Tendency of the rate of profit to fall
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Part of a series on|
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) is a hypothesis in economics and political economy, most famously expounded by Karl Marx in chapter 13 of Capital, Volume III. Economists as diverse as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo and Stanley Jevons referred explicitly to the TRPF as an empirical phenomenon that demanded further theoretical explanation, yet they each differed as to the reasons why the TRPF should necessarily occur.
In his 1857 Grundrisse manuscript, Marx called the TRPF "the most important law of political economy" and sought to give a causal explanation for it in terms of his theory of capital accumulation. In Capital, Volume III, Marx described the TRPF as "the mystery around which the whole of political economy since Adam Smith revolves" and in a letter he called his own TRPF theory "one of the greatest triumphs" over all previous economics. The tendency is already foreshadowed in chapter 25 of Capital, Volume I (on the "general law of capital accumulation"), but in Part 3 of the draft manuscript of Marx's Capital, Volume III, edited posthumously for publication by Friedrich Engels, an extensive analysis is provided.
Geoffrey Hodgson stated that the theory of the TRPF "has been regarded, by most Marxists, as the backbone of revolutionary Marxism. According to this view, its refutation or removal would lead to reformism in theory and practice". Stephen Cullenberg stated that the TRPF "remains one of the most important and highly debated issues of all of economics" because it raises "the fundamental question of whether, as capitalism grows, this very process of growth will undermine its conditions of existence and thereby engender periodic or secular crises".
Marx regarded the TRPF as proof that capitalist production could not be an everlasting form of production since in the end the profit principle itself would suffer a breakdown. However, because Marx never published any finished manuscript on the TRPF himself, because the tendency is hard to prove or disprove theoretically and because it is hard to test and measure the rate of profit, Marx's TRPF theory has been a topic of global controversy for more than a century.
- 1 Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx
- 2 Main criticism of Marx
- 3 20th century Marxist controversies
- 3.1 Breakdown controversy
- 3.2 Transformation problem
- 3.2.1 Classical debate
- 3.2.2 Ricardianism
- 3.2.3 Wassily Leontief and Paul Sweezy
- 3.2.4 Marx's theory
- 3.2.5 Ladislaus Bortkiewicz
- 3.2.6 Five ideas
- 3.2.7 Redundancy of value
- 3.2.8 Value theory as add-on
- 3.3 Okishio's theorem
- 3.4 Cycle or long run
- 3.5 First empirical tests
- 3.6 Long waves
- 3.7 Monopoly profits
- 3.8 Post-war boom
- 3.9 International Socialists and British Socialist Workers Party interpretation
- 3.10 Empirical studies
- 3.11 Theoretical works
- 4 21st century Marxist controversies
- 4.1 Production capital/total capital
- 4.2 More empirical studies
- 4.3 Profit statistics
- 4.3.1 P/C ratio
- 4.3.2 Business profit
- 4.3.3 Value added
- 4.3.4 Econometric issues
- 22.214.171.124 Property income
- 126.96.36.199 Write-offs
- 188.8.131.52 Fixed assets
- 184.108.40.206 Transfer costs
- 220.127.116.11 Scrap value
- 18.104.22.168 Profit sharing
- 22.214.171.124 Land sales
- 126.96.36.199 Asset valuation
- 188.8.131.52 Tax dodging
- 184.108.40.206 Financial techniques
- 220.127.116.11 Statistical accuracy
- 18.104.22.168 Qualitative change
- 22.214.171.124 Data quality
- 126.96.36.199 Multiple rates
- 188.8.131.52 Archaic accounting
- 184.108.40.206 Wealth creation
- 4.4 Unproductive labor
- 4.5 Major Western debates
- 4.6 Profits and crises II
- 4.7 Unequal exchange
- 4.8 Pollution
- 4.9 MEGA2
- 5 Mainstream economics
- 6 Loss of narrative
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx
In Adam Smith's TRPF theory, the falling tendency resulted from increased competition which accompanied the growth of capital. Intensifying competition itself would drive down the average profit rate.
Criticizing Adam Smith, David Ricardo argued that competition could only level out differences in profit rates on investments in production, but not lower the general profit rate (the grand-average profit rate) as a whole. Apart from a few exceptional cases, Ricardo claimed, the average rate of profit could only fall if wages rose.
In Capital, Karl Marx criticized Ricardo's idea. Marx argued that, instead, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is "an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labor". Marx never denied that profits could contingently fall for all kinds of reasons, but he thought there was also a structural reason for the TRPF, regardless of conjunctural market fluctuations.
Marx argued that technological innovation enabled more efficient means of production. Physical productivity would increase as a result, i.e. a greater output (of use values, i.e., physical output) would be produced, per unit of capital invested. Simultaneously, however, technological innovations would replace people with machinery, and the organic composition of capital would increase. Assuming only labor can produce new additional value, this greater physical output would embody a gradually decreasing value and surplus value, relative to the value of production capital invested. In response, the average rate of industrial profit would therefore tend to decline in the longer term.
It declined in the long run, Marx argued, paradoxically not because productivity decreased, but instead because it increased, with the aid of a bigger investment in equipment and materials. Rosa Luxemburg stated in her 1899 pamphlet Social Reform or Revolution? that:
"In the “unhindered” advance of capitalist production lurks a threat to capitalism that is much graver than crises. It is the threat of the constant fall of the rate of profit, resulting not from the contradiction between production and exchange, but from the growth of the productivity of labor itself".
The central idea that Marx had, was that overall technological progress has a long-term "labor-saving bias", and that the overall long-term effect of saving labor time in producing commodities with the aid of more and more machinery had to be a falling rate of profit on production capital, quite regardless of market fluctuations or financial constructions.
Marx regarded this as a general tendency in the development of the capitalist mode of production. But it was only a tendency, because there are also "counteracting factors" operating which had to be studied as well. The counteracting factors were factors that would normally raise the rate of profit. In his draft manuscript edited by Friedrich Engels (Marx did not publish it himself), Marx cited six of them:
- More intense exploitation of labor (raising the rate of exploitation of workers).
- Reduction of wages below the value of labor power (the immiseration thesis).
- Cheapening the elements of constant capital by various means.
- The growth of a relative surplus population (the reserve army of labor) which remained unemployed.
- Foreign trade reducing the cost of industrial inputs and consumer goods.
- The increase in the use of share capital by joint-stock companies, which devolves part of the costs of using capital in production on others.
Nevertheless, Marx thought the countervailing tendencies ultimately could not prevent the average rate of profit in industries from falling; the tendency was intrinsic to the capitalist mode of production. In the end, none of the conceivable counteracting factors could stem the tendency toward falling profits from production. The capitalist system would age like any other system, and would be able only to compensate for its age, before it left the stage of history for good.
There could obviously also be several other factors involved in profitability which Marx did not discuss in detail, including:
- Reductions in the turnover time of industrial capital generally (and especially fixed capital investment).
- Accelerated depreciation and faster throughput.
- The level of price inflation for different types of goods and services.
- Taxes, levies, subsidies and credit policies of governments, interest and rent costs.
- Capital investment into areas of (previously) non-capitalist production, where a lower organic composition of capital prevailed.
- Military wars or military spending causing capital assets to be inoperative or destroyed, or spurring war production (see permanent arms economy).
- Demographic factors.
- Advances in technology and technological revolutions which rapidly reduce input costs.
- Particularly in the era of globalization, the national and international freight rate (shipping, trucking, railfreight, airfreight).
- Substituted natural resource inputs, or marginal increased cost of non-substituted natural resource inputs.
- Consolidation of mature industries into an oligarchy of survivors. Mature industries do not attract new capital because of low returns. Mature companies with large amounts of capital invested and brand recognition can also try to block new competitors in their markets. See also secular stagnation theory.
- The use of credit instruments to reduce capital costs for new production.
The scholarly controversy about the TRPF among Marxists and non-Marxists has continued for a hundred years. There exist nowadays several thousands of academic publications on the TRPF worldwide. However, no book is available which provides an exposition of all the different arguments that have been made. Professor Michael C. Howard  stated that "The connection between profit and economic theory is an intimate one. (...) However, a generally accepted theory of profit has not emerged at any stage in the history of economics... theoretical controversies remain intense."
Main criticism of Marx
Marx's interpretation of the TRPF was controversial and has been criticized in three main ways.
By raising productivity, labor-saving technologies can increase the average industrial rate of profit rather than lowering it, insofar as fewer workers can produce vastly more output at a lower cost, enabling more sales in less time. Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz stated: "Marx’s own proof of his law of the falling rate of profit errs principally in disregarding the mathematical relationship between the productivity of labour and the rate of surplus value." Jürgen Habermas argued in 1973–74 that the TRPF might have existed in 19th century liberal capitalism, but no longer existed in late capitalism, because of the expansion of "reflexive labor" ("labor applied to itself with the aim of increasing the productivity of labor"). Michael Heinrich has also argued that the Marx did not adequately demonstrate that the rate of profit would fall when increases in productivity are taken into account.
How exactly the average industrial rate of profit will evolve, is either uncertain and unpredictable, or it is historically contingent; it all depends on the specific configuration of costs, sales and profit margins obtainable in fluctuating markets with given technologies. This "indeterminacy" criticism revolves around the idea that technological change could have many different and contradictory effects. It could reduce costs, or it could increase unemployment; it could be labor saving, or it could be capital saving. Therefore, so the argument goes, it is impossible to infer definitely a theoretical principle that a falling rate of profit must always and inevitably result from an increase in productivity.
Perhaps the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall might be true in an abstract model, based on certain assumptions, but in reality no substantive, long-run empirical predictions can be made. In addition, profitability itself can be influenced by an enormous array of different factors, going far beyond those which Marx specified. So there are tendencies and counter-tendencies operating simultaneously, and no particular empirical result necessarily and always follows from them.
Labor theory of value
Steve Keen argues that since the labor theory of value is wrong, then this obviates the bulk of the critique. Keen observes that the TRPF was based on the idea that only labor can create new value (following the labor theory of value) and that there was a tendency over time for ratio of capital to labor (in value terms) to rise. However, if surplus can be produced by all production inputs, then there is no reason why an increase in the ratio of capital to labor inputs should cause the overall rate of surplus to decline.
20th century Marxist controversies
The 20th century Marxist controversies about the TRPF focused on five issues:
- The relevance of the TRPF for understanding and explaining capitalist economic crises.
- The role of profitability tendencies in the final collapse of capitalism.
- The political significance of the TRPF for the policy of workers' parties.
- The theoretical consistency of the TRPF argument.
- The data about empirical profitability trends in the long term.
In addition, philosophers and economists also discussed the sense in which the TRPF could be considered an economic "law", since it seemed unclear how a necessary tendency could be "necessary" or inevitable, if it was only a tendency, in combination with other tendencies. It was not so easy, to model a situation in which a developmental tendency would, after some time, win through despite a variety of counteracting forces that would ordinarily reduce or cancel out the tendency.
The first big scientific debate about Marx's economic theory, starting in the 1890s, was the so-called "breakdown controversy", in which the tendency toward falling profitability played an important role.
The debate began to heat up when the veteran German socialist leader Eduard Bernstein claimed that it was wrong to think that "the end was nigh" or that capitalism would collapse through a catastrophic breakdown. He aimed to show with facts and figures that Marx's analysis of the tendencies of capitalism had turned out to be partly wrong. Bernstein believed that Marx's theory therefore had to be revised (this was known as the "revisionist" position). In response, numerous "orthodox" Marxist critics tried to prove that capitalism was necessarily doomed, at least in the long term. This controversy about the fate of the capitalist system still continues.
Henryk Grossman and Vladimir Lenin
From the late 1920s and 1930s onward, classical revolutionary orthodox Marxists like Henryk Grossmann, Louis C. Fraina (alias Lewis Corey) and Paul Mattick argued that at a certain point, the falling rate of profit stops the total mass of profit in the economy from growing altogether, or at least from growing fast enough. This results in a crisis of over-accumulation (or a shortage of surplus value), a drop in new productive investment, and an increase in unemployment, which brakes or stops market expansion. In turn, that leads to a wave of takeovers and mergers to restore profitable production, plus a higher intensity of labor exploitation. In the end, however, after a lot of cycles, capitalism collapses.
This interpretation contrasted with V.I. Lenin’s idea that in the crises of bourgeois society "there is no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation", since the bourgeoisie can – in principle – always find a way out, even if it takes a war to get there. Lenin regarded the abolition of capitalism as a conscious political act, not as a spontaneous result of the breakdown of the economy. In 1931, two years after publishing his breakdown theory, Grossman qualified his idea more, emphasizing that he did not believe that capitalism had to collapse "by itself" or "automatically"; the objective law of breakdown had to be combined with the subjective factor of the class struggle.
Other orthodox Marxists or economists inspired by Marx (including Karl Kautsky, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Rudolf Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Otto Bauer, Fritz Sternberg, Natalia Moszkowska, Oskar Lange, Michał Kalecki, Paul Sweezy, Kei Shibata, Kozo Uno, Nobuo Okishio and Makoto Itoh) provided alternative crisis theories, focusing variously on the anarchy of capitalist production, sectoral disproportions, underconsumption and realization problems, labor-shortage and population pressures, credit insufficiency, excess capital, state policy, productivity and wages squeezing profits.
According to Professor Costas Lapavitsas, "both Hilferding and Lenin – indeed most of the leading Marxists of their time – treated crises as complex and multifaceted phenomena that could not be reduced to a simple theory of the rate of profit to fall. The notion that the normal state of capitalist production is to malfunction due to a persistently excessive organic composition of capital, or even due to falling 'surplus' absorption, would have been alien to classical Marxists." Implicitly or explicitly, it was argued by these Marxist economists that economic crises, although they are a fairly regular occurrence in the last two centuries of capitalist development, do not all have exactly the same causes. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong with capitalism, throwing the markets out of kilter.
Howard & King claim that the TRPF was mostly "neglected" in Marxist theoretical discussions during the 1920s. Callinicos & Choonera claim that the TRPF actually played a "marginal" role in much of the whole history of Marxist economics, even although it was the truly revolutionary core of Marx's teaching. During the British general strike of 1926, for example, there was no evidence of English discussion about the TRPF.
In the non-English Marxist literature, however, the TRPF did get plenty of attention, except that the TRPF was never seen as the "be all and end all" of crisis theory. For the continental thinkers, the trend in profitability was linked with many different economic variables and circumstances. The issue then was about the real interconnection of all these variables together (the Totalité or Zusammenhang), and not simply about whether the profit rate was up or down.
When Henryk Grossman published his famous 1929 breakdown theory, he intended to correct faults in the 1920s theoretical debates about the dynamics of capitalist growth - as discussed in the writings of Karl Marx, Nikolai Bukharin, Otto Bauer, Rosa Luxemburg, Fritz Sternberg and many others. "Unlike Marx's diagrams, Bauer's diagram includes the rising organic composition of capital, a falling rate of profit, a rising mass of profit, and the faster development of Department I – the department that produces the means of production – relative to Department II – the branch that produces the means of personal consumption."
Mono's vs. multi's
Some Marxists sought the cause of capitalist crises in only one specific factor as the "root of the evil", e.g. over-accumulation, underconsumption, the anarchy of production, population pressures, class conflict, falling profits, state policy etc. Others tried to integrate different contributing causes in one theory. In modern Marxism, some mono-causal Marxist theorists (the "mono's") still attribute crises to one single factor (principally, the TRPF). Others (the "multi's") have argued for a multi-causal approach in which a distinction is drawn between the "triggers" of the crisis, its deeper underlying causes, and the concrete manifestation of crises.
The Marxian controversy about the so-called transformation problem began in earnest after the publication of Friedrich Engels's 1894 preface and 1895 supplement to his edition of Marx's third volume of Capital. In Capital, Volume III, Marx dropped his simplifying assumption that commodities are sold at their value, in favour of a theory of competitive market prices, regulated by production prices which diverged from product-values (the so-called “transformation of commodity values into prices of production”). Yet he supplied no convincing proof or evidence, that production prices were themselves shaped and determined by product-values.
Allegedly Marx failed to prove, how the leveling out of different rates of profit through competition toward a general, average profit rate could be logically reconciled with the determination of product-values by labour-time. Marx assumed in his simple numerical examples, that the aggregate profit volume was allocated to production capitals according to a uniform profit rate, but that assumption happened to run into conflict with other assumptions in his theory. If the inconsistency could not be resolved, then the validity of a labour theory of product-values as such was put into question. Five scholarly positions emerged subsequently in the West:
- Marx's transformation problem is a real and unsolvable problem (e.g. Ian Steedman).
- It is a real but solvable problem (e.g. Gérard Duménil).
- A pseudo-problem was created, through false interpretations of Marx, which gets in the way of consistently developing Marx's idea (e.g. Andrew Kliman).
- There is no transformation problem, and there never was one, if Marx is simply understood literally, in his own terms (e.g. Fred Moseley).
- There is a transformation problem (Marx did overlook some quantitative implications), but econometrically it is not very significant compared to the overall close fit between the classical theory of value and the economic data (e.g. Anwar Shaikh). The controversy about the problem was vastly bigger, than the size of the problem warranted. The mathematical insight here is, that all classical theories of value – whether Smithian, Ricardian, Millsian, Marxian or Sraffian etc. – necessarily involve a transformation problem, since they all assume that the prices for products diverge from, and oscillate around, some underlying production value or "natural" price, while profits proportional to capital size, and unequal capital compositions in different enterprises and sectors, are being assumed at the same time.
Those socialist economists who thought that the transformation problem was a real but unsolvable problem, usually abandoned Marx's value theory, as well as his theory of the TRPF. With the other four interpretations, economists might or might not reject Marx's TRPF theory. There might also be some overlap in the five positions (e.g. when scholars thought there were both pseudo-issues and some real problems). Marxists often disagree among themselves about what the transformation problem is about, and what its implications are.
Engels realized very well, that there were unsolved issues in Marx's theory of value and capital, and he had previously invited other economists to help solve them. Already before Capital, Volume III was first published, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky, German socialists like Conrad Schmidt and various Italian authors were critically assessing the implications of Marx's theory. But Engels himself died in 1895.
Subsequently, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and his critic Ladislaus Bortkiewicz (himself influenced by Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev) claimed that Marx's argument about the distribution of profits from newly produced surplus value is mathematically faulty. This gave rise to a lengthy academic controversy. Critics claimed that Marx failed reconcile the law of value with the reality of the distribution of capital and profits, a problem that had already preoccupied David Ricardo – who himself inherited the problem from Adam Smith, yet failed to solve it.
Marx was already aware of this theoretical problem when he wrote The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). It gets a mention again in the Grundrisse (1858). At the end of chapter 1 of his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), he referred to it, and announced his intention to solve it. In Theories of Surplus Value (1862-1863), he discusses the problem very clearly. His first attempt at a solution occurs in a letter to Engels, dated 2 August 1862. In Capital, Volume I (1867) he noted that "many intermediate terms" were still needed in his progressing narrative, to arrive at the answer. Engels suggested, that Marx had indeed solved the problem in the posthumously published Capital, Volume III, but critics alleged Marx never delivered a credible or definitive solution.
Specifically, critics claimed that Marx failed to prove that average labour requirements are the real regulator of product-prices within capitalist production, since Marx failed to demonstrate what exactly the causal or quantitative connection was between the two. As a corollary, Marx's theory of the TRPF was undermined as well, since it was based on a necessary long-term evolution of value-proportions between the composition of production capital and the yield of production capital.
According to the classical Ricardian economists, solving the transformation problem was an essential prerequisite for a credible theory of prices – a theory that would genuinely explain the relationship between the different variables determining prices, and the effects of changes in those variables. The theory of economic value was the foundation for the theory of prices, because prices could not be understood and explained without assumptions about economic value. Somehow, the labour theory of the substance of product-value had to be reconciled with observed patterns in the distribution of profits and prices. Hence, a version of the transformation problem already existed in Ricardian economics, before it existed in Marxian economics, and, according to Marx, Ricardo's inability to solve it, directly contributed to the break-up of the Ricardian school, and to the demise of the labour theory of value.
Marx's claim all along was, that Smith and Ricardo could not solve the problem, because they fudged the correct definition of very basic concepts and categories in political economy. Marx implied, that if things were correctly conceptualized, then the pieces of the puzzle could be fitted together in a logically sound way. The subsequent debate then centered on whether Marx had really solved a fundamental problem of the classical labour theory of value which Ricardian economics had failed to solve, so far, or whether there was an alternative (Ricardian) solution preferable to Marx's. Prof. Anwar Shaikh states that, among economists, this issue divided supporters of the labor theory of product-value for more than one century.
What made the 20th century debate especially complicated and confusing, was that Ricardo's theory and Marx's theory were often mixed up with each other. It was often unclear or controversial, what the exact differences between them were, and how that mattered. In criticizing and reworking Ricardian theory, Marx had kept some of its ideas, but also altered the whole theoretical frame of reference, creating a new social and economic ontology. Some Marxian professors, like Makoto Itoh, Michael Heinrich, Ernesto Screpanti, Tony Smith and Chris Arthur, aim to re-edit Marx's dialectical transformation argument, in order to cleanse it from all "Ricardian residues" – the suggestion being, that Marx himself had never completely freed himself from Ricardian concepts in the economic manuscripts which he did not publish himself.
Wassily Leontief and Paul Sweezy
The German transformation controversy, insofar as it concerned the reproduction of capital, helped to inspire Wassily Leontief's matrix system of input–output economics which later made it possible to obtain measures of the Marxian rate of profit (see below). In Berlin, Ladislaus Bortkiewicz co-supervised the young Leontief's doctoral studies together with Werner Sombart.
Leontief's father, a professor in economics, studied Marxism and did a Phd on the condition of the working class in Russia. Leontief himself studied Marxism as undergraduate, but claimed later that he had been interested in Marx only as a "classical economist"; he took a dim view of Marx's mathematical ability and of the labour theory of value. Leontief was primarily interested in applied economics and testable hypotheses. His personal experience as a student with Cheka persecution made Leontief wary of Marxism, whatever his appreciation of Marx.
The transformation problem nevertheless remained a relatively obscure academic dispute, until Paul Sweezy drew attention to it in his widely read 1942 book The Theory of Capitalist Development. The Bortkiewicz-Sweezy interpretation of Marx was very influential in the second half of the 20th century, in Marxist, neo-Ricardian and Post-Keynesian circles. From the 1970s, the academic debate broadened to the more general issue of what exactly is the relationship between values and prices, and how that should be conceptualized.
In Capital, Volume I, Marx analyzed how the capitalist enterprise buys materials and labour-power (inputs) to produce commodities sold for profit (outputs). At that stage he was not concerned much with price fluctuations or market volatility (except for the price of labour hired). In chapter 9 of Capital, Volume III, he notes that he had previously assumed that, to the purchasing capitalist, the value of a commodity bought was the same as its cost-price. In reality, he argued, this cost-price is itself a market price based on a production price (a cost-price + a profit) of the supplying capitalist producer: the input purchasing price of one capitalist is the output selling price of another capitalist. So the acquisition cost-price of inputs itself corresponded to both a value and a surplus value, and the market prices of inputs might diverge from the labor-value of inputs. Hence, said Marx, if the cost-price of a newly produced output is assumed to be equal to the labor-value of the inputs used up in producing it, "it is always possible to go wrong" in the calculation of the output production price (because input acquisition prices and input labor-values could diverge, given that the inputs could be bought above or below their value, and given that after purchase their inventory value could change, during the production process).
In drafting a simple model of profit distributions, Marx straightforwardly equated – for the sake of argument – the total cost-price of society's new gross output with the total production capital advanced to produce it, abstracting from many intervening variables such as capital depreciation and turnovers. Marx furthermore assumed, that at the point where a new output had been produced, its cost-price in the bookkeeping (a sum of money-capital representing materials costs, wage costs and operating costs) was a given, unchangeable datum, and he considered that price-value discrepancies of inputs bought were irrelevant to his analysis, since it was the value of this new output (and not the capital advanced) that was being related to a general price level and a general profitability level in the markets where the output was sold.
The cost-price of the new output was not based on a hypothetical "labor-value" of inputs, but based on what the producers actually paid for the inputs that were used up to create their outputs. Using various inputs, a new output was produced. This new output had a value, but precisely how much of that value would be realized as revenue, was difficult to know in advance. The difference between the selling price and the cost price of the new output sold, was the surplus value realized as profit by the producer of that output, and the argument was, that this profit would normally (assuming ordinary competition) tend to gravitate to an amount reflecting the average profit rate on capital. The question was about how the profit volume included in the total value product would be distributed among the producing enterprises.
If businesses could not reach a baseline profitability, they would be driven out of business sooner or later, or they would be taken over by another business and restructured, so that they did become sufficiently profitable. Inversely, if businesses overcharged for their commodities to obtain more profit, fewer people would buy them, and they would suffer decline as well. So output could normally be sold only within a fairly narrow range of prices, acceptable to both buyers and sellers. Marx then examined what the division of the total newly produced surplus value would be, among producing enterprises with varying capital compositions, on the hypothetical assumption of a uniform profit rate established by free competition.
Under Marxism–Leninism and Sraffianism, the "uniform rate of profits" was often taken as the literal truth. Marx himself knew very well though that a uniform profit rate (a "general profit rate", e.g. a 10% net profit on all production capital) did not truly exist in the real world, except as a tendency in the competitive process, as a norm for acceptable returns, or as a statistical average. If it is accepted that "perfect competition" does not exist in the real world, then a "uniform rate of profit" also cannot exist in the real world – both are just idealizations used to understand some implications of a model.
Marx wanted to examine the share-out of newly produced surplus value in its simplest and purest forms, abstracting from all kinds of variability of circumstances that would make his own calculation extraordinarily complex (see further prices of production). The formation of a normal rate of profit on capital invested, common to most producers, defined the basic parameters of competition, and thereby it defined the main developmental dynamic of the capitalist production system.
