hole, Mr. Israel meets his 
mystery man, Robert Booth Nichols, in 2004. Mr. Nichols, who died five 
years later, was actually a kind of celebrity, a star of conspiracy 
theory world who was portrayed on the Internet as a longtime C.I.A. 
operative linked to a shadow world government, the holder of secrets to 
everything from the Kennedy assassination to a World War II-era hoard of 
Japanese gold. Some called this vast “conspiracy” the Octopus.

Mr. Nichols tells Mr. Israel that everything he knows about the world 
and its governments is a lie, that the world is in fact run by 13 ruling 
families, and that all known capital markets are facades. World 
governments are kept financially afloat, he purrs, by a global “shadow 
market” consisting of secret high-yield bonds. For only $100 million, 
Mr. Nichols says, he can give Mr. Israel entrée.

Like I said, Crazy Town. Mr. Nichols, of course, is a con man — and a 
very capable one at that. Mr. Israel is hooked, and the two ricochet 
from New York, where Mr. Nichols moves into Mr. Israel’s mansion, to 
London, where they secretly “trade” shadow-market bonds, and to Hamburg. 
There, Mr. Israel claims, he is followed by a rival trading faction, and 
shoots at and believes he kills a man in a turban. I’m serious.

Mr. Israel actually transfers $100 million of Bayou’s money into 
overseas accounts to trade with Mr. Nichols, and somehow manages to hold 
onto most of it. In the end, Mr. Nichols manages to swindle him out of 
“only” $10 million. In the meantime, Bayou investors discover Mr. 
Israel’s fraud and the F.B.I. shows up.

The book jumps forward quickly from there: The next thing you know, Mr. 
Israel is standing on that upstate bridge, deliberating suicide. He 
later hides out in a Connecticut trailer park, turns himself in and is 
sent to prison. Mr. Nichols cuts a deal with the feds before dying 
mysteriously in a Swiss hotel room.

THIS is a fantastic story, in both senses of the word, with a freshness 
that recalls “Liar’s Poker,” the Michael Lewis book from more than 20 
years ago. The only real flaw is a nagging hermetic quality. Mr. Israel 
is a good narrator, candid about his flaws, but Mr. Lawson relies on him 
a bit too heavily. A few other voices are heard, notably Dan Marino, Mr. 
Israel’s accountant and Bayou’s chief financial officer (also now in 
prison), but by and large this is Ms. Israel’s story. No Bayou employees 
are interviewed, nor a single investor.

We have no real sense of how reliable Mr. Israel’s account actually is; 
a few of his tales seem a bit too good to be true, and a few, like that 
of a drunk-driving arrest, come with no dates, places or times. Two of 
the strongest sections in the book come when Mr. Lawson does corral 
outside viewpoints, especially one from a George W. Bush cousin who is 
obliged to sit and listen dumbfounded as a manic Mr. Israel insists that 
he get the White House to intervene in the shadow market.

“My name is Sam Israel and I am a criminal” reads the note Mr. Israel 
slides to federal prosecutors on their first meeting. “I am a liar and a 
cheat.”

That he is. But he’s a liar and a cheat with one heckuva story.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Jim Devine | 1 Jul 2012 19:16
Picon

Re: Profits call the tune

Carrol Cox wrote:
> ... It is disputable
> whether there is such a thing as "Marxian economics." Marx wrote a Critique
> of capitalism (political economy) at its highest level of abstraction, a
> level which _never_ exists in practice.

Just as with "bourgeois economics," there is no single "Marxian
economics." Instead, there is a variety. Any Marxian political
economist who tells you that there's only one view (e.g., the falling
rate of profit theory), he or she is wrong. Marx never finished his
crisis theory and never fully explained his value theory, so we have
no choice but to "let a thousand flowers bloom" (to quote the old
bait-and-switch slogan out of context).

CAPITAL volume I is at an extremely high level of abstraction. It's
not merely a critique of capitalism or of political economists' views,
but (after chapter 3) it presents a coherent theory of how relations
between abstract capital and abstract labor struggle with each other.
(Accumulation is part of that struggle.) That can set the context for
a more concrete theory. Marx himself develops a more concrete -- but
incomplete -- theory in volume II and one that's even more concrete --
but again incomplete -- theory in volume III. But these can only be
raw materials for people to develop _their own_ theories. We have no
choice but to take ownership of our own ideas instead of saying that
we're speaking for Marx in some way.

> Fredy Perlman argues that Marx simply does
> not ask and answer the same questions (e.g., how are prices determined?)
> that "economists" try to answer. ...

