300 years of crisis
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/other/monetary/mpreadinglistf.aspx
and in particular:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/other/monetary/mpreadinglistf.aspx (PDF)
"The UK recession in context — what do three centuries of data tell us?"
There's a lot to take in at a skim, but I find the chart 17 (page 286 (10th page of this article)) on Total Factor Productivity intriguing, as this would represent a chart of rate of profit in the UK since 1857 (or thereabouts).
Just read it. You're right it contains some interesting stuff, eg that in the period 1830 to 1913, the average length of the trade cycle was 8 or so years and that fluctuations in investment were an important "driver" of the cycle while changes in consumption were an effect (so much for consumption-led recoveries). Also, that the period of downturn was longer in the period 1871 to 1913 (4.2 years) and the upturn shorter (4.2 years) than in the period 1830 to 1871 (2.6 years and 5.4 years). Crises in the 18th century don't seem to have been due to the workings of the economy itself but to the outside factors of bad harvests and wars.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I find the chart 17 (page 286 (10th page of this article)) on Total Factor Productivity intriguing, as this would represent a chart of rate of profit in the UK since 1857 (or thereabouts).It's not supposed to measure this. In fact it's not clear what it's measuring. It's intended to be a measure of the difference between the rate of growth of GDP per capita and the rate of growth of the stock of capital, which is taken as a measure of technological progress. The figures show that this goes up in a period of upturn and down in a downturn (though the article warns that this latter could also be partly due to companies "hoarding" labour when output falls rather than immediately laying workers off).The chart defines "Total Factor Productivity" as
Quote:GDP growth minus the contributions of labour and capital weighted by their shares in output. The labour share includes the income of the self-employed.Capital is defined "as the non-housing whole economy capital stock" and labour as "the whole-economy total hours worked". Profit doesn't seem to enter into it, at least not directly.
ALB wrote:The chart defines "Total Factor Productivity" asQuote:GDP growth minus the contributions of labour and capital weighted by their shares in output. The labour share includes the income of the self-employed.Capital is defined "as the non-housing whole economy capital stock" and labour as "the whole-economy total hours worked". Profit doesn't seem to enter into it, at least not directly.
True, but they wouldn't measure profit as we'd understand it (as we understand it is broader than companies and individuals would understand it, since we'd include rent and interest). It may just be the nearest we'd get to a measure of ROP.
I'm still not convinced but I suppose you could use the data used to calculate "total factor productivity" to calculate a rate of profit, e.g. the total stock of capital, but this assumes that GDP less capital's contribution to productivity less labour's contribution = total surplus value. But does it? I've not thought this through myself yet, because I've not found exactly how they calculate "capital's contribution" (it seems to the amount by which the value of the stock of capital increases, but I could be wrong). In any event, this rate of profit would not be TFP but TFP/Value of stock of capital.Most of those who have tried to calculate the rate of profit (mostly those in the Marxist tradition) have used the figure for profits (and interest and rent) in National Income and compared these with the total value of capital stock (the total value of capitalist firms). This seems a more direct measure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.