The theoretical problem that nevertheless remained in Marx's story, according to Ladislaus Bortkiewicz and other Ricardian theorists like Mühlpfordt, Dmitriev and Charasoff, was how the input and output results of interacting sectors of industry could be modeled in aggregate, so that total product values and total production prices would exactly match up in aggregate, and so that the price-value divergences at the micro-level would all cancel out at the macro-level.
For Bortkiewicz, this redistribution was a purely mathematical problem, a matter of correct formalization. The equality of total production prices and total values (Bortkiewicz talks about "price units" and "value units", with a "system of prices", and a "system of values") could be understood to mean, that they were both equal to a given quantity of gold, or a given quantity of labor hours, or a given quantity of an assumed standard commodity (where value = price). A perfectly consolidated result was required, as a proof that production prices represented merely and only a quantitative redistribution of product-values.
In turn, that Marxian quantitative proof would, in Bortkiewicz's interpretation, confirm logically that there was a determinate relationship between product-values and product-prices, since every value quantity would always map to a price quantity and, in aggregate, every positive price-value deviation would always be balanced out exactly by a proportional negative price-value deviation. Marx's system of categories for describing the accumulation of capital from production, and his theory of the levelling out of differences in rates of profit, would be validated as logically sound, and as meeting a standard of scientific rigour.
The relevant point here was, that price-value divergences occurred both with regard to inputs to production and with regard to outputs; but Marx himself had ignored the input price-value divergences in his simple quantitative illustrations of the distribution of profit. Since outputs become inputs and inputs become outputs, critics alleged that unless input values are transformed in the calculation as well, the absurd mathematical effect in the model is, that capitalist producers selling a good obtain a sale price that differs from the price paid by capitalist producers buying the same good.
In a static three-sector model, it proved mathematically difficult to join up five ideas. These five ideas were:
- 1. All production capitals attract the same profit rates, so that profits are distributed in proportion to the size of the capitals (the so-called "uniform profits" assumption).
- 2. Production units or sectors each have a different organic composition of capital.
- 3. The sum of production prices is equal to the sum of product values.
- 4. The total profit-money distributed to production units is equal to the total surplus value produced.
- 5. The rate of profit in price terms, is equal to the rate of profit in value terms.
The input-output equations could be made to work, only if additional assumptions were made. But even in a dynamic model, it can be shown mathematically that assumptions (1), (3) and (4) have a crippling effect on the plausibility of longterm quantitative results obtained with the model. However, what ought to be concluded from this modelling exercise, still remains very much in dispute (is the theory wrong, are the concepts and assumptions wrong, is the interpretation of the concepts wrong, is there a big difference between the model and the real world, etc.).
The algebra of the classical transformation problem is rather simple; the real difficulty is about whether the economic relationships involved are adequately conceptualized, and how we could know that. Both Marx and von Bortkiewicz actually admitted or implied themselves that assumptions (1), (3), (4) and (5) cannot be true in the real world, but this was never recognized in the 20th century literature. It casts doubt on the importance or relevance of the classical transformation problem (in particular because it largely disregards the social ontology of values and prices, as well as the techniques to measure product-values in the real world).
In 1950, Cambridge economist Joan Robinson dismissed the transformation problem as "just a toy", arguing that "the whole argument is condemned to circularity from birth, because the values which have to be 'transformed into prices' are arrived at in the first instance by transforming prices into values."
Redundancy of value
Bortkiewicz's analysis nevertheless raised the very important question of what the point of Marx's value theory is. Is there is any real difference between Marx's "values" and theoretical prices? If there is no real difference, neo-Ricardians argued, then Marx's value theory is redundant; one could then just as well make all the same sorts of arguments in price terms. In Sraffa's alternative theory, production prices can be calculated straightforwardly from physical quantities, the technical coefficients of production and the real wage, without any reference to the labour-value of inputs and outputs.
The advantage of this approach seemed to be, that:
- There exists no "transformation problem" of converting values into prices through a quantitative adjustment anymore.
- The whole awkward issue of the exploitation of labour is circumvented.
- Value theory can be replaced with equilibrium theory to explain prices, since "value" then simply stood for "equilibrium prices" (such as the Smithian or Ricardian "natural prices").
- A system of equilibrium prices could be formulated for the critical variables involved in production, to explain price relationships.
At the same time, Marx's theory of the formation of a general rate of profit, and his theory of the TRPF, would no longer be valid. This trend of thought is exactly what happened in leftwing economics, during the second half of the 20th century (see below), although a minority of Marxists – inspired by Isaak Illich Rubin and Roman Rosdolsky – continued to defend Marx's theory of the forms of value (somewhat confusingly, however, many value-form theorists also reject Marx's own value theory, or modify it according to their own taste).
In classical Ricardian economics, the theory of economic value still played an important role, but in neo-Ricardian economics there exists only a theory of prices; the role of "value" is reduced to that of an aggregation principle for price magnitudes, but value not a real determinant of the rate of profit.
Value theory as add-on
However, there are also Marxists who think that value-theory is still a useful "add-on" to ordinary neo-Ricardian or post-Keynesian price theory, because value-theory penetrates through the "appearances" of commodity fetishism to the "essence" of exploitation as the source of profit. According to this interpretation, price-relationships express the observable (but deceptive) surface appearance of what happens in the economy, while value relationships express the unobservable essence of what happens. Rob Bryer stated that "The majority of Marxists today argue defensively that [Marx] did not intend [his theory of value] to explain prices and rate of return on capital, but gave us only a qualitative theory of capitalist exploitation". Paul Burkett for example claims that "Marx’s primary purpose in Capital ... was not to theorize market prices, but to dig beneath market appearances 'to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society'.
In this interpretation, there is no necessary connection between price-relationships and value-relationships, quantitative or otherwise, because the value theory models and the price theory models exist at qualitatively different levels of abstraction (although, in principle, both refer to the same reality). It then follows quite logically, that value theory cannot offer any substantive explanation of price movements (including empirical profits), whether in theory or in reality and that price theory is a completely separate area of concern.
Five main objections are made to the "add-on" approach.
With the add-on approach, the theory of value as such becomes an untestable, metaphysical theory: value is a mysterious, hidden entity, that can never be observed in any way, let alone measured, only intuited by pure theory among academic Marxist initiates (or divined by the Central Committee).
Marx himself stated in his manuscript that his analysis of the configurations of capital aimed to "approach step by step the form in which they appear on the surface of society... in competition, and in the everyday consciousness of the agents of production themselves". Evidently Marx then did intend to show the connections of labour-values with the observable price relationships, although he did not write a detailed analysis of the competition process himself. This task was only taken up later by Marxian economists (including Samezō Kuruma, Anwar Shaikh, Willi Semmler and Lefteris Tsoulfidis).
If, as Marx argued in Capital, Volume III, pricing and product-values influence each other, through successive adjustments, his value theory in fact makes no sense at all without reference to prices. It would be like saying, that to understand the economic value of a commodity, its price can be disregarded. Marx claimed no such thing – he merely started off by assuming, for argument's sake, that the price and value of commodities produced were the same. This initial simplifying assumption seemed reasonable enough, since competition would constrain the margins of value/price deviations for the distribution of most commodities – the deviations would ordinarily not be very large (ordinarily, vastly overvalued or undervalued goods could not be sold in a competitive market). Econometric research done from the 1980s onward suggests that this is true.
An integral, consistent economic theory becomes impossible with the add-on approach, since market prices, product-values and social relations are always in different baskets. This theoretical eclecticism results in low explanatory power, and low predictive power – there exist multiple different theories and concepts at once, which all can interrelate/combine in all kinds of possible and ad hoc configurations, like a kaleidoscope, and therefore "explain" and "predict" everything and nothing.
When the results of the eclectic analysis appear implausible, the kaleidoscope is twisted slightly, to highlight the perfect geometry of yet another (though similar) "pattern". It means, that there is no clear idea about what the anomalies facing the theories should be attributed to (because they could be all kinds of things), and that no firm conclusions can be drawn from experience (all that happens, is that one theoretical preference is replaced with another flavour, that jells better with the concerns of the day).
The add-on approach misunderstands Marx's concepts of value, value-form and price-form, and falsifies the meaning of Marx's distinction between "essence" and "appearance".
According to Marx himself, the "essence" is not some kind of esoteric, mystical "unobservable" kernel. Indeed, he says himself that the essence of the matter is "comprehensible to the popular mind" ["der ordinären Vorstellung geläufig sind"] – it is just that the "real interconnection" of phenomena, the "real story" about how it works, is usually clouded by all kinds of peripheral aspects, irrelevancies, biases, one-sided representations, and distractions. Market phenomena can appear other than they are, and their real significance may not be immediately obvious (beyond occasional glimpses, the essence of the matter becomes perfectly clear, only at particular "crunch" moments, or when the researcher has actually done the real work to dig it out, and put it in context).
If there existed a "world of essences" which were never observable in any way, and always "hidden", it would be impossible to do any science, to find out what the essences are. It would be impossible to get at any essence, ever – analogous to a court of justice which examined case after case, but could never reach any certainty at all about whether any crime was committed or not. That is obviously not what Marx argues. Hegel never argued that either; Hegel's philosophical "doctrine of the essence" is not at all about "esoteric, mysterious hidden mechanisms". Instead, it explains in detail, how "first, essence shines within itself, or is reflection; second, it appears; third, it reveals itself."
The observable/unobservable distinction being drawn by the add-on approach is simply false – while some prices are observable, others are not (since they are inferred or derived magnitudes, or purely theoretical idealizations), and some prices are a mixture of both actual and assumed magnitudes (combining observations and extrapolations in the same calculation). The naive concept of prices as an "observable surface phenomenon" fails utterly once we understand more about what prices mean (see value-form and real prices and ideal prices).
Unfortunately, Marxist philosophers speculatively invented a "secret world" of "hidden causal mechanisms" beyond "surface appearances", instead of investigating the real world, to understand what the "mechanisms" actually are. In the absence of verification, theorizing spins off in all kinds of directions without any attempt at proofs – because it lacks an empirical, objective explanandum, it becomes unclear what the explanatory purpose of theorizing activity actually is. It could be just a theory about theories, or theory for the sake of theory.
The result is either a postmodern skepticism/timidity about the possibility to know anything, a conspiracy theory, or else an arrogant faith in the power of pure theory to divine the truth about society, through transcendental intuition (without thorough study of the relevant facts). None of these approaches is particularly helpful for scientific research.
Talk about "levels of abstraction" by the add-on crowd is vacuous, unless the exact limits of application of the abstractions can be specified clearly. Without such specification, nothing can be tested or substantively contested (logically or empirically). It just remains loose philosophical talk, sophistry or petitio principii, uncommitted to any particular consequence.
Theorizing about capital and labour, Marx certainly engaged in abstraction, but not willy-nilly in some speculative sense. Instead, he critically sifted through what political economists, businessmen, statesmen, factory inspectors, journalists and workers had actually said and done, to develop a new theory that would be rigorous, consistent and durable. He did not make any great claims to originality, and carefully footnoted “who said it first”. The theory ended up going far beyond immediate experience, but it was rooted in the stubborn facts of experience, and returned to those facts all the time. It had to explain the observable facts, and also explain why their meaning was construed in specific ways. That was Marx's "science". If Marxists want to cling sentimentally to "value theory" regardless of facts and logic, this cannot be called a "science" - it has more in common with a new age religion.
The Japanese economist Nobuo Okishio famously argued in 1961, "if the newly introduced technique satisfies the cost criterion [i.e. if it reduces unit costs, given current prices] and the rate of real wage remains constant", then the rate of profit must increase.
Assuming constant real wages, technical change would lower the production cost per unit, thereby raising the innovator's rate of profit. The price of output would fall, and this would cause the other capitalists' costs to fall also. The new (equilibrium) rate of profit would therefore have to rise. By implication, the rate of profit could in that case only fall, if real wages rose in response to higher productivity, squeezing profits.
This theory is sometimes called neo-Ricardian, because David Ricardo also claimed that a fall in the average rate of profit could ordinarily be brought about only by rising wages (one other scenario could be, that foreign competition would drive down the local market prices for outputs, causing falling profits).
At first sight, Okishio's argument makes sense. After all, why would capitalists invest in more efficient production on a larger scale, unless they thought their profits would increase? Orthodox Marxists have responded to this argument in various different ways.
The absence of fixed capital in Okishio's model is rather crucial, because:
- fixed capital is usually the largest part of the physical capital outlay.
- lowering unit costs long-term typically requires additional fixed investment.
- the increase in productivity which new fixed capital makes possible, typically goes along with wage rises.
- it is primarily the growth of fixed capital which, in Marx's theory, lowers the profit rate in the long term.
John E. Roemer therefore modified Okishio's model, to include the effect of fixed capital. He concluded though that:
"... there is no hope for producing a falling rate of profit theory in a competitive, equilibrium environment with a constant real wage... this does not mean... that there cannot exist a theory of a falling rate of profit in capitalist economies. One must, however, relax some of the assumptions of the stark models discussed here, to achieve such a falling rate of profit theory."
It is also possible to construct an alternative Okishio-type model, in which the rising cost of land rents (or property rents) lowers the industrial rate of profit.
Cycle or long run
One dispute which has never been finally resolved is whether the TRPF should be interpreted as a cyclical tendency, or as a secular long run trend. Geert Reuten from the University of Amsterdam has argued that there is evidence that Marx originally believed in a long run secular tendency, but that, later on, he changed his position to a cyclical tendency. In contrast to this view, Anwar Shaikh from the New School in New York City argued that Marx meant the TRPF as a secular long run trend; a cyclical tendency and a long-run tendency could also be combined in one theory, where a series of cycles shows a gradual fall in the average rate of profit, although there is an upturn in each cycle.
Following Michael Heinrich, David Harvey criticized Engels's editing of Capital, Volume III, and emphasized in a conference text that Engels himself inserted the sentence "In practice, however, the rate of profit will fall in the long run, as we have already seen." The suggestion is, that in the text preceding Engels's inserted sentence, Marx himself had never said anything about such a long-run falling tendency.
Harvey's view contrasts with Marx's preceding text, in which Marx says that as the capitalist mode of production advances, its general rate of profit must steadily decline, "since the mass of living labour applied continuously declines in relation to the mass of objectified labor [i.e. means of production] that it sets in motion." However, Michael Heinrich argues that Marx in his old age paid no attention anymore to the falling tendency, suggesting it was no longer important to him.
First empirical tests
In the 1870s, Marx certainly wanted to test his theory of economic crises and profit-making econometrically, but adequate macroeconomic statistical data and mathematical tools did not exist to do so. Such scientific resources began to exist only half a century later.
In 1894, Friedrich Engels did mention the research of the émigré socialist Georg Christian Stiebeling, who compared profit, income, capital and output data in the U.S. census reports of 1870 and 1880, but Engels claimed that Stiebeling explained the results "in a completely false way" (Stiebeling's defence against Engels's criticism included two open letters submitted to the New Yorker Volkszeitung and Die Neue Zeit). Stiebeling's analysis represented "almost certainly the first systematic use of statistical sources in Marxian value theory."
Although Eugen Varga and the young Charles Bettelheim; already studied the topic, and Josef Steindl began to tackle the problem in his 1952 book, the first major empirical analysis of long-term trends in profitability inspired by Marx was a 1957 study by Joseph Gillman. This study, reviewed by Ronald L. Meek and H. D. Dickinson, was extensively criticized by Shane Mage in 1963. Mage's work provided the first sophisticated disaggregate analysis of official national accounts data performed by a Marxist scholar.
Starting off with pioneering work by Ernest Mandel from 1964, various attempts have been made to link the long waves of capitalist development to long-term fluctuations in average profitability. By "long waves" Mandel did not mean "long cycles".
Mandel vs. Grossman
Mandel's influential Phd thesis Late Capitalism (in German 1972, English version 1975) was a critical response to Henryk Grossman's theory. Like Henryk Grossman, Mandel was convinced of the centrality of profitability in the trajectory of capitalist development, but Mandel (following Rosdolsky's critique of Rosa Luxemburg's theory) did not believe that Marx's reproduction models could be used to create a theory of capitalist crises.
In Grossman's profitability model, there was only a series of business cycles and, sometime after the 34th cycle, a general breakdown of capitalism, because insufficient surplus value was being generated. Leaving aside the issue of the validity of Grossman's model, his picture of capitalist development did not explain historical phases of faster and slower economic growth lasting about 25 years or so. After World War 2, a long boom occurred, instead of a deepening capitalist crisis which many Marxists had expected. That was what Mandel wanted to explain (Mandel's and Grossman's growth models both ignore the accumulation of non-productive capital assets and profits not arising from new surplus-value).
Rowthorn vs. Mandel
Mandel's interpretation was strongly criticized by Robert Rowthorn. Although Mandel's profit theory was enormously more complex than Grossman's profit theory, this complexity itself became problematic: there were so many interacting "semi-autonomous variables" in Mandel's theory, that observable empirical trends could be attributed to any number of interacting variables; this meant that no particular result necessarily followed from the theory, and that the explanans (that which explains) became confused with the explanandum (that which has to be explained).
Thus, "It is never clear, for example, whether Mandel considers capitalism has an inherent tendency toward overproduction which periodically expresses itself in a falling rate of profit, or whether overproduction itself is caused by a falling rate of profit."
Mandel replied to such criticisms in his 1978 essay "Marxism and the crisis", where he argued this dichotomy does not make sense, because it is based on a false social ontology. Overproduction and overaccumulation were, he argued, inseparable phenomena, and surplus value could not be realized as profit income unless output was sold; consequently the average rate of profit and the rate of market expansion mutually determined each other.
Shaikh vs. Mandel
Anwar Shaikh argued that Mandel got it wrong, because Mandel saw "evidence of a rise-and-fall in the actual rate of profit causing the long upturn and downturn". According to Shaikh, Mandel's interpretation mixed up the rate of profit with the mass of profit, and ignored the impact of changes in capacity utilization on the rate of profit. Instead, Shaikh argued that "...in Marx's theory of the falling rate of profit, the transition between long-wave phases is correlated with the movements of mass of profit, and not with that of the rate of profit (as in Mandel)". Mandel replied, that Shaikh's own data series showed that an upturn in the average rate of profit occurred at the start of the long boom, in addition to the fall in the average rate of profit toward the end of the boom.
Profits and crises I
Mandel maintained that falling profits were only one factor in the recurrent sequence from boom to slump. Being a Marxist socialist, he argued that the basic reason why capitalist crises occurred is that capitalism is a system of production run by competing producers, based on private property. In this system, "what is rational from the standpoint of the system as a whole is not rational from the standpoint of each great firm taken separately, and vice versa." According to Mandel, that also explained why bourgeois macroeconomics and microeconomics contained quite different principles and concepts of economic behaviour (in contrast to Marx's economics, where macro and micro share the same concepts).
Thus, in every branch of economic activity, capitalist business could never escape from recurrent problems of overinvestment and underinvestment, which periodically culminated in general crises. Following György Lukács, Mandel portrays capitalist rationality as a "contradictory combination of partial rationality and overall irrationality." It is not that competing businessmen are "irrational", far from it, but that their own "instrumental rationality" and "value rationality" (in a Weberian sense) differ from the functional logic of capitalism as a market system, and, therefore, the two run into serious conflicts at times – leading to crises. Simply put, markets and government policy can work in your favour, but they can also work against you. In a private enterprise system based on competition, when things get to the crunch, it becomes impossible to reconcile self-interest with the general interest, even with mediation by the state. Then there are winners and losers, on a very large scale. During the boom, most people can make some gains, even if the gains are unequal. In a real crisis, the gains of some are at the expense of others - competition intensifies, and often becomes brutal.
In a 1985 article, reprinted as an appendix in the last French edition of Late Capitalism, Mandel tried to defend his interpretation against accusations of vulgar eclecticism. His final view was that "...under capitalism, the fluctuations of the average rate of profit are in a sense the seismograph of what happens in the system as a whole... that formula just refers back to the sum-total of partially independent variables, whose interplay causes the fluctuations of the average rate of profit". The analytical challenge was to verify this interplay empirically, to understand why the long-term ups and downs in the average profit rate occurred.
In the modern epoch of financialization, the main criticism of Mandel's idea is that over-accumulation can combine with underproduction, if it is safer (or more profitable) to invest in solidly insured non-productive assets (financial assets, stockpiles and real estate). Thus, much less is actually produced than could be produced.
Martin Wolf stated: "the world economy has been generating more savings than businesses wish to use, even at very low interest rates." Joseph Stiglitz similarly argued that from the 1990s onward, banks lent more and more money to investors who mainly did not use it to create new business producing things, but to speculate in already existing assets for capital gain, thereby pushing up asset and property prices.
The general claim made here is that, in the real world (and outside bourgeois propaganda rhetorics), modern Western-style capitalism is not anything like a "risk-taking" capitalism. It is more like a political economy of insurance capitalism, where state insurance, the private insurance industry, the hedging industry, the funds management industry and the burgeoning derivatives markets rake in trillions of dollars per year, just to protect people and assets against all significant risks and losses. Bourgeois sociologists like Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens began to refer to the concept of the risk society in a deregulated investor capitalism, where there is big money in talking about risks. The nervous anxiety about risk, critics argue, vastly exceeded the actual risks.
In the underproduction critique, the only real "risk-takers" left in the brave new Western world of "risk-free accumulation" are (1) the workers, peasants and poor people who have to do long hours of hard, hazardous and/or dirty work for a living, for a low wage, often with meagre or non-existent pensions, insurance and healthcare, (2) sundry people who reject or fall outside the rules of the insurance system, or who are connected with criminality, (3) people who do adventure sports and the like.
Although the global insurance apparatus has grown huge, so far there exists no general Marxian theory of risk insurance and its effect on the average rate of profit. It is obvious though, that if one can insure capital against losses at a fairly small cost, the gains may outweigh the costs considerably, raising business certainty, market confidence and profit yields across time – a likely reason why the volume of derivative contracts has continued to grow strongly. However, this point has been disputed after the 2007–2009 financial crash, since the very financial products that were intended to secure capital and profits, ended up creating more insecurity for the global majority (food, housing, jobs, incomes, savings and pensions).
In defense of the theory that the organic composition of capital does rise in the long term (lowering the average rate of profit), Mandel claimed that there does not exist any branch of industry where wages are a growing proportion of total production costs, as a secular trend. The real trend is the other way: toward semi-automation and full automation which lowers total labor costs in the total capital outlay.
Critics of that idea point to low-wage countries like China, where the long run trend is for average real wages to rise. For example, the Chinese Communist Party aims to double Chinese workers' wages by 2020. Zhang Yu and Zhao Feng provide some relevant data. Minqi Li has compared average profit rates for China, Japan and the USA. Dr. Bin Yu, a member of the Academy of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (the highest scientific authority on Marxism in China), affirms that the TRPF theory is correct, and that the data prove it. Hao Qi found that profitability in the PRC fell after 2008.
“Cartels are fundamentally nothing else than a means resorted to by the capitalist mode of production for the purpose of holding back the fatal fall of the rate of profit in certain branches of production”.
In the course of the 20th century, this idea became widely accepted among Marxists - it was taken over e.g. by Nikolai Bukharin, Rudolf Hilferding and Henryk Grossman. For example, Grossman wrote in his Breakdown book that:
"A world monopoly in raw materials means that more surplus value can be pumped out of the world market".
Inspired by Josef Steindl and Baran's earlier work, Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy postulated in their 1966 work Monopoly Capital that there existed a "law of increasing surplus" which counteracted the TRPF within a capitalism that had fundamentally changed. Just after the book was published, the average industrial rate of profit in most advanced capitalist countries began to fall, and continued to fall substantially for about 5–7 years.
The official orthodox Marxist–Leninist theory of state monopoly capitalism ("stamocap") similarly suggested that in the 20th century epoch of the "general crisis of capitalism", the state, its public funds and imperialist exploitation acted as the guarantor and promoter of stable monopoly profits by corporations – counteracting the TRPF. The general thrust of monopoly theories is that profitability does not fall, because the ordinary laws of capitalist market competition are overruled by (1) state intervention, (2) corporate monopolization of resources and markets, and (3) colonial superprofits.
However, Ben Fine and Laurence Harris combined the TRPF with state monopoly capitalism theory at a higher level of abstraction: "[The TRPF] is not a law which predicts actual falls in the rate of profit (in value or price terms)". At an even higher level of abstraction, Michael A.Lebowitz postulated "the inner tendency of Capital to become one". Anwar Shaikh however recently made the case that monopoly capital has never truly existed, since normally speaking business cannot totally monopolize a market, or evade competition altogether; as a logical corollary, business cannot evade the TRPF. Shaikh rejects the idea that bigger enterprises necessarily have higher profit rates than smaller ones.
Also inspired by Josef Steindl's analysis, Ernest Mandel argued (after Rudolf Hilferding) that if corporations monopolizing product markets can evade price competition to a considerable extent, they can also evade the general tendency for differences in profit rates to level out through competition (in the direction of an average rate). Even if monopoly profit rates fell, they would usually remain higher than the profit rates of small and medium-sized firms. The monopolists could raise their prices only within certain limits, beyond which they would attract competitors (including other monopolists) able to supply alternative products at a lower price. Nevertheless, in reality, there existed not one, but two kinds of "average profit rates" in capitalist production: a higher one for corporations in the monopolized sectors of product markets, and a lower one for smaller firms in the non-monopolized sectors. Together with the anarcho-communist Daniel Guérin, Mandel published a survey of economic concentration in the United States.
In the 1970s, there were two main debates about profitability among the Western New Left Marxists, one empirical, the other theoretical.
The empirical debate concerned the causes of the break-up of the long postwar boom. Orthodox Marxists like David Yaffe, for example, argued that the cause was the TRPF, while other Marxists (and non-Marxists) argued for a "profit squeeze" theory.