That's right. Marx didn't approach the question "how are prices
determined" until volume III and then never finished his answer. In
volume I, he assumed that prices were determined by supply and demand
on the concrete level but then for his analysis assumed that prices =
values (when measured in the same units). He made this assumption
because he was trying to understand capitalism as a whole (the
context) by abstracting from differences among capitalists and among
workers before he could turn to markets (which only operate within
some social mode of production, not always capitalism).

> ...  Marx's _Capital_ has one or two paragraphs
> referring to a future "socialism," but he give absolutely no details of that
> future, merely indicating that the worker will know the meaning of the
> product she/he produces (i.e. the meaning of labor will not be beyond the
> control or knowledge of the producer).

My impression -- from Hal Draper's monumental KARL MARX'S THEORY OF
REVOLUTION (Monthly Review, various volumes) -- is that Marx believed
it was the working class's job to figure out what socialism was rather
than having some theorist do it for them.

> So probably the question you ask about productive/unproductive labor is
> unanswerable.

That question is only "unanswerable" if you restrict your reading to
"holy" texts like CAPITAL and Talmudic interpretations of them. In any
event, the meaning of "unproductive labor" is pretty clear in Marx.
(Unproductive labor does not produce surplus-value directly.) The key
question is that whether or not the concept is relevant in some way to
understanding capitalism (as opposed to merely criticizing political
economy). I don't think that the concept helps much at all (though I'm
willing to be convinced otherwise).

Nathan Tankus had written:
> This has been one of my longstanding questions about Marxian analysis (I
> only just recently got back to a more intensive study of Marx....
>
> Based on the above Doug seems to be arguing that profit to enterprise is
> what really matters when analyzing trends in a capitalist economy. This
> leads to an obvious question in my mind. Let's assume for hypothetical
> example's sake that there is a relatively radical political party that has
> gained... Could
> this party restore profitability to enterprise, shrink inflation and lower
> unemployment by shrinking other sectors such as unproductive labor and rent?
> It seems to me that this is a logical conclusion from anything I've read
> from Marxists and Marx. Yet I've almost never seen it discussed.

Good question. In theory, reducing the role of unproductive labor
would raise the rate of profit (the relevant one, measured net of
unproductive labor costs). That would make the economy less prone to
stagflation, all else constant. The problem is that most of the
unproductive labor costs are (from the perspective of capitalism as a
whole) necessary overhead. Capitalism doesn't do well without sales
staffs, supervisors, managers, etc. In theory, the government could
make the system -- including the necessary overhead -- more efficient,
thus raising profitability. I guess that's what social democracy is
about.
--

-- 
Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you
should at least know the nature of that evil.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Doug Henwood | 1 Jul 2012 19:27
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Octopus


On Jul 1, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:

> Mr. Nichols tells Mr. Israel that everything he knows about the world 
> and its governments is a lie, that the world is in fact run by 13 ruling 
> families, and that all known capital markets are facades. World 
> governments are kept financially afloat, he purrs, by a global “shadow 
> market” consisting of secret high-yield bonds. For only $100 million, 
> Mr. Nichols says, he can give Mr. Israel entrée.

This sounds like rich material for a show on WBAI.

Doug
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Billy O'Connor | 1 Jul 2012 19:46
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Octopus

Doug Henwood <dhenwood <at> panix.com> writes:

> On Jul 1, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>> Mr. Nichols tells Mr. Israel that everything he knows about the world 
>> and its governments is a lie, that the world is in fact run by 13 ruling 
>> families, and that all known capital markets are facades. World 
>> governments are kept financially afloat, he purrs, by a global “shadow 
>> market” consisting of secret high-yield bonds. For only $100 million, 
>> Mr. Nichols says, he can give Mr. Israel entrée.
>
> This sounds like rich material for a show on WBAI.

Or a 401 email scammer.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l <at> lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
c b | 1 Jul 2012 21:02
Picon

Quote of the Day

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness - John Kenneth Galbraith

(Charles Brown - Yes, all ruling classes have that task : to develop
an ideology to fool the masses.)
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Shane Mage | 1 Jul 2012 22:52
Picon

Re: Profits call the tune


On Jul 1, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:

... It is disputable whether there is such a thing as "Marxian economics."...
Postone suggests flatly that Marx produced a Critique of Political Economy,
NOT a Critical Political Economy...

This can be maintained only by ignoring what Marx thought he was doing.
In the preface to the first edition of Das Kapital Marx stated his essential purpose in these words: 
"It is the ultimate aim of this work to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society."
An "economic law of motion" is a proposition of Political Economy just as a "categorical imperative" is
a proposition of  Practical Reason, and the word "Kritik" (which, of course, Marx took from Kant) has the same sense in the two cases.

Shane Mage


 This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it 
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, 
 kindling in measures and going out in measures." 
 
 Herakleitos of Ephesos 





_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Gmane