Profit for Marxists

Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont (2014): Profit for Marxists.

Abstract

Marxian economics and standard economics are widely different yet they share a central weakness: the respective profit theories are demonstrably false – each one in its own characteristic way. Roughly speaking, Marx tried to explain profit by objective factors while standard economics cites subjective factors. For different reasons, neither route led to satisfactory results. The conclusion is straightforward: one has to do better. The conceptual consequence is to first reconstruct the profit theory from a solid basis with no regard to either Marxian or standard premises. In order to succeed, objective-structural axioms have to be taken as formal point of departure.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: new framework of concepts; structure-centric; axiom set; profit theory; surplus value; distribution; real shares
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B59 - Other; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E1 - General Aggregative Models > E11 - Marxian ; Sraffian ; Kaleckian; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E25 - Aggregate Factor Income Distribution

References

Desai, M. (2008). Profit and Profit Theory. In S. N. Durlauf, and L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online, pages 1–11. Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edition. URL http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000213.

Feynman, R. P. (1992). The Character of Physical Law. London: Penguin.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Primary and Secondary Markets. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1917012: 1–26. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1917012.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Understanding Profit and the Markets: The Canonical Model. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2298974: 1–55. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298974.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014a). Exchange in the Monetary Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2387105: 1–19. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2387105.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014b). Loanable Funds vs. Endogenous Money: Krugman is Wrong, Keen is Right. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2389341: 1–17. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2389341.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014c). The Logic of Value and the Value of Logic. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2399550: 1–20. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2399550.

Keen, S. (2010). Solving the Paradox of Monetary Profits. Economics E-Journal,4(2010-31). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2010-31.

Keen, S. (2011). Debunking Economics. London, New York, NY: Zed Books, rev. edition.

Kirkenfeld, T. (1948). The Paradox of Profit. Science & Society, 12(1): 33–41. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/40399873.

Marx, K. (1906). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. The Process of Capitalist Production. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA.html.

Marx, K. (1909). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. II. The Process of Circulation of Capital. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpB.html.

Marx, K. (1990). Capital, volume III. London: Penguin Classics. (1894).

Murad, A. (1953). Questions for Profit Theory. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 13(1): 1–14. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3484955.

Vickers, D. (1995). The Tyranny of the Market. A Critique of Theoretical Foundations. Ann Arbor; MI: University of Michigan Press.