According to the profit squeeze theory, profits fell essentially because, in the course of the long boom, demand for labour grew more and more, so that unemployment reduced to a very low level. This allowed workers to pick and choose their jobs, meaning that employers had to pay extra to attract and keep their staff. The increased labor costs therefore "squeezed" profits. This could be sustained for some time, while markets were still growing, but at the expense of accelerating price inflation. As their input prices and costs increased, business owners raised their own output prices, which fed the inflationary spiral. In the 1970s, employers began to scale back their investments in production, and there was enormous political pressure on the state to curb wage increases and reduce price inflation, bringing the long post-war boom to an end.
Orthodox Marxists however argued that the main cause of falling profits was the rising organic composition of capital, and not wage rises. On this view, the falling average rate of profit on production capital in the end "choked off" the growth of the total mass of profit, leading to a stagnation of business investment and rising unemployment.
Yaffe became quite famous. In a 1980s satire about the British far Left, John Sullivan stated that Yaffe had done "sterling work on the velocity of the falling rate of profit, and has almost got it down to the nearest foot per second." Yaffe claimed that "It is precisely the crisis of profitability that makes a growing state expenditure necessary." This idea was strongly criticized by Ian Gough.
The theoretical New Left debate in the 1970s was a clash between orthodox Marxists believing in a labor theory of value and neo-Ricardian socialists inspired by Piero Sraffa. The neo-Ricardian socialists, basing themselves on the ideas of Maurice Dobb, Ronald L. Meek, Michio Morishima, and Ian Steedman, believed that Sraffa's models had made Marx's value theory redundant, and that Marx's TRPF theory was mathematically incoherent once it was rigorously modeled. Sraffa's theory was not incompatible with some kind of labor theory of value as such, as several neo-Ricardians emphasized, but it was incompatible with Marx's TRPF. This debate still continues.
The overall Marxist criticism of the neo-Ricardian socialists was, that they treated Marx as if he was a Sraffian. But, they claimed, Marx wasn't a Sraffian, because Marx's concepts were really quite different. The Sraffians believed, that if Marx's theory cannot be restated in a mathematically consistent and measurable way, it has no scientific validity. Since the Marxists allegedly failed to formalize Marx's theory in a convincing way, the Sraffians dropped it, although they might still have socialist sympathies (Sraffa himself admired Marx, and was an avid collector of Marx memorabilia).
Anwar Shaikh among others replied, that regrettably the mathematical formalizations offered by neo-Ricardian theorists to interpret Marx's idea were really more a sleight-of-hand, since, in the process of modelling, highly questionable assumptions were introduced which had nothing to do with Marx. Moreover, one could also use the same mathematical techniques with different assumptions, to compute results that were quite consistent with Marx's theory. On his website, Andrew Kliman adopted the motto: "I ain't going to work on Piero's farm no more."
International Socialists and British Socialist Workers Party interpretation
In the 1990s, a leader of the British Socialist Workers Party, Chris Harman, advanced a reading of Marx that sees economic crisis as the main effective countervailing factor to the TRPF, but which places limits on its effectiveness as the capitalist system ages and units of capital become larger and more interlinked. However, David Harvey mentions that in the Grundrisse, "Marx lists a variety of other factors that can stabilize the rate of profit 'other than by crises'." Since the 1970s, the International Socialists have staged a theoretical struggle against underconsumptionism, regarded as a reformist ideology, and reaffirmed the TRPF as the true revolutionary theory.
Since the theoretical disputes failed to clinch the argument, more scholars raised the question of whether the theory of the falling rate of profit corresponded to the facts. They wanted to "count the horse's teeth" empirically, to shed light on the issue.
In the United States, pioneering empirical research on the average rate of profit was published from 1979 onward by Edward N. Wolff and Thomas Weisskopf, followed by Anwar Shaikh. After some articles, Fred Moseley also published a booklength analysis of the falling rate of profit. Wolff and Moseley together edited an international study.
In the 1980s, the Italian scholar Angelo Reati, who worked for the European Commission in Brussels and who tried to combine Marxian, neo-Ricardian and Post-Keynesian approaches, analyzed industrial profitability data for Italy, the UK, France, and Germany. This resulted in a series of papers, and a book in French. Gérard Duménil, Mark Glick and José Rangeĺ studied the empirical tendency of the rate of profit to fall in the United States using a variety of sources.
An important econometric work, Measuring the Wealth of Nations, was published by Anwar Shaikh and Ertuğrul Ahmet Tonak in 1994. This work sought to reaggregate the components of official gross output measures and capital stocks rigorously, to approximate Marxian categories, using some new techniques, including input-output measures of direct and indirect labor, and capacity utilization adjustments. Shaikh and Tonak argued that the falling rate of profit is not a short-term trend of the business cycle, but a long-term historical trend. According to their calculations, the Marxian rate of profit on production capital fell throughout most of the long boom of 1947–1973, despite an enormous expansion of the volume (mass) of profit.
The celebrated New Left historian Robert Brenner from California has also attempted to provide an explanation of the postwar boom and its aftermath in terms of profitability trends. Brenner's interpretation was heavily criticized by Anwar Shaikh, who argued that it is not really credible from an econometric or theoretical point of view. According to Shaikh, Brenner had an inflated view of American factories, to the point where Brenner believed that the profitability of US manufacturing determined the destiny of the whole world economy. In reality, US factory production wasn't that big.
A lot of detailed work on long run profit trends was done by the French Marxist researchers Gerard Duménil and Dominique Lévy.
This type of research was replicated by Marxian scholars in many other countries around the world, who often introduced their own technical refinements in the data sets.
In the course of the 1990s, many leftist academics lost interest in Sraffian economics. Although he had written a few articles and edited the collected works of David Ricardo, Sraffa had authored only one book himself, a neo-Ricardian analysis about the distribution of value-added from production among workers and capitalists (Sraffa calls net value-added the "surplus"). While Sraffa had provided an alternative to the problematic labor theory of value of the orthodox Marxists, while undermining the marginalist theory of capital, Sraffa's book provided no answers to many important contemporary macroeconomic issues. It was not designed for that purpose. For example, "The Sraffa system, like many stationary-state general equilibrium models, contains no good which, uniquely, possesses all the important features of money."
Instead, many Marxists and leftists became more focused on the political economy of Michał Kalecki, who tried to combine Marxian and Keynesian economics in a more realistic way, without relying on any labor theory of value. Kalecki also believed in a cyclical tendency for profits to fall, but more as a result of the changing balance of power between the working class and the capitalist class, or changes in capital intensity.
Temporal single-system interpretation
Reviving and developing ideas first mooted in the 1980s, proponents of the temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) such as Andrew Kliman, Alan Freeman, Paolo Giussani and Guglielmo Carchedi have argued from the 1990s onward that the arguments by von Böhm-Bawerk, Bortkiewicz, and Okishio do not refute Marx's case.
Kliman argues in Reclaiming Marx's Capital (2007) that the apparent inconsistency of Marx's case arises out of a misreading of Marx through the prism of general equilibrium theory and double-entry accounting.
Once the operations of capitalist production are interpreted as "temporal and sequential" (as opposed to a "simultaneist" model where inputs and outputs are valued simultaneously, so that total input and total output valuations are always exactly equal) and "single-system" (where values and prices always co-exist, and are co-dependent, not separate systems), it is argued that the transformation problem disappears, and that the TRPF can no longer be dismissed on logical grounds.
Criticism of TSSI
The modern TSSI approach has been criticized by other Marxist and neo-Ricardian scholars including Gérard Duménil, Duncan K. Foley, Michel Husson, David Laibman, Dominique Lévy, Simon Mohun, Gary Mongiovi, Ernesto Screpanti, Ajit Sinha, and Roberto Veneziani.
The TSSI's rival school is called "The New Solution" or "New Interpretation" school which was founded in the early 1980s by Alain Lipietz, Duncan Foley and Gérard Duménil. The main idea of these critics is, that if equilibrium is let go of, then capitalism is an unpredictable chaos, and no coherent theory of prices or profits is possible anymore.
The reply of TSSI sympathizers is, basically, that the concept of equilibrium itself is confused with (1) the concept of continual (and haphazard) market adjustment, and (2) the concept of socio-economic stability. This happens because, tacitly, “the market” is conflated with “the economy” and with “society as a whole”. Supply and demand may continually adjust to each other without ever being in equilibrium, other than momentary coincidences, and the lack of a perfect match between supply and demand does not necessarily prevent social stability, as long as enough workers turn up for work each working day to produce more capital.
Capitalist equilibrium means "business as usual" for capitalists, and "back to work" for workers. But "business as usual" does not mean market balance. Disequilibrium is precisely the life of the market, and equilibrium is the life that the market observably doesn't have. There is always some branch of activity in a capitalist economy which is experiencing a crisis, but whether the crisis will spread or not, will depend on the conjuncture and on how different business entities are linked to each other.
Marx himself had never argued that capitalist society is "held together" or "balanced out" by the market; instead, what held society together was the relations of production, i.e. the mutual dependencies arising out of the necessity to produce and reproduce human life co-operatively, within the framework of a system of property rights enforced by the state. Thus, a consistent Marxian theory of prices and profits is claimed to be possible, without assuming that the market, the economy or the society spontaneously gravitate to an "equilibrium state" of economic harmony through the "price mechanism". In this view, the idea of equilibrium is itself poorly conceptualized by economists, and given a magical, arcane power which it does not really have, once we understand the conjuror's trick.
In 1997, the Italian Marxian economist Riccardo Bellofiore released an edited volume of essays by leading Marxist scholars on Capital, Volume III which reappraised Marx's text in the light of the previous criticisms. Bellofiore also helped to revive interest in the profit theories of Hyman Minsky, which briefly became popular again in the 2007–2009 crisis. The crisis was called a "Minsky moment".
Debt and profitability
Increasingly leading Marxist and semi-Marxist scholars began to focus on the importance of debt-driven accumulation for the average rate of profit. In the 1980s and 1990s, governments forced interest rates and inflation rates down to a very low level, and began to deregulate capital markets. They expected that new business investment would take off, and that unemployment problems would disappear.
To an extent that was true, in the shorter term – although real wages did not increase much anymore. The long-term structural effect was skyrocketing private debt. People borrowed more and more cheap money, either to finance consumption, or reinvest it for extra profit in financial assets, corporate takeovers, stockpiles and real estate. That was often easier, more profitable and less risky, than investing in new production. People could live now, and pay later, with the option of withdrawing their capital at pretty short notice.
The average debt-load per capita and per household grew strongly. Financial profits mostly grew faster than industrial profits, across the whole world. So, more and more generic profit income took the form of interest, rents and capital gains. David Harvey stated that "the connection between profit of enterprise and the interest rate is now very strong". These trends led to a new academic discourse about "financialization".
- In the short term, the economic results of leveraged accumulation were financial “bubbles”, that burst after a while (overvalued assets are suddenly devalued in a downturn, often prompting recessions or depressions). In poorer countries, the financial crashes were often linked to currency and exchange-rate crises (when the local currency was devalued, repayments of debts denominated in foreign currencies could no longer be made – see e.g. Latin American debt crisis, Mexican peso crisis, 1997 Asian financial crisis). For the period 1970–2011, IMF researchers identified 147 systemic banking crises in the world, 211 currency crises and 55 sovereign debt crises.
- The long-term consequence is, that the total private debt of countries (and sometimes also public debt) grows faster than the total income that has to pay off the debt (countries tend to become "debt zombies"). To make up the shortfall, "somebody" has to pay, sooner or later. That increases socio-economic inequality globally, because the people who pay, are those who can least avoid paying (they cannot escape from paying tax and from the effects of budget cuts, they cannot contract new debt, to pay off old debt etc.).
- The more debt there is in the business world, the more financial pressure exists, to increase yield in any way possible, to be able to keep paying off liabilities, stakeholders and other claimants. It is no longer just that a healthy profit rate is desirable, but that reaching a certain profit rate becomes a mandatory requirement, to pay creditors.
- It became possible, within the framework of tax law, for an increasing number of companies to be formed that generated plenty income, although technically (in accounting terms) they operated at a loss.
This situation reaches its limit at some point, when it takes very little to cause (1) serious cash-flow problems, (2) very large asset sell-offs, (3) a freeze of investment activity and (4) a sharp drop in market confidence and sales. It creates the permanent risk of large credit defaults, banking crises and financial panics, which can trigger a severe global slump. The slump goes global, because all the world's financial markets (stocks, securities, currency, investment capital, real estate, derivatives etc.) are interconnected. If, for example, U.S. stock market activity plunges, stock markets around the world all react within a day (or, in some cases, within a matter of hours).
21st century Marxist controversies
Globalization and financialization have changed the way capitalism operates in the 21st century, and that has raised new points for debate about the rate of profit which had been overlooked, or regarded as less significant, in the 20th century. According to the orthodox Marxist economist Costas Lapavitsas, financial profit is distinct from normal capitalist profit. Nasser Saber states that "Finance is a specialized branch of economics precisely because the movement of securities prices is separate from (albeit not unrelated to) the dynamics of the physical capital." By 2007, the US financial sector was said to be generating more than 40% of US corporate profits.
Production capital/total capital
One issue concerns the relationship between the real economy (producing goods and services) and the financial economy (trading assets). Peculiarly, most workers work in the real economy, yet the financial sector has gained enormous economic and political power. Some argue, like Marx did, that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall applies only to the sphere of the capitalist industrial production of commodities, not to the whole capitalist economy. Thus, it is argued, it is eminently possible that while industrial profitability stagnates, average profitability in activities external to the sphere of industrial production increases.
In fact, Michael Hudson claims that in the United States, only about a quarter of workers' gross wages is spent on the direct purchase of actual goods and services. All the rest is spent on the payment of rents and mortgages, retirement schemes and insurance, loans and interest, and various taxes. Costas Lapavitsas adds to this insight that not just household liabilities, but also household assets have to be looked at: the rich 20% of the world's workers have substantial deposits and savings invested with banks and retirement funds, so that, on both sides of the ledger, they become fully dependent on finance capital. Since labor incomes rose strongly in rich countries along with population growth in the second half of the 20th century, very large savings became available in retirement funds, representing an additional source of capital invested for profit worldwide and increasing the economic power of the finance industry.
In 2008, the world's total tradeable financial assets (stocks, debt securities and bank deposits) were estimated at $178 trillion, more than three times the value of what the whole world produces in a year. In June 2017, the world's total public and private debt was estimated at US$217 trillion, again more than three times the value of what the whole world produces in a year. If one assumes a grand-average net profit rate of 5% on this global debt, the profit made from global debt is roughly equal in value to the GDP of China. This has created a world in industrialized countries that is very different from the orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist analysis of the commodity, where workers simply exchange their commodity labor power for a wage to buy a bundle of consumable commodities with.
The accounting category of "gross output" suggests the production of things but, in reality, the major part of it nowadays refers to the value of "services" which often maintain, distribute or increase holdings of already existing assets, local or imported. This is especially true of developed capitalist economies. Investment in production is, according to Marx, one mode of capital accumulation, but not the only one. Accumulating capital could be as simple as buying currency and subsequently selling it at a higher exchange rate (which happens on a grand scale nowadays – see: Foreign exchange market). Thus, even if the growth rate of industrial production slows or stagnates, asset and property sales may boom. Within certain limits, the income generated by an asset boom may indeed stimulate additional demand in particular sectors, until the boom collapses.
In advanced capitalist societies such as the United States, the stock of constant capital applied in private sector productive activities represents only about 20–30% of the value of the total physical capital stock, and perhaps 10–12% of total capital assets owned, and therefore it is unlikely that a fall in the industrial rate of profit could by itself explain economic crises. Marxists ignored this reality, because they tacitly assumed in their economic model that the economy consists just of factories, and that Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production was a complete analysis of the whole economy, which is not true.
- The famous Marxist scholar David Harvey claims that "Money, land, real estate and plant and equipment that are not being used productively are not capital".
- In his original 2001 Phd thesis in economics, the leading Dutch Marxist Robert Went borrows an idea from Christian Palloix, and transplants the categories of Capital, Volume II summarily to the whole world economy. Went claims that there exist only three circuits of capital (commodity capital, money capital and production capital), even although, according to Marx himself, these circuits refer only to the capitalist mode of production.
- In Japan, Kozo Uno equated Marx's theory of the capitalist mode of production with the theory of capitalist society.
- Murray Bookchin states that “Marxism’s economic insights belonged to an era of emerging factory capitalism in the nineteenth century.”
Marxists also assumed that earnings from production must be either spent on consumption or reinvested in production, but that is in reality not the case. Modern financial capitalism has put into question traditional models of causal chains in the economy. The main reason for that is, that there now exists a large amount of capital in rich countries that is not invested in production, yet strongly influences the developmental pattern of production and consumption.
In Capital, Volume I, Marx analyzed the direct production process of capital: the activities which create new commodities sold for profit. But when he analyzes the circulation and reproduction of capital in the second volume, he begins to develop the category of society's total capital. Initially, he refers rather loosely to gesellschaftliches Kapital (social capital), Gesellschaftskapital (society's capital), and gesellschaftliches Gesamtkapital (society's aggregate capital) as interchangeable terms. In the third volume, the concept of the total capital of society is developed further, as it becomes apparent that there exist all kinds of capital funds and assets in society which are not directly related to production.
Marx never completed his story with an analysis of the credit system as a whole, the real estate market, international trade, civil society and public finance; his work was very much unfinished. Yet in a mature, developed capitalist society, such as it exists a century and a half after Marx's studies, it is typical that more capital assets exist outside private capitalist production than are invested inside it (excluding "human capital", a concept which Marx rejected). That is the end result of centuries of capital accumulation, mechanization, state-building, and restructuring business operations.
More empirical studies
A new development in the early 21st century was the attempt to compute the trend in a "world rate of profit" by Minqi Li and other Chinese researchers. Michael Roberts subsequently tabled his own "world rate of profit" trend estimates in 2012, arguing that the data supports the TRPF. Roberts claims that the United Kingdom experienced a secular decline of the average rate of profit on capital since 1855, confirming Marx's hypothesis.
In 2007, John Bradford reassessed the theory of the TRPF, and computed the trends for US manufacturing and non-financials for 1930 to 2005.
Basu et al. (2012) reported evidence of a falling U.S. profit rate at about 0.3% a year on average for 1948–2007.
Basu et al. (2013) noted there is no "general theory" of capitalist crisis, and that the correct measurement and true economic role of profitability are still disputed.
In a 2014 Swedish thesis, Kalogerakos applies multivariate cointegration analysis to U.S. manufacturing data 1948–2011, to analyze the relationships between the profit rate, capital intensity, real wages, labour productivity and the unemployment rate. A secular declining trend in the rate of profit was not confirmed.
Elveren and Hsu (2015) report that some scholars argue for a secular long-run TRPF, others argue against it, and still others say that no secular trend exists either way. They examined the effect of military expenditure on profit rates in 1963–2008 for 24 OECD countries, and found a positive effect throughout the period, but also negative impacts after 1980. There are differences in impact between arms-exporting countries and non-exporting countries.
For Germany, Thomas Weiß (2015) reported that the average profit rate fell after 1959, and stabilized from 1982 at a level similar to that in the 19th century. He reports that all German enterprises together now invest 60% of their capital in financial assets, as against 40% in 1970.
Ivan Trofimov (2017) finds diverse patterns in profit rates in different groups of developed countries, suggesting that a universal law governing profit rates is unlikely, and that just one hypothesis cannot explain all the data.
Resende (2018) found no systematic evidence for a falling tendency in the U.S. rate of profit.
So far, there does not exist any study yet, which collates and compares all the analyses of empirical profitability trends that have been done internationally.
Much more is known nowadays about the trends in empirical measures of profitability. Hence, the econometric discussions are becoming more technical, focusing more on the validity of the underlying concepts, and on issues of data quality and the reliability of measures.
Simon Mohun states that the rate of profit is "most easily measured as the proportion of net output not returned as wages to the aggregate fixed capital stock" and that it is this rate of profit that is "generally used in empirical work". If the growth of the gross profit component of value-added (P) is statistically compared with the growth of the estimated fixed capital stock plus inventory holdings (C), it is certainly true that almost all measures will show that the ratio P/C does drop over time. The real value of the physical capital stock appears to grow faster in real terms than the real value of the operating surplus associated with that physical stock, in the long run.
The same effect persists even when various different depreciation techniques are used. The data trend is analogous to a rising tendency of the capital coefficient (referring to the capital/output ratio), where in the course of time more and more capital is required to obtain each additional increase in output. The profit rate rises again, only after a major crisis or a war which destroys a sufficiently large amount of capital value, raises the rate of surplus value, and clears the way for new production techniques.
However, it is a simple accounting error to think, that:
- the gross profit share of value-added is equal to true business profit,
- constant capital invested in physical assets (fixed equipment and inventories) represents the only capital that an enterprise owns, other than a fund to pay wages.
- profits from product sales are the only net income the corporation has.
Almost any corporate account can show that such hypotheses are false.
If an enterprise borrows or leases capital for production, rather than investing its own equity, this affects the total cost of enterprise capital that is tied up at any particular time. How the profitability of capital is accounted for, depends very much on who owns the capital, as distinct from who borrows it, or who uses it. So the rate of profit concept which Marx uses in his theoretical analysis of capitalist production (i.e. S/(C+V)) differs from the actual business concept of the rate of profit, because it disregards all sorts of financial and ownership issues, and because it concerns only part of the total circuit of capital. Marx's concept expresses the relationship between the value of labour payments, physical capital costs, and the value of surplus labour, which is not the same as the financial profitability of a company (although the two are related).
While orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist academics are convinced that the statistical data show that profitability is falling, businessmen can often happily see their profits grow anyway, and they have more real money in the bank. In theory they should have less money, but in practice they have more. That is because financial relationships between quantities of money (financial flows defined using a currency unit) can vary from the value proportions that exist between products or physical assets (defined in terms of the MELT, i.e. the monetary equivalent of labor time). A simple example of this is share repurchase.
If there is a significant drop in overall profitability, this will very likely also be reflected in data about the profit included in value-added, but that is only a rough indicator of the trend – the data quality may not be very great. Official statistics include in value-added only the netted value of new production (the net output); if a business makes money simply from selling an asset it has, or from asset appreciation, this is not normally considered "value-added", but property income. If that was not the case, then any kind of business income (or just about any kind of income) would represent value-added. It does not.
The original designers of gross product accounts (such as Simon Kuznets, Colin Clark, Edward Fulton Denison and Richard Stone) aimed precisely to exclude any capital gains (or other income from asset transactions and revaluations) from their measure of gross output, just like transfer payments. They wanted a reliable standard measure that would indicate changes in the value of the net new addition to wealth per year or per quarter: roughly, the total sales revenue from production less intermediate costs, or, the value of total outputs produced less the value of goods and services used up to produce them, or, the sum of factor incomes directly generated by production. The original meaning of the statistical measure "capital formation" was the real increase in the physical capital stock.
The issue then is, how exactly the grossing and netting must be done to obtain the value of total output, or the net addition to the value of the total capital stock, and it is done in a different way than business itself would do it (to eliminate non-production income/expenditure, ensure uniform valuation, and remove double counting; from the point of view of national accounts, in fact real credits can become theoretical debits, and real debits can become theoretical credits).
Normally, true gross profit is larger than the profit component of value-added shown in official statistics, because true profit typically contains net property income, part of corporate officer's earnings and part of the depreciation write-off. The logical possibility exists that although the profit rate can indeed fall, if aggregate profit is measured only as the profit component of value-added, in reality it does not fall, or not as much, for various reasons. Sixteen aspects could be mentioned, the typical result of which is that the growth of the profit volume is underestimated, and that the growth of the capital stock is exaggerated. The data effect is, that the overall profit rate seems to fall, although in reality it does not fall, or not nearly as much.
Organizations increasingly make money from trading in already existing assets which are not used by them to produce any new products and services with. Put differently, an increasing share of total generic profit income consists of net interest, net taxes, net capital gains, fees and royalties and rents.
This can happen because a lot of non-productive assets have been accumulated that are available for trade; second-hand physical assets, financial assets and properties are being traded; all sorts of things are traded internationally, taking advantage of currency and cost differentials; assets are being held via all kinds of special financial constructions to extract profit, etc. And, an increasing amount of interest payments, rents and capital gains have been excluded from operating surplus because, by statistical definition, they are not classified as production expenditure at all (i.e. they are not counted as value-added).
Post-Keynesian researchers such as Wynne Godley and Marc Lavoie therefore tried to devise more adequate measures of the real financial profitability of companies. If a lot of capital is borrowed at a cost which is lower than the income obtained from reinvesting it in assets that appreciate in value, then a lot of profit income is earnt which has nothing directly to do with creating new product value, and therefore is in principle not counted as value-added. Instead, existing wealth is transferred from one set of owners to another.
Generous depreciation write-off provisions or depletion allowances are in reality pure profit, or are at least partly a de facto profit component. The government may give tax incentives, provide guaranteed minimum prices, various economic subsidies etc.
The statistical concept of "economic depreciation" (consumption of fixed capital) diverges considerably from actual depreciation – economic depreciation is only an imputation, and is not directly derived from real gross revenue.
If the total actual write-off is larger than economic depreciation, for example because of tax incentives for new fixed investment, it is likely that a component of profit income is being ignored in the statistical measure (there exists no other way to verify what the value of total net output is, than adding together the various components of factor income/expenditure).
Nobody knows for sure what the true value of the total physical capital stock is, because all statistical estimates of that value involve theoretical extrapolations, with a margin of error which remains unknown unless very detailed and comprehensive surveys are done. What a fixed asset is worth becomes apparent only upon sale, yet even then assets may be sold above or below their true value – an important reason why statisticians adjust depreciation rates retrospectively and use price deflators.
Even where detailed information is available, however, assessments of what an asset is worth still depend on the valuation criteria used. Those criteria often differ from the actual criteria used by business, since they must conform to a standard statistical definition for measurement comparisons.
When government statisticians compile gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) figures, they usually add in "ownership transfer costs" (fees, taxes, charges, insurance costs, installation costs etc.) associated with the acquisition of a fixed asset put in place. In the United States, these costs represent around 1% of GDP, or around 4.5% of total fixed investment.
This inclusion may be perfectly valid for the purpose of a realistic gross investment measure, but when GFCF data is subsequently used to extrapolate the value of fixed capital stocks using the PIM (the perpetual inventory method), it includes elements which are, strictly speaking, not part of the value of fixed assets themselves. It appears "as if" ownership transfer costs are incurred and depreciated each year in the lifetime of fixed assets, since the value of these costs is carried forward in the perpetual inventory (unless a special adjustment is made). This has the effect of raising the fixed capital stock estimate above true value, cumulatively.
The British researchers Richard Harris & Stephen Drinkwater also highlighted the problem that the PIM does not account for premature scrapping (meaning that fixed assets are got rid of, well before they are totally depreciated). The reason is that a constant depreciation rate (based on average asset lives) is applied for the stock; a discrepancy therefore arises between depreciated value and scrap value (often statisticians also fail to track what happens to fixed assets that are got rid of, and therefore the assets can be counted twice in the same year).
The mathematical problem is that, given a constant depreciation rate, the effect of overstated stock values in the data will increase cumulatively across a series of years, unless a special adjustment is made. Thus, Harris & Drinkwater's 2000 study of fixed capital in British manufacturing 1970–1993 (23 years) found that, if the effect of capital scrapping which occurs due to plant closures is ignored from the 1969 benchmark onward, then this will lead to a 1993 capital stock estimate for plant and machinery which is 44% larger, than it would be when an appropriate adjustment is made for premature asset disposals.
Another depreciation measurement problem is the accelerating replacement of fixed assets, particularly of computer systems, affecting estimated asset lives and therefore average depreciation rates. These two factors alone could, according to a 1997 OECD paper, make a difference of 10% to the estimate of the annual capital stock for some UK industries.
Dutch and French statisticians suggested that if capital scrapping is ignored, capital stock results obtained with the PIM could be up to 20% larger than they probably are. New Zealand statisticians acknowledge explicitly that "PIMs may typically overstate the gross capital stock because of a failure to account for changing cyclical or accelerating rates of retirements".
Although he is not a Marxist, Thomas Piketty usefully discusses many problems with the PIM. Unlike orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist academics, Piketty and Zucman did not use the PIM method to get a measure of the capital stock, but instead used book values and corporate equity at market value.
Remuneration packages for corporate officers, including stock options and profit-sharing, have been included under "compensation of employees" as a labor cost, rather than being included in gross profit. This fact is particularly important in the United States, because the incomes of corporate officers are often very large.
The idea of supersized CEO pay has been disputed by the American Enterprise Institute who claim that the "average" CEO pay, according to BLS statistics, is more like US$220,000; only "a handful" would earn more than that.
- It is certainly true, as indicated by BLS data, that many CEO's do not earn supersized salaries.
- Statistically, however, the value of median CEO pay which BLS cites, is just six and a half percentage points below the mean amount, suggesting there's "more than a handful" involved here.
- The BLS numbers include only gross salary earned, for ordinary employee hours worked by CEO's (in total, around US$46 billion a year), and not the total income CEO's have in their position (as indicated by IRS and household survey data), including profits and capital gains.
- The BLS measure excludes all overtime, severance pay, non-production bonuses, supplementary benefits and training grants.
- The AEI's own numbers refer only to grand averages of normal, pre-tax work salary, and abstract from all disparities in the real distribution of net personal incomes.
Profit income from ordinary land sales is excluded from official value-added, since land is not considered to be a "produced asset". (see gross fixed capital formation). Included in capital formation is only the value of certain land improvements which are excluded from investments in building & construction (land clearing, land reclamation, land drainage, irrigation works, flood barriers, contouring, creation of wells and watering holes etc.).
So if a business makes money from land sales, the profit is in principle not counted in output measures because nothing is being "produced" (except possibly the "factor income" of supplied services). Official fixed capital aggregates exclude the value of land, and no very reliable official estimates exist for the value of land, because of problems with credibly valuing land in a standard way for measurement purposes. If the world market prices for primary products rise, profit rates on land sales and commercial land values will increase; even if the number of land sales stays constant, the profit on land sales will increase.
Mary Taylor states that “What is new all around the world... is that huge financial investors and huge agro-industries began to create join ventures to invest in land as a financial asset on its own. That had never happened before. .. buying cheap land, waiting for the price to climb, and then selling it with “profit” (the conceptual term would be “financial rent”)”. Yet, reliable data on the profits from land transactions are very scarce – partly because they are conceptually excluded from the statistical definition of value-added and capital formation, and partly because even if the value of land sales is known, it is difficult to ascertain what exactly the net profit on those sales would have been (after purchase and before sale, the landowner may have maintenance costs, improvement costs and taxes to pay, as well as revenue from the use of the land).
All sorts of differences occur in asset and stock valuation practices used by business (historic cost, current replacement value, current sale value etc.) affecting fair value and GAAP-based accounting (among many other issues, if the profitability of a capital asset falls, the market value of the capital asset itself will fall as well, in response – irrespective of whether it is a physical asset or a financial asset, and irrespective of its acquisition cost; this reduces the fall of the profit rate).
The valuations made are themselves influenced by the way price inflation is actually calculated using price indexes. Jochen Hartwig found that the divergence in growth rates of real GDP between the U.S. and the EU since 1997 "can be explained almost entirely in terms of changes to deflation methods that have been introduced in the U.S. after 1997, but not – or only to a very limited extent – in Europe". See further real prices and ideal prices.
Tax-dodging techniques of various kinds, reducing reported profit income and the reported value of sales, altering cashflows or exaggerating costs (legal constructions, creative accounting techniques, offshoring, tax havens etc. - see Tax evasion, Tax avoidance and Tax noncompliance). If tax data are used as a basis for statistical estimates, the reported amounts only reflect legal (fiscal) requirements and may well differ from the real situation. In 2012, a G20 meeting set up the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project to combat global tax evasion, under the auspices of the OECD.
In July 2018, Thomas Tørsløv, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman tabled their working paper "The missing profits of nations", which computes empirical estimates to show how "profit shifting" reduces official profit figures. A comprehensive data appendix and slide show is included (see further The Hidden Wealth of Nations). Zucman et al. estimate that "close to 40%" of the profits of multinational corporations are shifted to tax havens. Ludvig Wier & Hayley Reynolds said in December 2018 that the OECD's official estimate of profit shifting is likely to be “dramatically underestimated”.
The use of (1) credit instruments, (2) capital insurance (derivatives) to protect capital value, and (3) various legal constructions that split out the ownership, control, financing, management and use of capital. This allows the costs, sales and profits to be arranged in ways more favourable to the enterprise or corporate group – often using various different business entities located in different countries.
Statistical inclusions and exclusions, and survey accuracy problems can cause true profit to be underestimated. The biggest sources of error, at base level, are (1) improper revenue recognition, and (2) overstating assets (or capitalization of expenses). In principle, in the gross product account, only those profits are counted, which are considered to represent value-added.
The problem with long-run time series for price aggregates is, that they often disregard many qualitative changes in the components of those aggregates, or, it is assumed that these qualitative changes have no real quantitative significance for comparative purposes. A variable is thought to stay qualitatively the same across time, when in reality it does not remain the same.
- Michael Perelman shows that the content and economic meaning of capital aggregates can change considerably even within one decade or so. For example, the changing stratification of physical capital assets in the total capital stock, in terms of their age, exerts an independent influence on the productivity and profitability of enterprises.
- Stephen Cullenberg says that "profit is typically modeled as a homogeneous concept across time and space" – it is wrongly assumed that "changes in the amount of the rate of profit will uniformly impact all firms and decision-makers in the economy", disregarding different institutional frameworks, tax laws, accounting protocols and time horizons.
- Anwar Shaikh showed, that even if a capital holding in industry stays constant from time t onward, it can in principle generate more profit at t+1, exclusively because the capacity utilization rate rises. During the upturns, higher capacity utilization raises profit rates even higher (more sales in less time, for the same capital holding), and during downturns, lower utilization depresses profits on capital extra (capital tied up in plant & equipment is used less, or is idle more often). To understand the real long-run trend in average profit per unit of production capital (and what causes that trend), the historical data series for that profit rate therefore ought to be adjusted for changes in the capacity utilization rate across time (for which Shaikh constructed special indexes).
In general, the orthodox revolutionary classical Marxist data constructs, based on value-added statistics and the PIM method, lack the scientific accuracy and reliability required to prove whether very long-run trends in profitability are up or down. This is due mainly to important changes occurring across time in:
- tax regimes;
- accounting rules;
- survey, classification and estimation procedures;
- technological innovation, social relations and the division of labour;
- commercial practices and the legal structure of companies/institutions;
- price indexation and price deflation methods.
As economic historians and statisticians know, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to construct fully consistent series for price variables across 100 or 150 years – at most, the series can reveal some likely trends, up or down, or give an indication of the broad proportions involved.
So at best, the data offer an accurate indicator of short-term trends (5–7 years). For example, no economist on record has ever denied that between 1967 and 1973 the average rate of profit fell in the OECD area, but there has been dispute about how much it fell, and why.
Empirical Marxists have rarely analyzed the differences between true business profit and statistical profit figures, but the empirical arguments about profitability among empirical Marxists have to deal with five ideas:
(1) True profit rate: the real (but perhaps unknown or unstated) profitability of enterprises in terms of their true net gains, regardless of how they are reported.
(2) Conventional profit rate: the documented business rate of profit, about which information can vary between administrative transaction records, internal reports, published company reports, survey reports, tax reports and financial audits. Financial analysts use several dozens of standard profitability ratios to assess the income yield of investments, including the internal rate of return (IRR), the return on equity (ROE), and the return on invested (or total) capital (ROIC or ROTC) including borrowed capital. Total gross profit receipts must obviously be distinguished from distributed and undistributed profits, pre-tax and after-tax.
(3) Marxian profit rate: Marx's theoretical rate of profit in industries, which measures the relationships between the value of surplus labor and the value of the material components of production capital.
(4) Official statistical profit rate: the profit rate based on the estimated magnitude of accounting categories that are defined according to a theory of social accounting (what matters here is whether an economic activity or transaction which generates income can be statistically counted as "production" or not).
(5) Modified profit rate: the statistical rate of profit as modified by Marxists, through various re-aggregations, recalculations and adjustments.
These five ideas turn out to be discrete variables, but the profit rate will go up or down, depending on the choice of measure. Stephen Cullenberg states "as any business person knows, there is no single uniform definition of profit, but rather an array of measures of returns on investment (ROI), profit rates, and so on." Andrew Kliman states in his book The Failure of Capitalist Production that "I believe that there are many different legitimate ways of measuring rates of profit, and that none serves as an all-purpose measure. The most relevant rate of profit to consider always depends upon the particular question being addressed." This pluralist approach provides plenty possibilities for all kinds of different interpretations of all kinds of profit rates, depending on what the question is thought to be, to which a profit rate is supposed to be the answer. To figure out what is going on, a great variety of measures need to be collated and compared (which is also what business analysts do).
The traditional hurdles in interpreting the statistical rate of profit were mainly that:
- About half of all adults in advanced capitalist societies like Britain only have numeracy skills at the level of an 11-year-old child.
- Most academics and journalists criticizing GDP have no idea what it means, how it is measured, what the theory and history behind it is, and what it is good for (if people want to replace the GDP measure with something else, they ought to know at least what they are replacing).
- Among economic researchers "there is a worldwide illiteracy in national accounting."
The additional problem today is that, because the structure of modern capitalism is now different from half a century ago, a macroeconomics based on the traditional national accounting concepts can no longer credibly represent economic activity. Although the financial industry now dominates capital flows in the world economy, US government statisticians admit frankly that "Unfortunately, the finance sector is one of the more poorly measured sectors in national accounts".
Radical economists point out, that a considerable portion of incomes and expenditures is not captured by the GDP concept, because it falls outside the defined production boundary, while incomes/expenditures within the production boundary are allocated to categories which are substantially misleading.
Not only are GDP data frequently revised after first publication, but the popular idea that GDP equals "the whole economy" is a fallacy. It is a fallacy, not just because intermediate items, transfers and net factor income from abroad are excluded, but also because more domestic assets, incomes, transfers and spending exist beyond the defined "production" boundary for Gross Output (including, importantly, activities of government, financial institutions/companies, and households).
A gross product account for a nation (in which GDP is an entry) is an account of factor incomes and factor expenditures generated by production. It is not (as Thomas Piketty highlighted) an account of the total capital assets of a nation, that shows what happens with those assets, nor an account of the distribution of all the nation's incomes. When journalists equate GDP with "the whole economy", this is not only false; it also hides half of what is going on.
The more that the national accounts system has been revised across fifty years, and the more that economic theory and practice have changed, the less meaningful the main national accounts aggregates have become in capturing what is happening in reality. Analysts end up doing a lot of detailed disaggregate research to figure out what is going on, because the official main national accounts aggregates don't tell them what they want to know (more detailed data is increasingly available, because official statisticians make available digital data warehouses, enabling datamining).
The 2008 revision of the UNSNA standard system of national accounts tries to realign the system more with the modern realities of capital finance, but in the process, the original intention of the accounts to measure "physical" changes in wealth is, in some respects, superseded.
Noting the falling rate of profit and low capital formation in both Japan and Korea, scholars like Hyunbae Chun and Tsutomu Miyagawa say that “Economists increasingly stress the importance of investment in intangibles such as human and knowledge capital as a way to stimulate economic growth.”
According to OECD data for the year 2000, cited by the World Bank, physical capital represents only one-quarter of the capital stock of rich countries, and all the rest is "intangible capital". Yet UNSNA national accounts were originally never designed to measure the "intangible capital."
The closest we can get to the intangibles are the flow of funds tables, measures of human capital, intellectual capital, household capital and social capital (including network capital), and measures of the potential value of natural resources. Except for goodwill, the intangibles are usually off-balance sheet items. They are usually imputations or inferred magnitudes which do not refer to any real financial stocks and flows ("money in the bank"), although they might take into account real costs. There is no standard convention for measuring them (which explains why there are mostly no official standard estimates).
For example, a restaurant may generate good profits, because of its location, and therefore its location has an "intangible value" which attracts a steady stream of customers – but we cannot really identify objectively and exactly how much of its value and earnings are due exclusively to its location. All we can say is, that investors will pay a higher than average price for the restaurant, because of expected future earnings. The investors are interested in the "intangible" factor, because they can convert it into extra "tangible" profits (which Marx calls Extramehrwert or surplus-profits). It became a popular theme in the booming era of the dot-com bubble and academics postulated a new economy which generated spectacular profits from intangibles. The idea of intangible wealth persists in financialization theory, where any kind of resource (tangible or intangible) can in principle be capitalized as a tradeable asset, and leveraged for profit.
When the value of intangible assets is calculated to be much larger than the ordinary physical and financial assets we own, we might argue that "we are richer than we think we are", but that also calls into question the validity of conventional statistics of wealth. Other things remaining equal, the bigger a nation's capital is calculated to be, the lower its rate of profit will be (unless some "intangible profits" are factored in). An additional complication arises, when we venture into the region of intangibles: their measures can overlap with each other (for example, human capital contains intellectual capital, or social capital contains household capital). The boundaries between different kinds of intangibles could actually turn out to be quite fuzzy.
The contemporary concept of "wealth creation" is substantially different from the concept that was entertained in the mid-20th century, also because who exactly and legally "owns" the wealth, often becomes a secondary issue in business. An asset may be held which generates profit income, but it could be a borrowed asset via-via, or an asset of which the value be difficult to define (see also dot-com bubble). This can create new problems for statisticians seeking to estimate real additions to wealth.
Orthodox Marxists such as Andrew Kliman have decried a "physicalist" interpretation of value along Sraffian lines, but their own interpretation of profit was (arguably) "physicalist" because, basing themselves on value-added statistics, they tacitly permitted only the existence of profits that appear out of a physical increase in the stock of goods and services newly produced. Profit income from asset transactions was largely disregarded.
However, Kliman et al. (2014) compared the profits of US financial and non-financial corporations, using national accounts data, in order to argue that it is not financialization which has depressed productive investment, but that instead the real cause is the falling profit rate of non-financial corporations. A rival argument is presented by Mejorado & Roman. According to Bezreh & Goldstein (2013), the US financial sector did squeeze the profit share of the non-financial corporations.
The validity of econometric techniques used by Marxists to estimate labour-values and Marxian profit rates remains in dispute.
Some claim that for Marx, commercial trade and asset speculation were unproductive sectors, in which no new value can be created. Therefore, they argue, all income of these sectors represents a deduction from the new value created in the productive sectors of the economy. Booms in unproductive sectors may temporarily act as a countervailing factor to the TRPF, but not in the long run.
Fred Moseley's theory
Professor Fred Moseley argues that in the United States the grand-average rate of profit on production capital is lower than it was in the first decades after World War II, in part because of a rising share of unproductive labor in the total workforce, raising aggregate costs. This is a reason of its own for a falling average rate of profit. It suggested that, if the unproductive labor was "weeded out", then the profit rate would rise.
How the distinction between productive and unproductive labor is drawn obviously has a big mathematical effect on the estimated total profit rate on production, if unproductive labor costs are excluded from the total variable capital outlay, and included in the part of total net output which represents total surplus value produced. If the proportion of unproductive labor increases, paradoxically the total surplus value will then also increase, with the effect of raising the rate of profit.
Prof. Moseley resolves this paradoxical effect by distinguishing between primary and secondary income distributions, and between gross and net surplus value. In his account, first the total net value-added is produced by the productive workers, and then the gross wages of the unproductive workers are deducted from the gross surplus value; in that interpretation, it follows that the larger the wage-bill of unproductive workers is, the lower the netted surplus value will be. Chris Harman noted large quantitative differences in the estimates of unproductive labor by different orthodox Marxists. Moseley's calculations and his definition of unproductive labor have been criticized by other Marxists.
The main objections discussed about the productive/unproductive distinction (usually denoted as "PUPL") are conceptual and empirical.
The main conceptual objection is, that the distinctions between productive and unproductive labor offered by various Marxists are essentially arbitrary, and without a genuine, scientifically sound foundation. In a complex division of labor, specialist productive work relies on a network of indispensable managerial, facilitary and technical support services, without which it could not take place at all.
It is merely that, during a capitalist boom, when plenty finance is available, there are many more opportunities to "diversify" and expand the division of labour, with all kinds of new and interesting job titles - adding extra workers, to take on tasks, that the regular staff no longer want to touch themselves. Especially (but not only) during the economic slump, the division of labour is restructured by managers, so that fewer employees get to do more work, more precisely focused on the "core business" (reducing the “employee fat” of the business, that grew in the preceding era).
Marx himself never said that managerial functions were wholly "unproductive", but rather that they combined productive and unproductive tasks. He pointed out that there were continually disputes about whether labour was productive or not, depending on who could make money from it – and that in turn depended on how the accounting was done as well as on property rights. Whether workers physically and directly produce something tangible or not, they are all necessary, or at least most of them are (as Marx acknowledges with his concept of the "collective worker" or, in German, Gesamtarbeiter). It is therefore impossible to attribute the creation of new value only to workers who directly produce a tangible product.
Marxists often assume in their social accounts that the total payment of unproductive labor is made from a redistribution of part of the current surplus value produced by productive labor, but there is no proof of that assumption whatsoever, and indeed some Marxists have argued that the "overhead expense" of unproductive labor represents an outlay of circulating constant capital. David Ramsay Steele has defended the productive economic role of financial markets.
The main empirical objection is that there exists no accurate way to separate out productive and unproductive labor in official statistics (and the value each represents), even if the conceptual distinction could be validly defined. The main reasons are the following;
- The concept of "productive labor performed" is not equivalent to "productive worker".
- Productive work may create goods and services which cannot be profitably sold.
- The same worker may perform tasks which are classified as partly productive and partly unproductive.
- How the product of various services (or the role of services in production) should be defined remains controversial.
- When statisticians allocate producer's occupations and outputs to a classification scheme, their defining criterion is the "main activity" of producers, disregarding their ancillary activities. Thus, already the base data represent an abstraction from reality.
For some Marxist theorists, these issues are not so weighty because, they argue, in the vast majority of cases it is quite clear and obvious whether labour is "productive labour" or not; the controversial cases represent only a residual number in the total. For other Marxists, things are more complicated, because Marx says that the same work can be either productive or unproductive, depending on whether or not surplus-value (producer's profit) can be extracted from it. The "services economy" is an under-researched topic among Marxian theorists.
A businessman looks at the deployment of labor in a different way, but faces a similar analytical problem. All labor produces something, but it does not necessarily help to create profit for one reason or another. What interests a businessman in a financial sense, is the cost of labor which directly creates the product or service that generates profit, versus the cost of labor that is effectively only a necessary overhead expense for his own business. The general aim is, to maximize productive labor in this sense, and minimize unproductive costs. That is the efficiency principle that guides the development of the division of labor organizationally.
For example, tasks that are not part of the "core business" are outsourced to other companies, if there is a cost/profit advantage or efficiency gain. Modern factories are often not "stand alone" operations, but highly specialized plants linked to a whole web of non-manufacturing companies that supply various products and services – things which, in the old days, used to be produced "in-house". Statistically, it might then look like the manufacturing sector and its profit have shrunk, but in reality, the factories produce even more goods, supported by many companies in other sectors (see also vertical disintegration and dynamic manufacturing network). Profit receipts may only appear in the accounts of a subsidiary or parent company that handles the sales contracts.
Ideally speaking, everything the employee does would directly contribute to profit for the enterprise (but in reality it usually doesn't). If employers paid piece wages then, in theory, they would incur costs, "only if" their employees created new value for them. Marx believed that piece wages – whether paid on an individual or team basis – were, in the long term, the most favorable form of remuneration for capitalist labor-exploitation, although he recognized that often workers earning piece-wages could initially earn more than workers on time-wages.
The trouble though is, that this productive/unproductive distinction is not easily made in practice, given changes in the market, in social-organizational efficiency, and in production techniques, and it does not necessarily have anything to do with whether a worker produces something tangible or not. What looks like an efficiency gain from "weeding out" seemingly unproductive activity may in fact not be an efficiency gain in total, or it may be very difficult to prove that it is. If fewer workers are made to do more work, intensifying labor, then accidents, illness or errors may increase.
In the real world, technical efficiency and financial efficiency are not necessarily the same thing at all. Hence there is continual debate in management theory about these issues, with few "general" answers being available, since much depends on the specific organizational technique of enterprises.
The only "general" managerial answer there is, is to recast the accounting for every detailed activity that workers perform as a statistically observable input-output relationship which results in a "product", even if the "product" is no real product at all, but some kind of service or performance result. By describing a labor-service or a task performance as a product, it seems identifiably productive, although substantively it may not create any new product. It enables the creation of data about the production, distribution and consumption of the product that creates profit.
In Marxist theory, this is called the "commodification of services": each specific service is accounted for as a specific alienable product with a certain price tag, and managed accordingly. Eventually, the commodified service is turned into a vendible commodity, just as people are replaced by machines. Many services which used to be performed by trained staff are replaced by mass-produced things, because that is more profitable and cheaper to buy. For example, a teacher is replaced with an instruction video.
Divisions of labour
What orthodox Marxists traditionally tried to do, is to create concepts for a very precise standard classification schema of occupations and output-defined industrial activities, which splits the working class into productive and unproductive employees. This schematic approach to the issue was strongly influenced by the official orthodox Marxist–Leninist Material Product System (MPS) in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba and Vietnam. The MPS national accounts divide economic activity into a productive sector where tangible physical goods are produced, an unproductive sector creating services, and households. Another influence was Piero Sraffa's revival of the classical distinction between the production of "basic" and "non-basic" goods.
What Marx himself was concerned with was something else: the evolutionary tendencies of the capitalist division of labor, from the first urban workshops in medieval times, to large joint-stock companies employing thousands of workers in different countries. Since the division of labor changes when new technologies and forms of organization are introduced, the definition of what is "productive" labor must change as well. "Modern manufacturing no longer thinks in terms of white or blue collar — the workers it needs now are 'new-collar'".
Although Marx assumed that the basic institutional set-up of capitalist production remained the same (with respect to property rights and trading circuits) he never assumed that its specific organisational forms would stay the same. Methods of organisation had evolved, and were repeatedly changed as new inventions and techniques became available. 21st century managers are not just concerned with the design of work-tasks, like Frederick Winslow Taylor was, but with the design of the total organizational environment within which workers function.
Major Western debates
In 2009–2010, a fierce debate took place about the rate of profit, among leading Marxist economists from various political organizations and tendencies in Western Europe and North America. According to the French Marxist economist Michel Husson, there were basically four bones of contention:
- how had the average rate of profit in industries evolved since the early 1980s, in the larger developed capitalist countries?
- what is the theoretical status of the tendential fall in the rate of profit in Marxist analysis?
- what is the nature of the capitalist crisis today?
- what is the political relevance of this discussion?
However, there was very little agreement about concepts, measurement principles, and political perspectives among participants. According to some (like Michel Husson) the rate of profit had gone up again since 1980, while others (like Andrew Kliman) thought it had stayed down. All kinds of different political conclusions were being drawn from the econometric evidence.
2013 Monthly Review debate
In 2012, Monthly Review Press published Michael Heinrich's An introduction to the three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital In this book, which was endorsed by leading Western Marxist professors as the best introduction to Marx's Capital, and which received some glowing reviews, Heinrich – who is the chief editor of the leftist flagship magazine PROKLA in Germany – argued that the rate of profit can both rise and fall. Therefore, "A long-lasting tendency for the rate of profit to fall cannot be substantiated at the general level of argumentation by Marx in Capital."
By the end of 2013, leftwing economist Michael Yates stated: "What exasperates me more and more is the certainty with which so many people pontificate [about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall]". He argued the evidence for the tendency was tenuous, and that "Marx analyzed capitalism in its "ideal average," at a high level of abstraction. This "ideal average" can serve as a guide to examining the societies in which we live... but the two are not the same, something the disciples of the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" school do not seem to grasp."
The socialist journal Monthly Review with which Yates is associated hosted a special debate about the falling rate of profit and crisis theory, featuring Michael Heinrich, Shane Mage, Fred Moseley, Michael Roberts and Guglielmo Carchedi. Michael Heinrich argued that there is now considerable evidence that in the original draft manuscripts Marx left behind, he never proposed a crisis theory in terms of the falling rate of profit, or that if he did, he was reconsidering that theory at the end of his life. The outcome of the debate was inconclusive, since the rival Marxists could not find much agreement among themselves about what is the correct interpretation.
Marx (as he said himself) only intended to provide an analysis of the capitalist mode of production in its "ideal average". Yet the categories of modern macroeconomic statistics are also idealizations and stylized facts, even although people might often believe the macroeconomic categories exist as an objective, mind-independent reality. Furthermore, although Marx accepted James Steuart's concept of "profit upon alienation", Marx's own analysis largely disregarded profit income which did not arise directly from new production by living labor – the reason being, that Marx was concerned with the capitalist mode of production, i.e. with how capital subordinates and reshapes production to fit with capital accumulation, and all that implies for workers' lives.
2016 Michael Roberts debate
The 2016 Historical Materialism conference featured a panel which debated about Michael Roberts' book The long recession. Roberts (this is a pseudonym of the British Marxist researcher Robert McKee) stated that:
"The real question is whether the claim that the Marx’s law of profitability as the underlying cause of crises under capitalism can be empirically validated. That is what my work and the work of many others attempts to do. And I think we are achieving that."
Much of the debate also took place on the Michael Roberts blog page. In 2018, Roberts & Carchedi published a joint book, titled World in Crisis: Marxist Perspectives on Crash & Crisis, which is billed “the most comprehensive empirically-based defense of Marx’s law of profitability, as the cause of capitalist crises.” 
Profits and crises II
The traditional orthodox-fundamentalist Marxist narrative is, that capitalist crises are crises of profitability: the economic disturbance is caused by the circumstance that capitalists are making insufficient profits, and not because there are insufficient goods around for everybody. Thus, the masses are impoverished amidst an abundance of wealth. That situation is bound to happen, because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Once workers understand that, they can break with illusions about reforming capitalism, and prepare for revolution.
However, critics point out that this kind of interpretation is problematic. There are two main reasons:
- First, in any significant economic slump, all economic indicators of output production, market sales, investment and employment are down, not just average profitability. If for example sales are down, it is logical that profit income will be down as well, but this does not mean automatically that lower profitability causes the downturn in sales. It all depends on how exactly "macro" and "micro" trends are related. Post-Keynesian economists are apt to point out that whether people are buying or not, matters a great deal to the overall functioning of the economy, and matters a great deal to overall profitability. If, for example, a lot of market uncertainty exists about the future, people are going to buy less, and that cuts into profits. The most common fault in economic analysis is that short-term trends are confused with long-term trends, and this is often what the controversy between Marxists and Keynesians is about.
- Second, average profitability is itself determined by a huge variety of influences on costs, sales and income which are all linked together in various ways. Therefore, if the crisis is blamed on lower profitability, this either states a tautology which must be true by definition ("people are not making as much money as they used to"), or else it is substantially false – since the crisis is just as much caused by a drop in sales, output, investment, incomes and employment – which all react on each other. The observed average industrial rate of profit can fall already for a series of years, before the slump arrives; therefore, it is not really credible to attribute the cause of the slump exclusively to the fall in the rate of profit (why exactly does the slump occur in year x, rather than in year x+n or year x-n?).
An additional reason, noticed for example by Michael Hudson, is that in the rich countries, the stock of privately owned physical production capital used in industries is nowadays only a minor component of the total stock of capital assets. If, therefore, the profit rate on privately owned physical industrial capital falls a percent or two, this cannot have a very large or immediate negative effect on the whole economy. To claim that it does have such a big effect, makes no mathematical or econometric sense whatever.
Profitability may be observed to fall, along with other variables, but that says nothing about the true interrelationship of the determinants which explain why it falls. David Harvey stated: "Data that show a falling rate of profit do not necessarily confirm the existence of the specific mechanism to which Marx appealed." In fact, the orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist Paul Mattick even claimed "that the conditions both of the crisis and its solution are so complex that they cannot be empirically determined. When the crisis will break out, its extent, and its duration cannot be predicted; only that there will be a crisis can be expected with certainty." Causal chains could be traced out in all sorts of directions, using the same econometric evidence. Thus, to ascertain what independent role profitability actually plays in economic development requires a much more precise analysis than Marxists have ever provided. Marxists simply assumed the centrality of profitability in capitalist production, but they failed to prove that falling industrial profitability is the root cause of all crises, rather than (say) one of the effects that are visible in crises.
In reply to this kind of criticism, orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist academics such as Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts and Guglielmo Carchedi admit that the crisis may not be directly caused by an insufficient mass of surplus value to valorize all the capital there is (the traditional Fraina-Grossmann-Mattick argument). After all, this is not really credible in view of the great financial crisis of 2007–2009, which arose out of a financial panic about dodgy securitized products that occurred when average business profitability was high. Rather, these Marxists argue, the historically low average profitability of industry explains why depressed conditions persist, instead of a quick recovery happening after a credit bubble pops. Thus, low industrial profitability is the "underlying factor" explaining general economic stagnation.
According to this narrative, in recent decades "economic fundamentals" were in a poor state; nothing much was done about that, except that workers were beaten down; instead, the economy was artificially pumped up with cheap credit and cheap imports, prompting a housing and spending boom; when the credit bubble popped, the economy sagged right back into its poor state. Such arguments may have some plausibility, but if they are examined in fine detail, it is clear that a whole series of different arguments are actually being made about the way that falling profitability is connected to economic slumps. In reality, therefore, it is still far from resolved what the role of profitability in crises actually is.
In the aftermath of the 2007–2009 slump, corporate profits surged to new heights while real wages stagnated, but this did not lead to a full recovery of real employment, real output growth and real fixed investment. As Mohamed El-Erian predicted fairly accurately in 2009, the number of jobless in the US economy has settled at a higher level that looks like persisting in the longer term. This result is mainly attributable to long-term unemployed people being unable to find paid work again, and dropping out of the labour force – plus, more people who cannot get all the paid working hours that they want.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data showed that between 2008 and 2014, the US labor force (those employed for one hour per week or more + officially unemployed workers) stayed basically at the same size, although the proportion of unemployment within the labor force grew; yet according to the US Census Bureau the total US population increased by a net 13 million people at the same time (about half of whom were immigrants), and, according to the BLS, the number of US adults in the economically active population who are classified as "not in the labor force" increased by a net 12 million.
It took seven years for the US economy to recover from the financial crash, but US senator Bernie Sanders has claimed that real US unemployment is twice the official figures. For Europe, Mario Draghi suggested an average increase in "structural" unemployment from 8.8% in 2008 to 10.3% by 2013. Just as in the 1970s and 1980s, the grand-average jobless rate has risen to a higher level. This creates a downward pressure on the modal average real wage, though at the top end salary packages still increase. In September 2014, Robert Reich noted that although profits were at record levels, the median US household income, adjusted for inflation, was 8% lower than in 2007.
By 2016, US median personal income had recovered again to the pre-crash level, and began to rise somewhat, but there was no spectacular "earnings growth", except for supervisory staff. There are various explanations for a growing adult population that is "not in the labour force." In 2018, there were officially 6.2 million US unemployed, but also 5.1 million "not in the labour force" who wanted a job, suggesting a real unemployment rate of 7% (one in 14 workers). Since however "employed" includes all those who work for "one hour or more per week, or more", Bernie Sanders' estimate is probably valid (not 3.9% unemployed, but 8% - around one in 12 workers). At the same time, employers complained that they could not obtain the labour they required – there were mismatches between supply and demand in the labour market.
Unequal exchange basically means that things are persistently traded above or below their "real" value or production cost, resulting in extra profits for the beneficiaries of the trade. The losers in the trade get less for what they sell, and pay more for what they buy. This phenomenon obviously has big implications for business profitability, and for the theory of labour exploitation. Faced with low profits at home, businessmen can shift their plant to other countries, where costs are much lower and revenues are higher. Then they can import or export goods and services from there, using the internet and cheap freighting, and possibly take advantage of currency and tax differentials. In this way, foreign trade and globalization reduce the effect of the TRPF.
Capital, Volume I
According to orthodox classical revolutionary Marxism, profits can only arise from surplus labor, and therefore, it is argued that the direct source of all capitalist profits is the exploitation of wage labor. This principle is often called the "Fundamental Marxist Theorem" by mathematical Marxists: a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of positive profits is that surplus value is positive. It is an interpretation which certainly makes sense from the point of view of Capital, Volume I where Marx assumed, for the sake of argument and for the sake of simplicity, that the prices at which the inputs and outputs of capitalist production are traded are equal to their value. In Capital, Volume I, Marx aimed to show, that even if all commodities were fairly traded on the basis of equal exchange, exploitation could nevertheless occur within capitalist production, and that if more value did not come out of production than went into it, it would be impossible to explain economic growth. The reason was simply that workers together could produce much more value than they needed themselves to live. That was, according to Marx, exactly the reason why the owners of capital hired those workers.
Capital, Volume III
However, the analysis of capitalist competition offered in Marx's Capital, Volume III is completely based on the principle that commodities, human labor capacity, currencies and assets (physical or financial) in reality do not trade at their value. Rather, they are constantly being traded at margins above their value and below their value, in markets where sales are constantly fluctuating. It is, as Marx explains in the first chapter of Capital, Volume III, precisely the difference between the necessary cost-prices and the possible selling prices of commodities which is critical for profit margins, and which is therefore at the epicenter of competition in product markets. Commodities could also be sold below their value, at a good profit, assuming a sufficient turnover – the classical principle of competition. Moreover, the further development of the analysis in Capital, Volume III shows that goods and assets are also being traded for profit external to the sphere of production.
As soon as it is admitted that, in the real world, all economic goods can trade at prices above or below their real production-cost, it can no longer be true, that the only source of all profits is the exploitation of wage labor. The reason is, that profit income can arise simply from selling the same priced good for more than it was purchased for, resulting in a capital gain for the seller, where this capital gain can be completely unrelated (or quite disproportional) to any identifiable labor cost. Effectively, more labor can exchange for less labor, and vice versa, and in the real world, this happens – fortunately or unfortunately – all the time. That insight is the basis of the theory of unequal exchange.
Point of production
According to unequal exchange theory, exploitation is not something that is limited only to "the point of production" of the revolutionary classical orthodox Marxists. Exploitation could occur in all sorts of ways, including at the level of international trade. In turn, that means that profit rates can be influenced by the terms of market trade, quite independently of production (as long as everybody can make gains, then even if the gains are not equal, it may attract no attention; but when incomes fall, the problem becomes manifest). Profit rates may not fall, because products are made cheaply in one part of the world, and resold somewhere else for a much higher price. The financial gain involved in the resales is not made explicit by value-added statistics, except indirectly.
The theory of unequal exchange nevertheless remains very much contested among Marxists, because they are unsure about how it could be reconciled with the pure, correct classical revolutionary Marxist orthodoxy. There are three main issues.
If the values and prices of goods can vary independently in all kinds of ways, then the classical revolutionary orthodox Marxist principle that total production prices are equal to total product values cannot, realistically, be true; there exists no causal mechanism by which such price-value fluctuations perfectly compensate each other in aggregate, so that total product values equal total production prices. The principle can then be true only in an abstract theoretical model, but not in reality. Yet, if that classical revolutionary orthodox core principle is not true in reality, then it seems to follow there cannot be any systematic relationship in the real world between the Marxist labor-values and the actual price-levels for products – which was precisely what critics argued during the 20th century about the insolubility of the transformation problem.
If the Marxian product values are really determinants of product-prices, is there a way to express that relationship, other than as an accounting consolidation, or as a simultaneous input-output equation? There is no consensus about that issue among mathematicians and computer scientists, although the main trend is now toward probabilistic analysis and vector algebra.
Many mathematical Marxists have abandoned Marx's analysis of the equalization of the rate of profit and Marx's concept of production prices, arguing that an analysis of input-output data can straightforwardly prove a strong, robust positive correlation between product-prices and employee hours worked. They argue, with Marx, that a uniform profit rate does not exist in reality, but against Marx that, therefore, a tendency for differences in profit rates to be levelled out by competition does not exist either. Since (they argue) the deviation of product-prices from product-values is not very great in reality, the law of value is an empirical law with predictive power. At least for output aggregates, this is quite easy to prove, since net value-added (gross labour compensation earned and paid + gross profits earned and paid, net of write-offs) is by definition strongly correlated with the total amount of labour hours worked – the wage component is larger than the profit component. This whole analysis does not, however, refer to foreign trade.
Reinaldo A. Carcanholo stated that "...it is no easy task for those who are convinced of the depth and reality of Marx's theory of value to accept that there is profit that is not the result of exploitation."
The theory of unequal exchange moreover talks about exploitation in the sphere of distribution, in addition to the sphere of production. This is regarded by classical revolutionary orthodox Marxists as a demonic reformist threat to the core orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist principle that exploitation occurs only at the point of production, and that capitalism cannot be made fair through fair trade or redistribution, only abolished by abolishing wage labor.
Thus, for example, Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell prefer a Ricardian theory of comparative advantage to explain world trade. One Marxist states that "Radicals assume unequal exchange after Ricardo and want the state to intervene to equalize exchange. Marxism critiques both these theories as limited by the level of analysis."
According to Marxist theory, exploitation is a grievance of the working class, but according to unequal exchange theory, capitalists can be just as aggrieved about exploitation, in all kinds of ways, by other competing capitalists or by the state.
Even if the existence of unequal exchange is accepted as a market reality, it is not yet clear how it mainly occurs, or what its modalities are. There have been many different theories about how unequal exchange actually works.
Advanced political economy
In his large 2016 treatise on capitalism, Anwar Shaikh has tried to resolve some of these issues, using a distinction between "profit on production" and "profit on transfer", and a theory of international capitalist competition. Shaikh's treatise easily proves he is the most important living classical economist in the world today, but nowadays he shies away from labels like "Marxist" and "Marxian", because these labels have been corrupted, and can cause confusion, distracting from the real scientific issues.
Recently, Andrea Ricci has attempted to provide a unified theoretical framework that can incorporate all the possible forms of unequal exchange mentioned in the economics literature. Persefoni Tsaliki, Christina Paraskevopoulou and Lefteris Tsoulfidis say, that little empirical research has been done on international transfers of value. They related unequal exchange theory to the modern Marxian theory of competition, and tested it out in the case of the trade between Greece and Germany.
One of the first ecological Marxists, Elmar Altvater, argued that "[t]he costs of clean air and clean water belong to the capital outlays and therefore increase the amount of constant capital fixed in the production process with the effect of an increasing organic composition of capital. Hence, the profit rate will fall (of course ceteris paribus)." However, not everyone agrees with that idea.
Firstly, it all depends who has to pay for the cost, and what kind of sanctions there are for polluters. If the state pays the cost out of general taxes, the costs to individual private enterprises would be much lower compared to their gains. It may be that some businesses gain from an environmentally friendly policy, while others do not, so that they are in competition with each other. Mathematicians would point out that the costs of clean air and water are only a very small component of total capital costs, but some argue that corporations are profitable precisely because they do not pay for externalities. According to Leontief Prize winner Duncan K. Foley, the perception that curbing greenhouse gases is "costly" assumes that capitalism is "efficient" without such controls, but if externality costs exist, it means precisely that capitalism is not at all operating at its "efficiency frontier".
Secondly, the anti-pollution and rubbish-recycling industries can be profitable; additional income is generated by low-wage workers cleaning up the environment after it has been fouled up by rich people. After the largest oil spill in history, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, J.P. Morgan analysts concluded that the business generated by clean-up work would very likely be larger than the financial losses to tourism or fishing, resulting in a net increase in GDP. However, the Bureau of Economic Analysis stated that the economic effects of the BP oil spill were "generally embedded in the source data that underlie the estimation of GDP and the national accounts and cannot be separately identified". On September 5, 2014, a US federal court ruled that BP had been "grossly negligent" and that that BP repeatedly cut corners to boost profits.
Thirdly, the new technologies may be cleaner and cheaper, rather than more expensive and more polluting. For example, in 2014, the municipal authorities in the Dutch townships of Beverwijk, Heemskerk, Uitgeest and Velsen offered residents a subsidy of up to €1,050 (US$1,300) if they traded in their old petrol-driven scooter for an electric scooter.
So far, there is no scholarly consensus yet about what the overall long-term effect will be of environmental pollution on the average rate of profit for industries. In some cases, if a resource is depleted (and therefore much more difficult and costly to obtain), the profit yield on producing the resource might fall, since people will only buy it up to a certain price point. In other cases, if an essential resource becomes scarce, its owners can drive up the price, and thus increase their profit rate, because demand remains strong.
Economists like Odran Bonnet, Boe Thio, Michel Husson, Matthew Rognlie, and Gianni La Cava have argued that Piketty's results are largely attributable to his broad definition of capital, specifically to the growth in the value and profitability of the housing stock. Once the housing stock is excluded from capital data, they argue, Piketty's results no longer hold. Academics also dispute about how the value of the housing stock should be measured; La Cava points out, that the figures for the income from housing capital are distorted by including the imputed rental value of owner-occupied housing (that "notional" component has kept increasing as a percentage of GDP in the post-war era). Michael Hudson notes, that if industrial profits are not statistically separated from real estate profits, the overall rate of return on capital that is obtained will be "considerably understated". Anwar Shaikh argues that Piketty's measure of capital is "an inconsistent measure of real and financial assets" and that Piketty's "hybrid definition of the rate of profits is invalid".
A couple of years before the global financial crisis, William R. White, serving with the Bank of International Settlements, made a plea for comprehensive and integrated capital stock and flow statistics (financial assets and physical capital), and for better surveys of household asset and liability valuations. He stated that:
"In the area of valuation, it must be noted that the statistics currently collected on the prices of both residential and non-residential structures are still inadequate in many ways. Moreover, in many countries, historical data is almost non-existent. When one considers the role played by such prices in economic cycles, the absence of such data is almost shocking."
Research by Savills in 2016 points out that, as regards the value of the housing stock, size does matter. According to their calculation, the total value of the world's "developed" real estate was $217 trillion in 2015 (this was equal to 2.7 times global GDP, or 60% of mainstream global assets; residential property accounted for 75% of the total value of global real estate property). Yolande Barnes, head of Savills world research, stated:
“To give this figure context, the total value of all the gold ever mined is approximately US$6 trillion, which pales in comparison to the total value of developed property by a factor of 36 to 1. The value of global real estate exceeds – by almost a third – the total value of all globally traded equities and securitised debt instruments put together, and this highlights the important role that real estate plays in economies worldwide.”
Specifically, Savills estimated that the investable global real estate in 2015 amounted to $81 trillion (37%), as against $136 trillion (63%) non-investable global real estate (not in the market for investors). This compared with $55 trillion of global equities, $94 trillion outstanding global securitized debt, and the $6 trillion of all the gold that was ever mined. For 2014, the OECD estimated global private equity (the business capital stock) at US$103.5 trillion, global public equity (the government capital stock) at $69 trillion, and global land value at $72.3 trillion.
A 2017 report to the United Nations Human Rights Council criticized the commodification and financialization of a deregulated housing market, causing large-scale housing speculation for profit. It said that this trend was leading to big social problems across the world. On behalf of many of the world's large cities, the mayor of Barcelona called on the United Nations to do something to help stop real estate speculators from driving up the cost of housing. If nothing is done, then in the long term, it will be impossible to reconcile stagnant or falling real incomes for a large part of the workforce, with rising housing costs. The result would be overcrowded rental housing, squatting and homelessness on a very large scale. In turn, that would cause more crime, disease, psychological problems and aggressive behavior.
In 2017, only half of Californian householders owned their homes. One out of every three renters (roughly six million people) were paying more than half of their total income to their landlord. In Los Angeles, tenants staged a rent strike in protest against extortion.
In the 20th century, Marxists were handicapped in reading Marx's texts on the rate of profit. There were five reasons:
- Many of his texts on economics had not been published, or they were originally never intended for publication (they were drafts, notes or letters – yet they were later often quoted by academics "as if" they had exactly the same definite status as writings which Marx published himself).
- If they were published posthumously, they were initially only available in German, or French or Russian language (e.g. the Grundrisse).
- The published texts were often hard to get, censored or banned (and in Nazi Germany burned).
- If the texts were translated, the translations were often far from exact, restructured by editors, or excerpted (a good example is Theories of Surplus Value which originally existed only as an unorganized collection of drafts, subsequently edited into books).
- Most editions of Marx's works were heavily influenced by the dominant interpretations of correct Marxist–Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China, which recast Marx's and Engels's thought as a complete, systematic and fully consistent philosophical categorization of human existence as a whole, added to by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.
Ronald L. Meek concluded that in dealing with Marx, academics often abandoned scholarly standards of fact-finding, evidential support and proof, and Hal Draper referred to the disease of "Marxolalia" ("the propensity to garble Marx"). The British radical Cyril Smith even claimed in 2005 that “It would not be overstating the situation to say that, right down to the present day, the “Marxists” have been among the most direct and bitter opponents of the ideas of Karl Marx.” The total effect was, that for more than a century, people were miseducated about what Marx really said and stood for; his ideas were constantly being filtered through theoretical frameworks and political intentions that were far removed from his own.
All these issues have begun to be solved only from the 1970s, with the publication of the many new volumes of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (the so-called "MEGA2"). This gigantic, annotated historical-critical edition will make available, in a planned 114 volumes (of which 62 have been published), all existing versions of practically every scrap Marx wrote on economics, in the original language in which they were written. The official German MEGAdigital website makes parts of division 2 of MEGA2 available online. The Chinese Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (CCTB, which from 2018 falls under the new Institution for Party History and Literature Research) is using the MEGA2 as a basis for a new Chinese edition of the Marx-Engels Collected Works.
However, Gareth Stedman Jones claims that all the MEGA2 volumes up to the 1990s are still tainted by Marxism–Leninism. Many old editions are still used by scholars, because they are considered sufficiently accurate, provide useful annotations and references, and offer translations not available in the MEGA2. Also, it is much easier to cross-check citations in old texts, if the old sources are to hand.
In addition, on 11 August 2015 all the original manuscripts by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels archived at the International Institute of Social History were at once made available digitally, online and free of charge. It has unleashed new scholarly debates about the true theoretical status of Marx's work on the falling rate of profit. Some (like Dr. Michael Heinrich) argue that the original manuscripts show, that Marx himself was really far less certain and complete in his arguments than Engels later presented him to be. Others (like Prof. Fred Moseley) argue that the original manuscripts in fact strengthen Marx's argument. Recently, Ben Fowkes has translated Marx's original (unedited) manuscripts for Capital, Volume III into English, and Fred Moseley has provided an introduction for this new authentic text. Lucia Pradella refers to "a now influential trend in MEGA² studies in pursuit of a ‘new Marx’". Raúl Rojas stated – borrowing an idea from Otto Bauer – that “every generation has its own Marx”.
In neoclassical economics, economic growth is described with growth models (e.g., the Solow–Swan model) in terms of equilibrium ("steady state"). Input per worker and output per worker grow at the same rate. Therefore, capital intensity remains constant over time. At the same time, in equilibrium, the rate of growth of employment is constant over time. Translated into terms of Marx's theory of value, this means that the value composition of capital does not rise, and the constant rate of growth of employment also indicates that there is no reason for the rate of profit to decline.
In this framework, a tendency of the rate of profit to decline would mean that input per worker is increased by business managers at a larger rate than output per worker, because:
- Overcapacity is encouraged to fend off competition.
- It results in a larger percentage increase of output per worker.
Thus an alternating movement occurs, where capitalists increase input per worker at a larger percentage than output per worker has risen, which, in the next period, leads to a larger percentage increase of output per worker than that of the previous input per worker. The rate of growth of employment declines in such a scenario.
Neoclassical theory states that, within the long-run equilibrium state of a perfectly competitive market (with free entry and market prices exactly equal to the marginal costs of production), economic profits would be zero. Thus, if profits do exist, they really refer to "market imperfections" or market distortion. This view is the complete inverse of Marxian economics (in which profitability is the main force that drives capitalist economic development and the destiny of the workforce).
Within the framework of the neoclassical theory of the factors of production, there does also exist a law of diminishing returns. However, this law does not directly concern profit yields, but rather the variability of output yields in response to variations in the use of the factors of production (capital, labor and land). The "returns" are not profits, but output values.
This law is linked to profitability only indirectly, insofar as profit in neoclassical theory is defined as the cost (or the price) of using capital, where capital (including land) is one of the factors of production. If, however, the value of the net output yield is defined as equal to the sum of factor incomes, as it is in national accounts, then the profit income (the "marginal product of capital") generated can be related separately to the value of capital inputs to establish the income yield of capital inputs (excluding land).
Lawrence Summers criticizes Thomas Piketty for “his rather fatalistic and certainly dismal view of capitalism”. Summers argues that Piketty falsely assumes that “the return to capital diminishes slowly” and that profits are all reinvested. He says “neither of these premises is likely correct” about America's economy today.
In 2014, for example, it was reported that the world's corporations had accumulated $7 trillion in cash reserves, with the United States at $2 trillion. In turn, a large chunk of these cash surpluses was used for stock buybacks. In mid-2018, Steven Rattner explained, that the US buybacks were "really a consequence of the vast cash reserves — $2.4 trillion and rising — held by American companies." Since 2009, US companies also piled up large debts, which funded in total circa $4.7 trillion spent on buybacks and $3.4 trillion on dividends. According to Goldman Sachs, US companies were set to authorize $1 trillion worth of stock buybacks in 2018, and Europe was also joining in the spree. Buybacks in Japan were estimated at 6 trillion yen in 2016 (=US$55.1 billion) and 5.8 trillion yen in 2017 (=US$51.7 billion). In China, the value of buybacks in the first three quarters of 2018 was estimated at US$3.5 billion.
Summers argues that:
“Economists universally believe in the law of diminishing returns. As capital accumulates, the incremental return on an additional unit of capital declines. The crucial question goes to what is technically referred to as the elasticity of substitution. With 1 percent more capital and the same amount of everything else, does the return to a unit of capital relative to a unit of labor decline by more or less than 1 percent? If, as Piketty assumes, it declines by less than 1 percent, the share of income going to capital rises. If, on the other hand, it declines by more than 1 percent, the share of capital falls. (…) Piketty argues that the economic literature supports his assumption that returns diminish slowly (in technical parlance, that the elasticity of substitution is greater than 1), and so capital’s share rises with capital accumulation. But I think he misreads the literature by conflating gross and net returns to capital. It is plausible that as the capital stock grows, the increment of output produced declines slowly, but there can be no question that depreciation increases proportionally. And it is the return net of depreciation that is relevant for capital accumulation.”
According to Summers, the "bottom line" is the net income received by investors. If profitability is as high as it has been since 2016, while interest rates are low, Summers argues, one would expect to see vastly more business activity and investment; all the ordinary neoclassical models tell us this would be so. If that is nevertheless not happening, then, very likely, "higher profits do not reflect increased productivity of capital, but instead reflect an increase in monopoly power".
- In 1975, 94 corporations accounted for half the assets of all US publicly listed corporations, and 109 corporations accounted for half of the total net income of all US publicly listed corporations. In 2015, i.e. 40 years later, 35 corporations accounted for half the assets of all US listed corporations, and 30 corporations accounted for half of the total net income of all US publicly listed corporations.
- Ownership concentration has increased since the mid-1990s in more than three quarters of all US industries. Companies in industries showing the largest increases in product market concentration obtain higher profit margins, positive abnormal stock returns, and more profitable merger & acquisition deals.
- The problem in interpreting and generalizing about aggregate business data these days is, that roughly half of the total business activity occurs in a world that is very different from the other half. If, for example, you calculate the "average" of a set which contains the numbers 5, 10, 100, and 105, you get the number 55, but a value of 55 is nowhere near 5, 10, 100, or 105, and therefore it does not really describe the true distribution at all. It is a so-called "meaningless average".
- Other liberals such as Paul Krugman  and Joseph Stiglitz have also developed mark-up theories of monopoly power. This helped to stimulate a lot of new research on the topic. According to the Financial Times, “For more than four decades, the US and most other nations have weakened laws that held the private sector in check, and made it hard for companies to wield monopoly power. The result has been increasing concentration in many sectors of the economy… The last time economic concentration and inequality were this high was during the Gilded Age of the 19th century.”
- Loecker & Eeckhout (2017) studied "profit mark-ups" in the US economy. From 1950 to 1980, mark-ups remained stable. From 1980 to 2014, mark-ups rose from 18% to 67% above cost. They explain this result neo-classically, referring to the ability of businesses to raise the market price of their output above its marginal cost (see also markup rule). A similar study of 74 countries was published by the IMF in 2018. In Europe, market power research is also being done. The OECD organized a special discussion on market concentration in June 2018.
- Martin Wolf stated in 2018 that "If the natural tendency of our economies is towards ever-rising rent extraction and inequality, with all its dire social and political results, we need to respond in a thoughtful and determined way. That is the great challenge."
If market, investment and profit trends fail to behave as the neoclassical model says they should, there is logically only one answer for those who still believe that the neoclassical model is correct: extra-economic or exogenous forces (forces external to market trade itself, such as corporate monopolies, state intervention, mass psychology, climactic factors etc.) must be interfering with the rationality, efficiency and equilibrating force of free competition in the marketplace.
There have been a number of non-Marxist empirical studies of the long-term trends in business profitability.
Particularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were concerns among non-Marxist economists that the profit rate could be really falling.
From time to time, the research units of banks and government departments produce studies of profitability in various sectors of industry. The National Statistics Office of Britain now releases company profitability statistics every quarter, showing increasing profits. In the UK, Ernst & Young (EY) nowadays provide a Profit Warning Stress Index for quoted companies. The Share Centre publishes the Profit Watch UK Report. In the US, Yardeni Research provides a briefing on S&P 500 profit margin trends, including comparisons with NIPA data.
The American-Jewish magazine Tablet claims that "[Marx’s] essential idea, influenced by Ricardo, was that capitalism would become less and less profitable and that its downward spiral toward the abyss of deflation—lower prices, lower profits—would be followed by worldwide revolution. Instead, capitalism has become vastly more profitable”.
The McKinsey Global Institute claimed in 2016 that the three decades from 1985 to 2014 were the golden years for profits from stocks and bonds, but forecasts that average profitability will be lower in the future.
In May 2018, a WSJ analyst concluded that if taxcut effects are removed from the figures, real US corporate profits were not growing anymore, notwithstanding a surge in profits on S&P listed shares. Another WSJ analyst commented, at the same date, that "With the profits data, it could take several quarters for clear trends to emerge from the tax-associated noise." From September 2018 onward, as the economic and political news worsened, the bloated US stockmarkets began to deflate, while the VIX index trebled. In November 2018, Michael Wursthorn reported that “The postcrisis boom in U.S. corporate profits may be near its peak.” CNBC reported a similar story. At the end of 2018, the record gains for the year by the 500 richest people listed on the daily Bloomberg Billionaires Index had been wiped out – together, they had lost more than half a trillion dollars of net wealth.
Loss of narrative
The neutrality of this section is disputed. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
After the falling Berlin Wall in 1989 (die Wende), the majority of radical economists interested in the optimal allocation of scarce resources shifted out of Marxian economics into heterodox economics. There were few academic job opportunities left for Marxian researchers in university economics.
- Robert M. Solow (who had himself originally studied under Wassily Leontief) already announced in 1988, that "The fact is... that most serious English-speaking economists regard Marxist economics as an irrelevant dead end."
- Similarly, George Stigler stated in 1988 that only "a small minority" of modern economists were Marxists, who had "virtually no impact" in major English-language universities.
- Howard & King stated in 1992 that Marxian political economy had performed ""rather poorly" in explaining the course of world history, and Marx's TRPF theory had not "survived at all well".
- No academic has ever been able to find any text anywhere in which Marx stated, that his own theory was a "labour theory of value" (Marx knew very well that the value of many assets is not determined by labour-time), but nevertheless the overwhelming majority of economists claim, that Marx did have a labour theory of all value, and that it was "a pioneering, but inconsistent and outdated, attempt at a general equilibrium model of pricing and distribution".
Those researchers who remained within Marxian economics were mainly ultra-left thinkers and radical libertarians, inspired by (among others) the traditions of the Frankfurt School, neo-Trotskyism, Maoism, Workerism, Anarcho-communism, New Times Marxism or Council Communism. What these kinds of super-radical but very liberal Marxists all had in common, was their belief in the centrality of the TRPF as the Achilles’ heel or memento mori of capitalism, and as the explanation of capitalist crises. They hated reformism even more than they hated capitalism, because reformists always help capitalism to survive, when the TRPF causes capitalism to crash. They rewrote the history of Marxian economics to emphasize the centrality of the TRPF. Yet, it became less and less clear exactly why they remained so obsessed with that narrative. If the TRPF was the answer, what is the question? And if the TRPF is the question, what is the answer? Once we know that the profit rate is, or is not falling, how does that help to create a better economic, social or political policy?
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
"The congenital and unavoidable 'contradictions' of capitalism are neither mass immiseration in a world of wealth, impelled clashes of class against class, nor capital accumulation undermining the rate of profit. They are systemic limitations to the Enlightenment principles of liberty and equality that are embedded in its being."
Capitalism already existed long before the Enlightenment in the 18th century, but Hodgson means that important constraints on liberty and equality are embedded (institutionalized) in capitalism.
Today's neoliberal ideology affirms that people should be free in the global market place – but not "too free". After all, people might (and do) use their freedoms also for things which, according to the elite, do not benefit society at all, in which case business and governments make more and more rules to control more and more aspects of human behaviour. More freedom for capital can mean less freedom for labour. This phenomenon itself becomes a source of social conflict and strife – with endless disputes about what the limits of tolerance should be, and without any popular consensus about the moral criteria which ought to be applied to resolve them (see also: A Critique of Pure Tolerance and Paradox of tolerance). Thomas Charlton stated "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" but there might be too much surveillance for people's liking, and too many vigilantes with guns. Maintaining personal autonomy has become a big issue for many people.
Typically, the more rules there are, the more likely it is that more people are going to dodge or flout them, and the more difficult it becomes to enforce the rules or comply with them. Formally, it may look like people are still sticking to the rules, but informally they are really doing something else. If a lot of people are doing that, it becomes difficult not to do the same, in order to get things done. If in addition the rule-makers are remote from the people who have to enact and live by the rules, the rules may not even be well-designed, and they may be difficult to operationalize. Much of the Brexit protest was about that issue (the issue of sovereignty, i.e. staying in control of your own turf, which you know best). Ségolène Royal stated that “I believe a country should not be run with laws and decrees, it’s completely outdated” – for her, modern politics is about making deals.
People are treated as having equal rights before the law, but in real life they are increasingly unequally positioned, with some having vastly more income, wealth and opportunities than others. This is also a source of social conflict, in particular if both high and low incomes appear to be out of all proportion to actual work done. Beyond that, new identity and status issues arise, just because people feel they aren’t recognized – in a society where the citizenry don't share the same sorts of basic values anymore. Many people ask, where is the heart in all this profit talk.
Formally, people's identity and status might be confirmed, yet, in practice, they feel it is negated and unprotected. Then they might want to compel others, somehow, to recognize their identity, so that they are treated with respect as equals. This quest turns out to be problematic, since it is difficult to get recognition, if:
- others just choose not give it, when they are not (legally) obliged to do so.
- the recognition they do give, is not genuine or authentic.
- there is disagreement about the proper grounds for such recognition.
Since having an identity or status means little, unless others will recognize and endorse it, obtaining affirmation of one's identity becomes not only a "reflexive" issue, but can also become rather elusive, or indeed a battle without end.
According to Hodgson, it is the liberty and equality issues which have central place in the politics of modern capitalist society, but the Left failed to respond to them adequately, because it strayed to wrong narratives that are out of step with what is really happening (see also: List of polling organizations).
Stories about falling profits, for example, don't seem very credible, if profits are in reality growing, and if the division of national income between labour and capital is shifting more and more in favour of capital.
It was not just that Western capitalism and corporate profits boomed through most of the 1990s and the 2000s, and strongly recovered after 2009 – reducing the credibility of the TRPF narrative. Or that profit statistics and measurements are dubious. Or that billionaires are donating a lot of their wealth to charity (admittedly, often also for tax reasons) and implore the government to raise taxes on the wealthy (see also: The Giving Pledge and Giving).
There is so much more to say about capitalism, than just its profitability patterns. Congressman Paul Ryan stated:
"Capitalism isn’t just about profit. Capitalism is the spirit of service in meeting the needs of the whole community. It answers the call to take responsibility for your own life and those who depend on you."
There is so much more to capitalism, than capitalist production. And there is so much more to society and economics, than profit-making. Marx knew that very well, and he distinguished clearly between "the capitalist simply as the personification of capital" and "as capitalist consumer and man of the world".
People are just as concerned about their health, consumption, technologies, civil rights, housing, the environment, accessing resources, animal rights, crime, identity issues, a fair distribution of wealth, public morals, rent extraction, markets that don't work, families and all sorts of other issues they face in their lives. All of that isn't simply a matter of profitability, but of asserting human needs, living and social priorities in the widest sense.
At a fundamental level, it has become unclear why exactly profitability as such would be a bad thing, and what the alternative actually is. Not only do people not get very far in life these days, with “crying exploitation” or telling “doomsday stories”. If profits fall to zero or go negative, businesses eventually close down, and then people really do lose their jobs, incomes, homes, opportunities and pensions. That matters to them. People will agree that some profits are unfair, greedy or unjust. The obsessive pursuit of profit-making, above all else, can admittedly do great harm.
Yet if there is no profit at all, the reality is, that “the whole shop closes down” - the economy collapses, if not in the short term, then certainly in the long term.
Classical orthodox revolutionary Marxists might shout “hurrah”, and rush for the barricades. But the next question is “what then?”. Stalin, Hitler and Mao did not really know the answer either, and they could assert their authority only with the aid of mass terror. People had to do as they were told and follow the program, that was all. If they refused to cooperate, they were stuck in a prison, a mine or a farm. Or a psychiatric unit. Many dissidents were killed as well.
It is much easier to wipe out enterprises, than it is to build them; roughly half of all start-ups fail in the first five years. In Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba and Vietnam, the conclusion was reached, that private profit and private enterprise are often preferable to state allocation of resources, and necessary for modernization, innovation and wealth creation – even if they are only a part of a bigger institutional framework for society. The issue is no longer whether the economic system conforms to the "correct Marxist ideology". It is whether the economic system can really deliver the goods and services that people need, to have a decent life - without ruining the biosphere.
Here to stay
Whether unpaid surplus labour is appropriated as revenue by capitalists, by the state through taxes, or by a socialist commune as a labour levy, workers still perform surplus labour anyway. Everybody does, one way or another, although it could be more, or less. It doesn't have to be a protection racket, it could just be informal and voluntary, or it could be contractual. Without it, there exists no economic investment fund to provide the common infrastructure for people's lives. This may not be such a big deal for most people, provided that incomes, supplies, insurance, safety and public services are sufficient to meet their needs.
So then it looks like profit, whatever form it takes, is here to stay – even if many people still criticize it, even if it falls as well as rises, and even if it is only one possible allocation method among many.
At the same time, there are no credible models of how a whole society could be efficiently organized without profit, and without state allocations. In the US, there were 1.56 million nonprofits in 2012. In 2010, they contributed 5.5% to US GDP and 9% to the total US salary bill, with $2.1 trillion in revenues and $1.9 trillion in expenses. In 2014, US individuals contributed donations to non-profits totalling $258.51 billion, representing 72 percent of all contributions received by non-profits in 2014. On average, individual American givers donate about 3% of their income. Non-profits obviously require sufficient revenue to survive.
Even Tesla, Inc. has to turn a profit to fund its production. Self-managed cooperative enterprises such as the Mondragon Corporation still operate with profit, even if they share the profits. Actually existing socialist economies also adopted profit accounting. China's new Social Credit System, intended to reduce corruption and improve people's behaviour, has been criticized in the West for rolling back human rights and individual freedoms.
Not dirty anymore
The overall effect of this situation, is a gradual shift in 21st century social critique. Five points are:
- Just like socialism, profit is no longer a “dirty word”, even if some profits might be very dirty and some socialisms terrible. It is even argued these days that bureaucracy should not be a dirty word anymore.
- The slogan "people before profits" does not of itself imply the abolition of all profits, but instead more humane and just priorities in the allocation of resources.
- The debate is more about the distribution of income, and whether people can get what they need. Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty both call for a fairer tax system.
- The economy might in fact crash, without causing any serious political attack against the profit system as such. "Profit, if a concern at all, is a means to an end, which is not high consumption, social status, or further accumulation, but rather decent living conditions for all".
- Genuine entrepreneurship is considered essential for prosperity and progress. Society, it is argued, doesn't get any better, when lots of people have to live at the expense of other people, and don't earn their own keep.
In a Swiss referendum in June 2016, 76.9% of voters rejected an unconditional, basic income (UBI), and critics called it "a Marxist dream". However, in 2018 Swiss filmmaker Rebecca Panian said she is setting up a UBI experiment in Rheinau, financed by crowd funding and donations, to test it out. She will film the results. She said: “Do you want to stay true to the dogma of ‘you have to work for money’? Or do you want a system where you can say: you get money so you can work’?” Programs for helicopter money and debt forgiveness are also in the air.
The real issues that most critics of the system are thinking about, are wider, and more pragmatic, going beyond just a profit focus:
- What combination of policies, laws, norms, methods, organizations and institutions can genuinely deliver a better life for all the people (and the animals, and the environment), and how can we get there?
- Who are the kind of people that, realistically speaking, can bring this transformation about? People at the bottom? People at the top? The people in between? Or all of these? (see: popular front). Each has their strengths and weaknesses.
- How can it be brought about? Does it take a personal change? Does it take a series of reforms? Does it take a social revolution? Or does it take all of these?
It is not just liberals, Greens and socialists who are concerned with these questions. The far-right, the radical right and the alt-right are also thinking about them, to orient their strategies.
- Crisis theory
- Financial crisis
- Internal rate of return
- Steady-state economy: the stationary state in classical economics
- It is also referred to by Marx as the "law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall" (LTRPF). As explained in the article, there are disputes about whether there is such a law or not. Other terms used include "the falling rate of profit" (FROP), the "falling tendency of the rate of profit" (FTRP), "decline of the rate of profit" (DROP), and the "tendential fall of the rate of profit" (TFRP). The average rate of profit on production capital is usually written as r = S/(C+V).
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, chapter 9. See also Philip Mirowski, "Adam Smith, Empiricism, and the Rate of Profit in Eighteenth-Century England." History of Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 1982, pp. 178–198.
- John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848), Book 4, chapter 4. Bela A. Balassa, "Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill." Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Bd. 83 (1959), pp. 147–165.
- David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chapter 6. Maurice Dobb, "The Sraffa system and critique of the neoclassical theory of distribution." In : E.K. Hunt & Jesse G. Schwartz, A Critique of Economic Theory. Penguin, 1972, p. 211–213.
- W. Stanley Jevons (1871), The Theory of Political Economy. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1970, pp. 243–244.
- Aspromourgos, Tony, "Profits", in: James D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015, 2nd edition, Vol. 19, pp. 111–116.
- Marx Engels Collected Works, Volume 33, p. 104. Grundrisse, Penguin edition 1973, p. 748.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 319; and Letter of Marx to Engels, 11 July 1868, in: Marx Engels Selected Correspondence. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975, p. 194, or MECW Vol. 43, pp. 20–25, at p. 24.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin ed. 1976, pp. 317–375.
- Geoffrey M. Hodgson, After Marx and Sraffa. Essays in political economy. New York: St Martin's Press, 1991, p.28.
- Stephen Cullenberg, The Falling Rate of Profit: Recasting the Marxian Debate. London: Pluto Press, 1994, p.1.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin ed. 1981, p. 350 and 368.
- Michael Heinrich, "Begründungsprobleme. Zur Debatte über das Marxsche “Gesetz vom tendenziellen Fall der Profitrate", in Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2006, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2006, p. 50. Lefteris Tsoulfidis & Dimitris Paitaridis, "Revisiting Adam Smith's theory of the falling rate of profit". International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 39 issue 5, 2012, pp. 304–313.
- Francisco Verdera, "Adam Smith on the falling rate of profit: a reappraisal." Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 39, No. 1, February 1992; cf. Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin 1973, p. 751.
- Heinrich, p. 51. See David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. In: Piero Sraffa (ed.), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. Vol. I. Cambridge, 1951, pp. 289–300.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 319.
- Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3, edited by Friedrich Engels. New York: International Publishers, 1967 (orig. ed. 1894). Chapter 2, "The Rate of Profit", and chapter 13, "The Law as Such". John Weeks, Capital and exploitation, chapter 8. Princeton University Press, 1980).
- Helen Scott (ed.), The Essential Rosa Luxemburg. Chicago: Haymarket, 2008, p. 71.
- Ernest Mandel, "Economics", in: David McLellan (ed.), Marx – the First 100 Years. Fontana, 1983.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin ed. 1981, p. 339f.
- Marx regarded dividends as an ex post distribution from gross profit revenue (a fraction of surplus value), but he acknowledged that the specific pattern of distribution of portfolio capital between different types of placements could affect the overall average rate of return on capital investments. The overall yield on share capital is typically higher than the rate of interest, but lower than the gross profit rate on total enterprise capital (the latter rate which includes both distributed and undistributed profits, and tax). Hence, the larger the proportion of distributed profits (dividends) to shareholders in total gross profit, the lower the general profit rate on capital will be - “if” share capital is considered as a separate component in the total capital assets invested, rather than as a duplication of real capital assets in the form of notional “paper” assets, or "if" the average rate of profit is calculated as the weighted mean of rates of return on different types of business investment. Obviously, the more profit is distributed to shareholders, the less is available for reinvestment in the business, unless shareholders opt to reinvest their profits in the same business. In modern times, though, a very large chunk in the total distribution of stocks is held for less than one accounting year, or, at most, for around one and a half years (this is called "the increase in portfolio (or equity) turnovers", or "the decrease in average stock holding periods"). The investors are, in this case, primarily concerned with comparative risks, and with the net capital gain they can get from short-term positive changes in stock prices, as weighed against broker's fees and likely dividend yields (often the share parcels traded are large, which lowers the transaction costs per share). See: Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, pp. 347–348; Ernest Mandel, "Joint-stock company", in: Tom Bottomore (ed.), A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 270–273; David Hunkar, “Average Stock Holding Period on NYSE 1929 To 2016”. Topforeignstocks.com, 1 October 2017. 
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin ed. 1981, p. 356.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 7.
- Ernest Mandel, ´´Late Capitalism´´. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 7.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 13.
- Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin 1973, p. 751.
- Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 320. Fritz Sternberg, Der imperialismus. Berlin: Malik-Verlag, 1926; Ernest Mandel, "Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution", in: A.R. Desai (ed.), Essays on Modernization of Underdeveloped Societies, Vol. 1, 1971 (Bombay: Thacker & Co.). Reprint as: "Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution", International Socialist Review, vol. 34, No. 2 (February 1973), 6–13.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 9.
- [permanent dead link] Allin Cottrell and Paul Cockshott, "Demography and the falling rate of profit". Wake Forest University & Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, February 2007.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 6.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, p. 542, 577.
- Josef Steindl, Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1952.
- Harris, Seymour E. (1943). Postwar Economic Problems. New York, London: McGraw-Hill Book Co. pp. 67–70<Chapter IV Secular Stagnation by Alvin Sweeny.>
- Ayres, Robert U. (1998). Turning Point: The end of the Growth Paradigm. London: Earthscans Publications. p. 4. ISBN 9781853834394.
- Ernest Mandel, "Economics", in: David McLellan (ed.), Marx – the First 100 Years. Fontana, 1983; M.C. Howard and J.E. King, A history of Marxian economics (2 vols). Princeton University Press, 1989.
- Michael Howard, Profits in economic theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983, p. 3.
- Ronald L. Meek, "The Falling Rate of Profit", in R. L. Meek, Economics and Ideology and Other Essays (London: Chapman and Hall, 1967).
- Ladislaus Bortkiewicz, "Value and Price in the Marxian System". International Economic Papers, no 2, 1952. London: MacMillan, 1952, p. 73.
- Julius Sensat, Habermas and Marxism: an appraisal. London: Sage, 1979, p. 61, 125f. See: Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1976, p. 56 and Jürgen Habermas & Boris Frankel, "Habermas talking: an interview", Theory and society, I, 1974, pp. 37–58, at p. 50.
- Michael Heinrich, "Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and Marx’s Studies in the 1870s”, Monthly Review, Volume 64, Issue 11, April 2013.
- Bob Rowthorn & Donald J. Harris, "The organic composition of capital and capitalist development". In: Stephen Resnick & Richard Wolff (eds.), Rethinking Marxism: Essays for Harry Magdoff & Paul Sweezy. New York: Autonomedia, 1985, p. 356.
- Steve Keen, "Use-Value, Exchange Value, and the Demise of Marx's Labor Theory of Value", Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Volume 15, Issue 1, Spring 1993, pages 107-121
- E.g. Anwar Shaikh, "Economic crises", in: Tom Bottomore (ed.), A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (2nd. edition). Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, p. 161; John P. Burkett, "Marx's Concept of an Economic Law of Motion". History of Political Economy, Volume 32, Number 2, Summer 2000, pp. 381–394. Donald J. Harris, "Are there macroeconomic laws? The 'law' of the falling rate of profit reconsidered." In M. U. Wagener & J.W Drukker (eds.), The economic law of motion of modern society: a Marx-Keynes-Schumpeter Centennial. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx. Essays on institutional and evolutionary themes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006, p. 101f.
- Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development. London: Dobson Books, 1962, chapter 11, p. 190f.
- H. Tudor & J. M. Tudor, Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate, 1896–1898. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
- Eduard Bernstein, The Preconditions of Socialism (1899). English translation: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 83ff. Tudor & Tudor, pp. 159–73.
- Peter Gay, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism. Eduard Bernstein's challenge to Marx. Collier Books, 1970.
- Lucio Colletti, "Bernstein and the Marxism of the Second International", pp. 45–108 in Lucio Colletti, From Rousseau to Lenin. Studies in Ideology and Society. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972.
- F. R. Hansen, The Breakdown of Capitalism: A History of the Idea in Western Marxism, 1883–1983. London: Routledge, 1984. Henryk Grossman, The law of accumulation and breakdown of the capitalist system; being also a theory of crises . London: Pluto, 1992, chapter 1.
- Rick Kuhn, Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of Marxism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
- Henryk Grossman, The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System. Pluto 1992; Lewis Corey (pseud. Louis C. Fraina), The Decline of American Capitalism. New York: Covici-Friede, 1934; Paul Mattick, Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1969.
- V. I. Lenin, Speech to the Second Congress Of the Communist International, July 19 – August 7, 1920. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 31, 4th ed. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965, pages 213–263.
- Henryk Grossman, The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System. London: Pluto, 1992, p. 20. This point is emphasized by Benjamin Kunkel, "Paupers and Richlings", London review of Books, Vol. 36, No. 13, 3 July 2014.
- Karl Schoer, "Natalie Moszkowska and the falling rate of profit". New Left Review I, #95, January–February 1976, pp. 92–96.
- Kei Shibata, "On the law of the decline in the rate of profit". Kyoto University Economic Review Vol.9 Issue 1, 1934, pp. 61-75.
- Ernest Mandel, "Introduction" to Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1976, p. 38ff.; Anwar Shaikh, "An introduction to the history of crisis theories". In: U.S. Capitalism in Crisis. New York: Union of Radical Political Economics, 1978. Makoto Itoh, Value and Crisis. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980, chapter 5.
- Costas Lapavitsas, Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All. London: Verso, 2014, p. 46.
- Daniele Besomi, Crises and cycles in economic dictionaries and encyclopedias. Abingdon & New York: Routledge, 2012.
- M.C. Howard and J.E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1989. p. 316.
- Alex Callinicos and Joseph Choonera, "How not to write about the rate of profit; a response to David Harvey". Science & Society, Vol. 80, No. 4, October 2016, pp. 481–494 at 481.
- Zeév B. Orzech & Shalom Groll, "Otto Bauer's business cycle theory". History of Political Economy, Vol. 23, issue 4, 1991, pp. 745–763.
- Michael Roberts, "Otto Bauer’s Answer to Rosa Luxemburg", in: Michael Roberts, A Critique of Crisis Theory blog, November 2012.
- Michael Roberts, "Monocausality and crisis theory: a reply to David Harvey", pp. 55–72 in: Turan Subasat (ed.) The Great Financial Meltdown: Systemic, Conjunctural or Policy Created?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2016. See further Michael Roberts' blog at http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
- For example, Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 1; Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump: A Marxist Analysis of Recession in the Seventies. London: Verso, 1978, p. 168.
- Samuel Hollander, Friedrich Engels and Marxian Political Economy. Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 107. M. C. Howard & J. E. King, A history of Marxian economics, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 38.
- For the Chinese discussion, see: Kuochih Huang, "Chinese studies on the transformation problem: a critical review". Amherst: Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, 24 December 2014.
- Michio Morishima & George Catephores, Value, Exploitation and Growth. London: McGraw-Hill, 1978, p. 147
- M. C. Howard & J. E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1989, chapter 2; Friedun Quaas, Das Transformationsproblem. Marburg: Metropolis, 1992, p. 7–8. Engels reports on the results of the essay competition in an 1894 Preface to Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, pp. 98–111.
- Conrad Schmidt, Die Durchschnittsprofitrate auf Grundlage des Marx'schen Werthgesetzes. J. H. W. Dietz, Stuttgart 1889.;Ian Steedman (ed.), Socialism and Marginalism in Economics, 1870–1930. London: Routledge, 1995, p. 174ff; M. C. Howard and J. E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1989, chapter 2.
- Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System. London, T.F. Unwin, 1898 (various reprints).
- Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, "Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung im Marxschen System", in: 1906/7, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, XXIII-1 (1906) pp. 1–50, XXV-1 (1907) pp. 10–51, XXV-2 (1907) pp. 445–488. This article was translated into English in 1952 as "Value and Price in the Marxian System", International Economic Papers, no. 2, 1952. A translation of Bortkiewicz’s follow-up article "On the Correction of Marx's Fundamental Theoretical Construction in the Third Volume of Capital" (Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, July 1907) is provided in Paul Sweezy (ed.), Karl Marx and the Close of his System by Eugen von Bohm Bawerk (New York: Kelley, 1949), pp. 199–221.
- Kenji Mori, "Charasoff and Dmitriev: An Analytical Characterisation of Origins of Linear Economics". Discussion Paper No. 249. Graduate school of economics and management, Tohoku University, January 2010. Eduardo Crespo and Marcus Cardoso, "The evolution of the theory of value from Dmitriev and Bortkiewicz to Charasoff" (Rio the Janeiro: Federal University of Rio the Janeiro, 2000).
- Bruce Philp, Reduction, Rationality and Game Theory in Marxian Economics. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005, p. 42f.
- Richard B. Day and Daniel F. Gaido, Responses to Marx's Capital from Rudolf Hilferding to Isaak Illich Rubin. Leiden: Brill, October 2017.
- Josef Winternitz (Jun 1948). "Value and Prices: A Solution of the So-Called Transformation Problem". The Economic Journal. 58 (230): 276–280. doi:10.2307/2225953. JSTOR 2225953.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- Francis Seton (Jun 1957). "The Transformation Problem" (PDF). Review of Economic Studies. 24 (3): 149–160. doi:10.2307/2296064. JSTOR 2296064. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
- Michio Morishima, Marx's Economics: A Dual Theory of Value and Growth. Cambridge University Press, 1973.
- Michio Morishima & George Catephores, Value, exploitation and growth. London: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
- Ian Steedman (1977). Marx after Sraffa. Humanities Press. ISBN 978-0-902308-49-7.
- Ronald L. Meek, Smith, Marx, & After. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977, p. 98.
- Ronald L. Meek, Smith, Marx, & After. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977, p. 99.
- Karl Marx, Grundrisse. Penguin, 1973, p. 560f.
- Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971.
- Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Part 3, chapter 20 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971, p. 69-71.
- Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Letters on Capital. London, New Park, 1983, pp. 74-78.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin 1976, p. 421.
- Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value. Moscow: Progress Publishers 1971, Part III, p. 69ff.
- Anwar Shaikh video interview titled "Marx and the moon" with Ingar Solty, at the Brussels conference "Free Trade and the Right to (Not) Migrate", 29 Sept. – 1 Oct. 2016.
- Carol C. Gould, Marx's Social Ontology: Individuality and Community in Marx's Theory of Social Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978; Ernest Mandel, The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx: 1843 to Capital. London: Verso, 2015; Allen Oakley, Marx's Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1 and 2. London: Routledge, 1985.
- Makoto Itoh, The Basic Theory of Capitalism. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 1988, p. 71
- Michael Heinrich, "Was ist die Werttheorie noch wert? Zur neueren Debatte um das Transformationsproblem und die Marxsche Werttheorie." Prokla 72, Vol. 18 No. 3, September 1988, pp. 15–38, section 5b.
- Ernesto Screpanti, "Sraffa after Marx: A new interpretation". Review of Political Economy, Volume 5, Issue 1, 1993
- Tony Smith, "The neoclassical and Marxian theories of technology: a comparison and critical assessment." Historical Materialism, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1997, pp. 113–133, at p. 123
- Christopher J. Arthur, "Reply to Critics." Historical Materialism, Vol. 13 no. 2, 2005, pp. 189–221, at p. 190.
- Ian Bradley & Ronald L. Meek, Matrices and Society: Matrix Algebra and Its Applications in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 48.
- Wassily Leontief, "The significance of Marxian economics for present-day economic theory". The American Economic Review, Vol. 28 Issue 1 (supplement), March 1938. Reprinted in David Horowitz (ed.), Marx and Modern Economics. New York, Modern Reader Paperbacks, 1968.
- D.L. Clark, "Planning and the real origins of input-output analysis". Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 14 No. 4, 1984, pp. 408–429 (at p. 409).
- Heinz D. Kurz & Neri Salvadori, "Classical roots of input-output analysis: a short account of its long prehistory." Economic Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2000, p. 171.
- Wassily Leontief, “Preface”, in: András Bródy, Proportions, prices and planning. A mathematical restatement of the labor theory of value. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 7-8.
- Paul A. Samuelson, "Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation: A Summary of the So-Called Transformation Problem Between Marxian Values and Competitive Prices". Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Jun., 1971), pp. 399–431 at p. 424.
- Heinz D. Kurz & Neri Salvadori, Theory of Production: A Long Period Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 390.
- Svetlana A. Kaliadina, "W.W. Leontief and the repressions of the 1920s: an interview". Economic Systems Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, December 2006, pp. 347–355, at p. 348.
- Duncan K. Foley, "Interview with Wassily Leontief". Macroeconomic Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1998, pp. 116–140 at pp. 117–118).
- Makoto Itoh, The Basic Theory of Capitalism. Barnes & Noble, 1988, p. 211.
- M. C. Howard and J. E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 37 and p. 61.
- Ian Wright, "Prices of production are proportional to real costs". Discussion Paper ISSN 1753-2590, Economics Department, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, January 2007.
- David Yaffe, "Value and Price in Marx's Capital", Revolutionary Communist, No. 2, January 1975, pp 31–49.
- Alan Freeman et al., The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004
- Gilles Dostaler, Valeur et prix: histoire d'un débat. Nouvelle édition révisée et augmentée. Paris: L'Harmattan, 2013.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 264–265.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 265.
- Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 352; or Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress, 1971), p. 167.
- "It is not exactly clear, from Marx's text, what c, the constant capital, refers to. There are three possibilities; ( 1 ) the constant capital used up (preserved) in the course of a year; (2) the constant capital employed throughout a year (which would include fixed capital not used up); or (3) the capital advanced for the purchase of constant capital (in which case the turnover times of the various elements of constant capital become crucial to the calculation)." – David Harvey, The limits to Capital. London: Verso, 2006, p. 181.
- E.K. Hunt and Mark Lautzenheiser, History of Economic Thought. A Critical Perspective. 3rd edition. London: M.E. Sharpe, 2011, p. 225f.
- See e.g. Włodzimierz Brus, The Market in a Socialist Economy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972.
- Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 488, p. 490–491.
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism, Oxford University Press 2016, p. 333f.
- D. M. Nuti (ed.), V.K. Dmitriev: Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility. Cambridge University Press, 1974, pp. 24–32.
- Friedrun Quaas, "Wolfgang Mühlpfordt and the 'transformation problem': some remarks on articles by Howard and King and Gilibert." Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 18, No. 3, June 1994, pp. 323–326.
- Georg Stamatis, "Georg Charasoff: A Pioneer in the Theory of Linear Production Systems". Economic Systems Research, Vol. 11 Issue 1, March 1999, pp. 15–30.
- Ronald L. Meek, "A plain person's guide to the transformation problem". In: Ronald L. Meek, Smith, Marx and After: Ten Essays in the Development of Economic Thought. London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 95-119.
- Alejandro Ramos, "Value and Price of Production: New Evidence on Marx's Transformation Procedure." International Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 28, No. 4, Winter 1998/1999, pp. 55–81.
- Makoto Itoh, The Basic Theory of Capitalism. Barnes & Noble, 1988, p. 214.
- Alfredo Medio, "Profits and surplus-value: appearance and reality in capitalist production." In: E. K. Hunt & J. G. Schwartz (eds.), A Critique of Economics Theory. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972, pp. 312–346, at p. 331f.
- Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development. London: Dobson Books, 1962, p. 115.
- Ian Steedman, "The transformation problem again". Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists (London), Autumn 1973, pp. 37–41, at p. 38. Moshé Machover, "Value, prices and probabilities." Weekly Worker (London) issue 906, 22 March 2012.
- Fred Moseley, "The 'New Solution' to the Transformation Problem: A Sympathetic Critique". Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2000, pp. 282–316.
- Makoto Itoh, The Basic Theory of Capitalism. Barnes & Noble, 1988, p. 212f.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, chapter 49 "On the analysis of the production process", pp. 971–972.
- "[...] there is no need whatever for the total sale price to coincide with the total value". Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, "Value and Price in the Marxian System", International Economic Papers, no. 2, 1952, p. 94.
- Joan Robinson, "Karl Marx and the close of his system", The Economic Journal, Vol. 60, No. 238, June 1950, pp. 358–363, at p. 362. When she was invited to become vice-president of the Econometric Society, she turned down the opportunity, saying that "it would do no good for her name to appear on the cover of a journal when she could not understand anything inside it" – George R. Feiwel (ed.), Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory. Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 1989, p. xxxiv.
- Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development. London: Dobson Books, 1962, p. 128.
- Ronald L. Meek, Smith, Marx and After. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977, p. 131.
- Piero Sraffa, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1960. Christian Gehrke & Heinz D. Kurz, "Sraffa’s Constructive and Interpretive Work, and Marx". Review of Political Economy, Vol. 30 No. 3, May 2018, pp. 428-442. Ian Steedman, "Value, price and profit." New Left Review, Issue 90, March–April 1975, pp. 71–80.
- Such as Hans-Georg Backhaus, Moishe Postone, Helmut Reichelt, Geert Reuten, Alfred Sohn-Rethel and Michael Heinrich. See: Pichit Likitkijsomboon, "Marxian Theories of Value-Form". Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 27 no. 2, June 1995, pp. 73–105
- Ian Steedman, Marx after Sraffa. London: NLB, 1977, p. 110. David Ricardo knew quite well, that any system of price accounting required principles of comparable value, value equivalence, value increase and decrease, conserved value, transferred value, and newly created value. However, while for Ricardo these principles were noumenal, the Neo-Ricardians try to deduce them from price relationships. See also Michio Morishima, Marx's Economics. Cambridge University Press, 1973.
- This argument was first made by Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development, op. cit., p. 129. Jim Devine, "Is Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" True? What's LoV Got to Do with It?", Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, no date [circa 2001].
- Peter M. Lichtenstein, An introduction to Post-Keynesian and Marxian theories of value and price. London: Routledge, 1983, chapter 11 ff.
- William J. Baumol, "The transformation of values: what Marx really meant (an interpretation)," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 12, 1974, pp. 51–62, at p. 55. Hans G. Ehrbar, "Critical realist arguments in Marx's Capital", pp. 43-56 in: Andrew Brown, Steve Fleetwood and John Michael Roberts (eds.), Critical Realism and Marxism. London: Routledge, 2002.
- Rob Bryer, "Marx, accounting and the labour theory of value: A critique of Marxist economics." University of Warwick paper presented to the 5th European Critical Accounting Studies Conference, 2005, p. 1.
- Paul Burkett, "Transformation Problem Unraveled". Against the Current (Detroit), Issue 195, July/August 2018.
- Isaac I. Rubin, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value. Detroit: Black & Red, 1972, p. 251. Louis Althusser et al., Reading Capital: The Complete Edition. London: Verso, 2016, p. 112.
- Ira Gerstein, "Production, circulation and value". Economy and Society, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1976, pp. 243-291.
- Joan Robinson, Economic Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 1962, p. 26.
- Andrew Kliman, "Tendency of the rate of profit to fall: long-term dynamics." In: David M. Brennan et al., Routledge Handbook of Marxian Economics. Milton Park: Routledge, 2017, pp. 225–232, at 232.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 117.
- Samezō Kuruma (ed.), Marx-Lexikon zur Politischen Okonomie, Band 1: Konkurrenz. Berlin: Oberbaum, 1973
- Willi Semmler, Competition, Monopoly and Differential Profit Rates. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984
- Howard Botwinick, Persistent Inequalities: Wage Disparity under Capitalist Competition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993
- Jamee K. Moudud et al., Alternative Theories of Competition. London: Routledge, 2013
- Lefteris Tsoulfidis, "Contending conceptions of competition and the role of regulating capitals". Panoeconomicus, Vol. 62, Issue 1, 2015, p. 15–31
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. See also: Jonathan Cogliano et al., Value, Competition and Exploitation: Marx's legacy Revisited. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018.
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1916, chapter 9.
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism. Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 361–363.
- Marx-Engels Werke 25, p. 825.
- Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin edition 1981, p. 956. Commentary by Thomas Sowell, "Marx's Capital after one hundred years". The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 1, February 1967, pp. 50–74, at p. 64ff.
- David Goldway, "Appearance and reality in Marx's 'Capital'". Science & Society, Vol. 31, No. 4, Fall 1967, pp. 428–447.
- Norman Geras, "Essence and Appearance: Aspects of Fetishism in Marx’s 'Capital'". New Left Review, #65, January–February 1971, pp. 69–85. Reprinted as Norman Geras, "Marx and the critique of political economy". In: Robin Blackburn (ed.), Ideology in social science. London: Fontana/Collins, 1972, pp. 284–305.
- Georg W. F. Hegel, The Science of Logic. Transl. George di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p.339.
- David Selbourne, "Two essays on method", in: Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, Vol. 10 No. 1, 1979, pp. 77–78.
- Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso, 1975. Bhaskar's career culminated in a "spiritual turn", where he tried to invent a new metaphysics that would transcend Western dualism.
- For the original source, see the criticism against Giulio Pietranera, in Louis Althusser et al., Reading Capital: The Complete Edition. London: Verso, 2016, p. 112.
- E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. London: Merlin Press, 1978.
- Derek Sayer, Marx's Method. Hassocks, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1979.
- Marx himself stated that "no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, or the struggle between them" – letter of Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer, 5 March 1852. In a letter to Engels dated 8 January 1868, Marx referred to only three "fundamentally new elements" in Capital, Volume I, namely the analysis of generic surplus value, the distinction between abstract and concrete labour, and the distinction between labour and labour-power which reveals the economic relationship behind labour-contracts.
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism. Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 53.
- Paul Cockshott, “New Age Marxism”. Spirit of Contradiction, 15 February 2013.
- Nobuo Okishio, "Technical Change and the Rate of Profit", Kobe University Economic Review, 7, 1961, p. 92. Shalom Groll & Ze'ev Orzech, "From Marx to the Okishio theorem: a genealogy". History of Political Economy, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 1989, pp. 253–272.
- See e.g. Stephen Cullenberg,The Falling Rate of Profit. London: Pluto Press, 1994, chapter 3. Andrew J. Kliman, "The Okishio Theorem: an obituary". Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 29 issue 3, 1997, pp. 42–50.
- John E. Roemer, Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 132.
- Bill Gibson & Hadi Esfahani, "Nonproduced means of production: neo-Ricardians vs. Fundamentalists". Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 15, issue 2, summer 1983, pp. 83-105.
- Geert Reuten, "Accumulation of capital and the foundation of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall." Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 15, pp. 79–93, 1991, at p. 79.
- Geert Reuten, "'Zirkel vicieux' or Trend Fall? The Course of the Profit Rate in Marx's Capital III". History of Political Economy, Vol. 36 No. 1, 2004, pp. 163–186.
- Geert Reuten & Peter Thomas, "From the fall of the rate of profit in the Grundrisse to the cyclical development of the profit rate in Capital." Science & Society, Vol. 75, Issue 1, January 2011, pp. 74–90.
- Anwar Shaikh, "The falling rate of profit as the cause of the long waves: theory and evidence". Alfred Kleinknecht, Ernest Mandel and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (eds.), New Findings in Long-Wave Research. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1992. pp. 174–202. See also Shaikh, "Falling rate of profit", in: Tom Bottomore et al. (ed.), A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 185–186.
- David Harvey, p. 9 in the draft manuscript of "Crisis theory and the falling rate of profit" published in: Turan Subasat (ed.), The Great Meltdown of 2008: Systemic, Conjunctural or Policy-created?. London: Edward Elgar, 2016.  After the wiki text was published, David Harvey changed what he said in his own published text, stating among other things that he "does not read German language" and that he would leave it to other scholars to sort out the correct textual interpretation on this issue (see p. 40 in Harvey's published text); Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin ed. p. 337 (Engels's insertion), 319 (Marx's comment). The Penguin translation by David Fernbach of Vol. 3 is accurate, and superior to all other English translations of this text.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 319. Compare Fred Moseley (ed.), Marx's Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865 (transl. Ben Fowkes). Leiden: Brill, 2016, p. 322.
- "If for Marx the LTPRF was really such an important point for explaining crisis as many Marxists believe, then this silence is rather strange. However, if Marx changed his mind about the LTPRF then this silence is not at all strange." – Michael Heinrich, "Heinrich Answers Critics", Monthly Review, December 2013 (retrieved online).
- Zoltan Kenessey, "Why Das Kapital remained unfinished". In: William Barber (ed.), Themes in Pre-Classical, Classical and Marxian Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991, pp. 119–133.
- Marx, "Letter to Engels, 31 May 1873". Marx-Engels Werke Vol. 33, p. 821. English: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Letters on Capital. London: New Park, 1983, p. 176 or Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 44, p. 504.
- Paul Studenski, The Income of Nations: Theory, Measurement and Analysis, Past and Present. Washington Square: New York University Press, 1958.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 110. G. C. Stiebeling, Das Werthgesetz und die Profitrate. New York: John Heinrich, 1890. See the German Wikipedia article on Georg Christian Stiebeling.  
- M. C. Howard & J. E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 29.
- Eugen Varga, The Great Crisis and its Political Consequences. London: Modern Books Limited, 1935
- André Mommen, Stalin's Economist. The Economic Contributions of Jenö Varga. London: Routledge, 2011, chapter 7; Jelle Versieren, "Eugen Varga and the Calamity of Stalinist Economics." Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, Volume 41 Issue 1, 31 May 2013.
- e.g. C. Bettelheim, L'economie Allemande sous le nazisme. Un aspect de la décadence du capitalisme, Paris: P.U.F., 1946, p. 45.
- C. Bettelheim, Bilan de l'économie française (1919–1946). Paris : P.U.F., 1947; C. Bettelheim, Revenu national, épargne et investissements chez Marx et chez Keynes. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1948; C. Bettelheim, "Variation du taux de profit et accroissement de la productivité du travail." Économique Appliquée. Bulletin de l'Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, N° 1–2, 1959.
- Josef Steindl, Maturity and stagnation in American Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1952.
- Joseph Gillman, The Falling Rate of Profit. London, Dennis Dobson, 1957.
- Ronald L. Meek, "The Falling Rate of Profit: Marx's Law and its Significance to Twentieth-century Capitalism, by Joseph M. Gillman." The Economic Journal, Vol. 69 No. 273, March 1959, pp. 132–134. H. D. Dickinson, "Falling rate of profit". New Left Review I/1, January–February 1960. Cf. Howard C Petith; “Meek, Dickinson and Marx's falling rate of profit”. Barcelona : Economics Department discussion paper, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1997.
- Shane Mage, The Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit; Its Place in the Marxian Theoretical System and Relevance to the US Economy. Phd Thesis, Columbia University, 1963.
- Ernest Mandel, "The economics of neocapitalism". Socialist Register 1964; Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 4. Ernest Mandel, Long Waves of Capitalist Development, 1978 (2nd edition 1995).
- Richard M.Goodwin, "Towards a Theory of Long Waves". In: Richard M. Goodwin, Essays in Nonlinear Economic Dynamics: Collected Papers 1980–1987. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989 pp. 45–61; A. V. Poletayev, "Profits and Long Waves", paper presented at Long Wave Workshop, Montpellier, July 1987 (see: Tibor Vasko (ed.), The Long-wave Debate. Heidelberg: Springer verlag, 1987).
- Alfred Kleinknecht, Ernest Mandel and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (eds.), New Findings in Long-Wave Research. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1992.
- Minqi Li, Feng Xiao & Andong Zhu, "Long waves, institutional changes and historical trends: a study of the long term movement of the profit rate in the capitalist world economy", Journal of World-System Research, Vol.13 N°1. 2007.
- J. J. van Duijn, The Long Wave in Economic Life. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983, p. 65.
- Ernest Mandel, "Het lange golven debat: de inzet." In: Vlaams marxistisch tijdschrift (Gent), Issue 25, 1991, pp. 7–17; Ernest Mandel, Long waves of capitalist development. London: Verso, 1995, p. 16 and p. 104.
- Roman Rosdolsky, The making of Marx's Capital . London: Pluto Press, 1977, pp. 450f., 486-487, 496.
- Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory. London: Merlin, 1968, chapter 10. Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, chapter 1.
- Anton Pannekoek, "The theory of the collapse of capitalism" . Capital and Class, Spring 1977.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, p. 32.
- Grossman, The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System. London: Pluto, 1992, p. 80.
- In May 1947, Eugen Varga was sacked from many of his duties in Moscow and his Institute of World Economy and Politics was closed down, because he had mooted that "capitalism would be able to ward off, or at least to postpone, a general crisis." – Paolo Spriano, Stalin & the European Communists. London: Verso, 1985, p. 281. See also "Eugene Varga dies in Moscow". New York Times, 9 October 1964  and Kyung Deok Roh, Stalin's economic advisors: The Varga Institute and the making of Soviet foreign policy. London: I.B. Tauris, 2018, chapter 5.
- Ernest Mandel, "Het Laatkapitalisme". Flemish transcript of a lecture under the auspices of the Leon Lesoil Society, Brussels, 3 November 1976. See also: Ernest Mandel, "Introduction" to Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 84–87.
- Robert Rowthorn, "Late Capitalism". In: New Left Review, I/98, July–August 1976, pp. 59–83. Reprinted in: Bob Rowthorn, Capitalism, Conflict and Inflation. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1980. See also: Howard & King, A History of Marxian Economics, Vol. 2, p. 143.
- In Mandel's time, sophisticated computer programs used to model the econometric outcomes of interactions between a multitude of variables (such as Steve Keen's Minsky model today) did not exist yet.
- Robert Rowthorn, "Late Capitalism", in: Bob Rowthorn, Capitalism, Conflict and Inflation. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1980, p. 97. Article first published in: New Left Review, July–August 1976.
- Ernest Mandel, "Marxism and the Crisis", chapter five in Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump. London: Verso, 1978, p. 165f.
- "Overproduction" means that newly produced goods cannot be sold anymore at their ordinary price, or cannot be sold at all, leading to substantial under-utilization of installed productive capacity (excess capacity), stockpiling, dumping and destruction of goods. See e.g. Annys Shin, "Economy Strains Under Weight of Unsold Items". Washington Post, 17 February 2009. "Overaccumulation" means the impossibility of reinvesting newly available current earnings in production at the previously ruling rate of profit. Absolute overaccumulation (or the absolute overproduction of capital) means that almost no production capital can obtain the previously ruling rate of profit anymore, because the total profit volume (the mass of surplus value) stops growing or shrinks. Ernest Mandel, "Introduction" to Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 39. Ernest Mandel, The second slump: a Marxist analysis of recession in the Seventies. London: Verso, 1978, p. 173.
- Anwar Shaikh, "The falling rate of profit as the cause of the long waves: theory and empirical evidence". In: Immanuel Wallerstein et al., New Findings in Long wave research. Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 1992, pp. 174–195, at p. 185.
- Anwar Shaikh, "The falling rate of profit as the cause of the long waves", p. 179.
- Ernest Mandel, Long waves of capitalist development, 2nd edition. London: Verso, 1995, pp. 108-109.
- Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump. London: Verso, 1978, p. 179.
- Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump. London: Verso, 1978, p. 178.
- Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, Vol. 2. London: Merlin Press, 1968, p. 706–707.
- Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump. London: Verso, 1978, p. 178–179.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975, p. 508.
- Ernest Mandel, "Partially independent variables and internal logic in classical Marxist economic analysis". Social Science Information, Vol. 24, Vol. 3, 1985, pp. 485–505. Reprinted in Ulf Himmelstrand, Interfaces in Economic & Social Analysis, London 1992. Ernest Mandel, Le troisième âge du capitalisme. Paris: Editions de La Passion, 1997.
- Ernest Mandel, "Karl Marx", in: John Eatwell, Murray Milgate & Peter Newman (eds.), Marxian Economics. London: Palgrave, 1990, p.1–38 (at part 9).
- Daniel Ben-Ami, Cowardly Capitalism: The Myth of the Global Financial Casino. John Wiley, 2001; Phil Mullan, "The debt crisis is only the canary in the mine." Spiked, 13 March 2012.
- Martin Wolf, "Why the future looks sluggish." Financial Times, 19 November 2013.
- Lynn Stuart Parramore, "Joseph Stiglitz: Thomas Piketty gets income inequality wrong". Salon, 3 January 2015.
- Global insurance market trends 2017. Paris: OECD, 2018.; Global insurance industry insights 2014: an in-depth perspective. Washington, DC: McKinsey &Company, 2014, ; Bank of International Settlements, OTC derivatives outstanding 2018..
- Merryn Ekberg, "The Parameters of the Risk Society: A Review and Exploration". Current Sociology, Vol 55, Issue 3, 2007, pp. 343–366.
- Glyn Holton, "Is risk management a job or a career?" glynholton.com, 28 August 2014.
- Joshua Cohen, “Troublesome News: Numbers Of Uninsured On The Rise”. Forbes Magazine, 6 July 2018.
- Dick Bryan & Michael Rafferty, Capitalism with derivatives. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Bank for International Settlements, OTC derivatives outstanding.
- Phillip Blond, "There is no wealth but life". Chapter 4 in: Rowan Williams & Larry Elliott (eds.), Crisis and Recovery: Ethics, Economics and Justice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, pp. 77–99.
- Ernest Mandel, "Economics", in: David McLellan (ed.), Marx: The First Hundred Years. London: Fontana, 1983, pp. 227–228.
- Scott Murdoch, "Rising costs may erode Chinese competitiveness." The Australian, 5 January 2013; Steve Johnson, "Chinese wages now higher than in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico". Financial Times, 26 February 2017.
- Zhang Yu and Zhao Feng, "The rate of surplus value, the composition of capital and the rate of profit in Chinese manufacturing industry, 1978-2005". Beijing: Renmin University Department of Economics, 2006.
- Minqi Li, "Profit, Accumulation, and Crisis: Long-Term Movement of the Profit Rate in China, Japan, and the United States". The Chinese Economy, Vol. 50 Issue 6, 2017, pp. 381–404.
- Bin Yu, "is there a tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Theory, evidence and an adequate model". World Review of Political Economy, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 2016, pp. 411–423. The National Bureau of Statistics of China provides data on industrial profits in its financial indicators series. The quality of the data is disputed, see: Yiqin Fu, "Growth Rates with Chinese Characteristics? The Curious Case of China's Industrial Profit Statistics". Jul 5, 2018. 
- Hao Qi, Dynamics of the Rate of Surplus Value and the "New Normal" of the Chinese Economy. Working paper, PERI Umass Amherst, 22 June 2017.
- Helen Scott (ed.), The Essential Rosa Luxemburg. Chicago: Haymarket, 2008, p. 50.
- Henryk Grossman, The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System. London: Pluto Press, 1992, Part 3, p. 175.
- Gerd Hardach, Dieter Karras and Ben Fine, A Short History of Socialist Economic Thought. New York: St Martin's Press, 1978, p. 62.
- Paul A. Baran & Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966, p. 72; John B. Davis (ed.), The economic surplus in advanced economies. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1992.
- Philip Armstrong, Andrew Glyn and John Harrison, Capitalism Since World War 2. London: Fontana, 1984, p. 255–257.
- See: “The basic economic law of monopoly capitalism”, chapter 18, in: Political Economy. A textbook. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 2nd edition 1957.; Paul Wenlock, The Theory of State Monopoly Capitalism. Phd Thesis, Dept of Politics, University of Leeds, January 1981.
- Victor Perlo, Superprofits and Crises: Modern U.S. Capitalism. New York: International Publishers, 1988, p. 135.
- Gerd Hardach, Dieter Karras and Ben Fine, A Short History of Socialist Economic Thought. New York: St Martin's Press, 1978, p. 63f. Traite Marxiste d'économie politique. Le Capitalisme Monopoliste d'État, Tome 2. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1971, p. 13f, 215f.
- Keith Cowling, Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan Press, 1982; Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, p. 550f.
- Ben Fine & Laurence Harris, Re-Reading Capital. London: Macmillan, 1979, p. 61.
- Michael A. Lebowitz, "The Theoretical Status of Monopoly Capital" In: Stephen A. Resnick & Richard D. Wolff (eds.), Rethinking Marxism. New York: Autonomedia, 1985, p. 190. Reprinted in Michael A. Lebowitz, Following Marx: Method, Critique and Crisis. Leiden: Brill, 2009, pp. 225–246.
- Anwar M. Shaikh, Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises. Oxford University Press, 2016 p. 353f. etc.
- See Rudolf Hilfderding, Finance Capital. London: Routledge, 1981, p. 189; Willi Semmler, Competition, Monopoly and Differential Profit Rates. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984, p. 38f.
- Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, Vol. II  (London: Merlin Press, 1968), p 424.
- Ernest Mandel, "Surplus Capital and Realization of Surplus Value". International Socialist Review, Vol.28 No.1, January–February 1967, pp.57–64.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, p. 529ff. See also Elmar Altvater, "Wertgesetz und Monopolmacht", Das Argument Sonderband #6, 1975, pp. 129–198.
- Daniel Guérin & Ernest Mandel, La concentration économique aux États-Unis. Paris: Anthropos, 1971 (there exist German and Spanish translations).
- David Yaffe, "The crisis of profitability: a critique of the Glyn-Sutcliffe thesis." New Left Review, I/80, July–August 1973. Andrew Glyn and Bob Sutcliffe, British Capitalism, Workers and the Profit Squeeze. Penguin Books, 1972. Raford Boddy & James R. Crotty, "Wages, prices and the profit squeeze." Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 8, no. 2, July 1976, pp. 63–67; William Nordhaus, "The falling share of profits", in: A. Okun & L. Perry (eds.), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, 1974; Stephen A. Marglin & A. Bhaduri, "Profit squeeze and Keynesian Theory." In: Stephen A. Marglin & Juliet B. Schor (eds.), The golden age of capitalism: reinterpreting the postwar experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 153–186. Makoto Itoh also supported a profit-squeeze interpretation. See also: Anwar M. Shaikh, "Explaining inflation and unemployment: an alternative to neoliberal economic theory." In: Adriana Vlachou (ed.), Contemporary economic theory: radical critiques of neoliberalism. London: Macmillan, 1999, pp. 89-112.
- Alejandro Reuss, "Capitalist Crisis and Capitalist Reaction: The Profit Squeeze, the Business Roundtable, and the Capitalist Class Mobilization of the 1970s", Phd Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2013.
- Anwar Shaikh, "The falling rate of profit as the cause of the long waves: theory and evidence". In: Alfred Kleinknecht, Ernest Mandel and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (eds.), New findings in long-wave research. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1992. p. 189.
- Prunella Knaur (pseud. John Sullivan), Go Fourth and Multiply: The British Left in 1983. London: Dialogue of the deaf publishers, 1983, p. 14.
- David Yaffe, "The crisis of profitability", New Left Review #80, 1973, p. 51ff. See also: David Yaffe, 'The Marxian theory of crisis, capital and the state', Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists, Winter 1972.
- Ian Gough, "State Expenditure in Advanced Capitalism". New Left Review I/92, July–August 1975.
- Ronald L. Meek, Smith, Marx, & After. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977, p. 123. Alex Callinicos, "Assault on Marx’s Theory of Value". International Socialism (1st series), No.90, July/August 1976, pp.24–25.
- Bob Rowthorn, "Neoclassicism, Neo-Ricardianism and Marxism." New Left Review, July–August 1974; Ben Fine & Laurence Harris, Re-reading Capital. London: Macmillan, 1979; Ernest Mandel & Alan Freeman, Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa. London: Verso, 1984.
- Ronald L. Meek, Economics and Ideology and Other Essays, 1967; Geoff Hodgson, "The theory of the falling rate of profit". New Left Review I/84, March–April 1974; Ian Steedman, "Marx on the falling rate of profit". Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 10, No. 16, June 1971, pp. 61–66
- Ian Steedman, "Value, price and profit." New Left Review, series I, No. 90, March–April 1975; Ian Steedman, Marx after Sraffa. London: NLB, 1977.
- Ben Fine and Laurence Harris, "Controversial Issues in Marxist Economic Theory", Socialist Register 1976; Geoff Hodgson, "Papering over the Cracks". Socialist Register 1977; Ben Fine and Laurence Harris, "Surveying the foundations." Socialist Register 1977.
- e.g. Ronald L. Meek, Smith, Marx and After. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977, p. 133.
- Edward J. Nell, "Marxian economics". In: Adam Kuper & Jessica Kuper, The Social Science Encyclopedia, 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 1996, pp.870–872.
- Robin Hahnel, Radical Political Economy: Sraffa versus Marx. London: Routledge, 2017 (this book is critically reviewed by Andrew Kliman in Marx & Philosophy Review.).
- Geoffrey Pilling, "The law of value in Ricardo and Marx". Economy and Society, Vol.1 No. 3, 1972, pp. 281–307.
- Sasha Abramsky, The House of Twenty Thousand Books. London: Halban Publishers, 2014, pp. 101–102.
- Anwar Shaikh, "Neo-Ricardian economics: a wealth of algebra, a poverty of theory." Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1982. See also: Anwar Shaikh on youtube, Capitalism: Competition, Conflict and Crises, Lecture 9: Profit & Prices.
- Edward B. Chilcote, "Calculating Labour Values Empirically". In: Alan Freeman et al., The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 199–217.
- "The falling rate of profit and capitalism today", International Socialism 115 (Summer 2007). See also: * Chris Harman: Explaining the Crisis – a Marxist Reappraisal. London Chicago Sydney, Bookmarks 1999.
- David Harvey, "Crisis theory and the falling rate of profit". In: Turan Subasat (ed.), The Great Meltdown of 2008: Systemic, Conjunctural or Policy-created?. London: Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 37–54, at p. 41. (draft ms. p. 7); Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin ed. p. 751f.
- Alex Callinicos, "Underconsumption Theories". International Socialism (1st series), No.95, February 1977, p.27. Jane Hardy, "Radical economics, Marxist economics and Marx’s economics." International Socialism #149, 6 January 2016.
- Edward N. Wolff, "The rate of surplus value, the organic composition, and the general rate of profit in the U.S. economy, 1947–67," American Economic Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3, December 1979, pp. 341–78.
- Edward N. Wolff, Growth, Accumulation, and Unproductive Activity: An Analysis of the Postwar US Economy. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
- Thomas E. Weisskopf, "Marxian Crisis Theory and the Rate of Profit in the Postwar U.S. Economy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 3 Number 4, 1979, pp. 341–378.
- Anwar Shaikh, "The Falling Rate of Profit and the Economic Crisis in the U.S." in Robert Cherry, et al., The Imperiled Economy, Book I. New York: Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE), 1987, pp. 115–126.
- Fred Moseley, The Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991. Fred Moseley founded the International Symposium on Marxian Theory (ISMT) in 1991.
- Fred Moseley & Edward N. Wolff (eds.), International Perspectives on Profitability and Accumulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1992.
- Angelo Reati, Taux de profit et accumulation du capital dans l’onde longue de l’aprèsguerre. Le cas de l’industrie au Royaume-Uni, en France, en Italie et en Allemagne. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1990. Reati was killed in a cycling accident, in July 2013.
- Gérard Duménil, Mark Glick and José Rangeĺ, "The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall in the United States". Contemporary Marxism, No. 9, Fall 1984, pp. 148–164 (Part 1); Contemporary Marxism, No. 11, Fall 1985, pp. 138–152 (Part 2).
- Gérard Duménil, Mark Glick and José Rangeĺ, "Theories of the great depression: why did profitability matter?" Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1987, pp. 16–47.
- Anwar Shaikh & Ertuğrul Ahmet Tonak, Measuring the Wealth of Nations: The Political Economy of National Accounts. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
- Robert Brenner, The Economics of Global Turbulence. London: Verso, 2006; Robert Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble – the US in the World Economy. Verso London, New York 2002; Alan Freeman, "What makes the US Profit Rate Fall?" MPRA Paper No. 14147, University of Greenwich, 2009.
- Anwar Shaikh, "Explaining the Global Economic Crisis: A Critique of Brenner" in Historical Materialism, No. 5, 1999, pp. 104–105.
- Gerard Duménil and Dominique Lévy, The Economics of the Profit Rate: Competition, Crises, and Historical Tendencies in Capitalism. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar, 1993 (website )
- Philip Armstrong, Andrew Glyn and John Harrison, Capitalism Since World War 2. London: Fontana, 1984.
- M. Funke, "Influences on the profitability of the manufacturing sector in the UK – an empirical study". Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, May 1986, pp. 165–187.
- Andrew Glyn, "International Trends in Profitability". In: Paul Dunne (ed.), Quantitative Marxism. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991, pp. 141–160.
- Andrew Glyn, "Does aggregate profitability really matter?", Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 21, Issue 5, September 1997, pp. 593–619.
- Lefteris Tsoulfidis, "The Rate of Profit in the Greek Economy 1988–1997. An Input-Output Analysis." (with Mariolis, T. and Rodousakis, N.), Archives of Economic History (Athens), Volume 28, No 2, July–December 2006.; see further Tsoulfidis's CV 
- Including North America; some Latin American countries; Australia and New Zealand; most European countries; Japan, China, Korea and some other Asian countries; South Africa and some other African countries. In some countries, particularly in Africa, there exists insufficient reliable statistical data, making credible estimates impossible.
- Piero Sraffa, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1960.
- Frank Roosevelt, "Cambridge Economics as Commodity Fetishism", in: Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 7, no. 4, December 1975, pp. 1–32. Reprinted in: Edward J. Nell, Growth, Profits, and Property: Essays in the Revival of Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 295.
- Antony Cutler et al., Marx's Capital and capitalism today. London: Routledge, 1997, p. 218.
- Geoff Hodgson, "Money and the Sraffa System". Australian Economic Papers, June 1981, p. 83.
- Claudio Sardoni, Marx and Keynes on Economic Recession: The Theory of Unemployment and Effective Demand. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1987.
- John E. King, An Alternative Macroeconomic Theory: The Kaleckian Model and Post-Keynesian Economics. Springer, 1996.
- Robert Brenner, The Economics of Global Turbulence: The Advanced Capitalist Economies from long Boom to long Downturn, 1945–2005. London: Verso, 2006, pp. 17–21.
- Jan Toporowski, "Kalecki and the Declining Rate of Profit". Review of Political Economy, Volume 11, Issue 3, 1999.
- John Bellamy Foster, "Marx, Kalecki, and Socialist Strategy". Monthly Review, Volume 64, Issue 11, April 2013.
- Steve Cullenberg, The Falling rate of Profit. London: Pluto, 1994.
- Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's Capital, p. 53. See: Ernest Mandel, "Introduction" to Capital, Volume III. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981, p. 22–23; Manuel Perez (pseud. Michel Husson), "Valeur et prix : un essai de critique des propositions néo-ricardiennes". Critiques de l’économie politique, nouvelle série n°10, Janvier-mars 1980; Bruce Roberts, Value Categories and Marx's Method: A different view of price-value transformation. Phd thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1981; John R. Ernst, "Simultaneous Valuation Extirpated: A contribution to the critique of the neo-Ricardian concept of value", Review of Radical Political Economics Vol. 14, Issue 2, 1982; Guglielmo Carchedi, "The Logic of Prices as Values", Economy and Society Vol. 13 Issue 4, 1984. Alan Freeman & Guglielmo Carchedi (eds.).Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1996.
- Alan Freeman founded the Value National Accounts group in 1984, and subsequently the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT).
- Nick Potts & Andrew Kliman (eds.), Is Marx's Theory of Profit Right? The Simultaneoist-Temporalist Debate. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2015.
- Alan Freeman: "Price, value and profit – a continuous, general, treatment" in: Alan Freeman and Guglielmo Carchedi (eds.) Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1996.
- Gérard Duménil and Dominique Levy. "The Conservation of Value, A Rejoinder to Alan Freeman." Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 31, 2000. Duncan K. Foley, "Response to Freeman and Kliman," Research in Political Economy, Vol. 18, 2000. Michel Husson, "Les coûts historiques d’Andrew Kliman". décembre 2009. David Laibman, “Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism,” Science & Society, Fall 2000, pp. 310–332. Simon Mohun and Roberto Veneziani (Summer 2007) "The Incoherence of the TSSI: A Reply to Kliman and Freeman", Capital and Class, Vol. 31, pp. 139–145. Simon Mohun and Roberto Veneziani, "The Temporal Single-System Interpretation: Underdetermination and Inconsistency". Marxism 21, June 2009, pp. 277–299. Gary Mongiovi, "Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism", Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 34, No. 4, Fall 2002, pp. 393–416. Ernesto Screpanti (Jan. 2005) "Guglielmo Carchedi's 'Art of Fudging' Explained to the People", Review of Political Economy, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan 2005, pp. 115–126. Ajit Sinha, "Book Review: Reclaiming Marx's 'Capital'", Review of Radical Political Economics, Summer 2009, pp. 422–427. Roberto Veneziani (2004) "The Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marx's Economics: A Critical Evaluation", Metroeconomica, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 96–114. Roberto Veneziani (Fall 2005) "Dynamics, Disequilibrium, and Marxian Economics: A Formal Analysis of Temporal Single-System Marxism", Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 517–529.
- Simon Mohun, "A re(in)statement of the labour theory of value." Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 18 no. 4, pp. 391–412, August 1994.
- A simple explanation is provided in: Duncan Foley, Understanding Capital. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986, p. 103f. See further: Alain Lipietz, "The 'so-called transformation problem' revisited". Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 26, Issue 1, February 1982, pp. 59–88 (includes also Alain Lipietz, "The so-called 'transformation problem' revisited: A brief reply to brief comments". Journal of Economic Theory, Volume 33, Issue 2, August 1984, pp. 352–355). Duncan Foley, "The value of money, the value of labor power, and the Marxian transformation problem". Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 14, Issue 2, Summer 1982, pp. 37–49. Gérard Duménil, beyond the transformation riddle: a labor theory of value". Science & Society, Vol. 47, Issue 4., Winter 1983, pp. 427–450. Based on: Gérard Duménil, De la valeur aux prix de production. Paris: Economica, 1980.
- Gary Mongiovi, "Vulgar economy in Marxian garb: a critique of temporal single system Marxism." In: Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 34, Issue 4, December 2002, pp. 393–416.
- Gary Mongiovi,"Marxism, Crisis, and Economic Laws: A Comment". Research in Political Economy, Volume 27, pp. 271–284.
- Howard Nicholas, Marx's Theory of Price and its Modern Rivals. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, p. 115.
- János Kornai, Anti-Equilibrium: On Economic Systems Theory and the Tasks of Research. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1971.
- Cees Wiebes et al., The Netherlands and the Oil Crisis: Business as Usual. Amsterdam University Press, 2004.
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism. Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 104f.
- "In the social production of their existence, people inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness." — Karl Marx, 1859 Preface to A contribution to the critique of political economy.
- Alan Freeman & Guglielmo Carchedi (eds.), Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1996.
- Guglielmo Carchedi, For Another Europe: A Class Analysis of European Economic Integration. London: Verso, 2001, p. 49f.
- Riccardo Bellofiore, Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal. Volume 2: Essays on Volume III of Capital – Profit, Prices and Dynamics. Palgrave Macmillan, 1997.
- Riccardo Bellofiore & Piero Ferri (eds.), Financial Keynesianism and Market Instability. The Economic Legacy of Hyman Minsky, Volume I. Edward Elgar, 2001.
- Costas Lapavitsas, Profiting without Producing. London: Verso, 2013, p. 272, note 26. See also writings by L. Randall Wray, Martin Wolf and the Levy Economics Institute where Minsky's texts are archived.
- Ernest Mandel, "World Monetary Crisis". International (London), Volume 7, No. 6, November/December 1982, pp. 3–6 
- Michael Hudson, Trade, development and foreign debt (2 Vols.). London: Pluto Press, 1992.
- Makoto Itoh & Costas Lapavitsas, Political Economy of Money and Finance. Palgrave Macmillan, 1998
- Jan Toporowski, The End of Finance: Capital Market Inflation, Financial Derivatives and Pension Fund Capitalism. Routledge, 2002
- Éric Toussaint, Your Money or your Life. The Tyranny of the Global Finance. Chicago: Haymarket, 2005
- Willi Semmler, Asset Prices, Booms and Recessions, 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer, 2006 (based on New School and Bielefeld lectures).
- Nico Walckx, "Rising Household Debt: What It Means for Growth and Stability". IMF Blog, 3 October 2017.
- David Harvey, The Limits of Capital. London: Verso 2006, p. 303.
- Robert Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble: The US Economy Today. London: Verso, 2002.
- Luc Laeven & Fabian Valencia, "Systemic Banking Crises Database". IMF Economic Review, Vol. 61, Issue. 2, June 2013, pp. 225–270, at p. 226.
- Steve Keen, Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? Cambridge: Polity, 2017, p. 35 etc.
- Ryan Banerjee and Boris Hofmann, "The rise of zombie firms: causes and consequences". BIS Quarterly Review, September 2018, pp. 69–79 ; Xin En Lee, “No profit? No problem. Investors keep snapping up loss-making companies”. CNBC News, 29 August 2018.
- Desmond Lachman, “Global debt binge setting us up for a pounding economic headache”. The Hill, 26 June 2018.
- "Interview with John E. King". World Economics Association Newsletter, Volume 4, Issue 3, June 2014, p. 5.;Doug Henwood, Wall Street. London: Verso, 1997; Robert Pollin, Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity. London: Verso, 2005; Michael Hudson, The bubble and beyond. Institute for the Study of Long term Economic Trends, 2012; Costas Lapavitsas, Profits without producing; how finance exploits us all. London: Verso, 2013. David Blacker, The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame. Zero Books, 2013.
- Costas Lapavitsas, Profits without producing; how finance exploits us all. London: Verso, 2013, p. 145.
- Nasser Saber, Speculative Capital, Vol.1. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 1999, p. 53.
- Martin Wolf, "Comment on Andrew G Haldane, 'Control rights (and wrongs)'". Wincott Annual Memorial Lecture, 24th October 2011, p. 1. Cf. Sameer Khatiwada, Did the financial sector profit at the expense of the rest of the economy? Evidence from the United States. Discussion paper, Geneva: ILO/International Institute for labour Studies, 2010.
- Jan Toporowski, Theories of Financial Disturbance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005, p. 55.
- Costas Lapavitsas, Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All. London: Verso, 2014, p. 31.
- Michael Hudson, "Trade Advantage Replaced by Rent Extraction", Renegade Economists Radio, transcript December 17, 2013.
- Costas Lapavitsas, Profiting without producing. London: Verso, 2013, p. 238.
- "Pension Funds in Figures". OECD press release, May 2017. ; Pension markets in focus 2017. Paris: OECD, 2017; Thinking Ahead Institute, Global pension assets study 2018. London: Willis Tower Watson, February 2018.
- Robin Blackburn, Banking on death or investing in life: the history and future of pensions. London: Verso, 2002.
- Roxburgh, Charles; Lund, Susan; Atkins, Charles; Belot, Stanislas; Hu, Wayne; Pierce, Moira (September 2009). "Global capital markets: entering a new era". McKinsey Global Institute: 9. Archived from the original on 2017-02-06. Retrieved 2 March 2016.
- Institute of International Finance, Global Debt Monitor – June 2017..
- In nominal US dollars; of course the terms of debt repayment can be anywhere from a year to 30 years and more.
- The Debt Resisters' Operations Manual.
- Christian Girschner, Die Dienstleistungsgesellschaft. Zur Kritik einer fixen Idee. Köln: PapyRossa Verlag, 2003.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume II, Penguin 1978, Part 1. Ernest Mandel, "Die Marxsche Theorie der ursprünglichen Akkumulation und die Industrialisierung der Dritten Welt". In: Folgen einer Theorie: Essays über "Das Kapital" von Karl Marx. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1967, p. 71–93.
- Analytical Perspectives 2010 (US Budget annex), Table 13-5, p. 199. McKinsey Quarterly, various reports on the global capital markets.
- Jan Toporowski, "The crisis of finance in Marxian political economy". Science & Society, Vol. 8 No. 4, October 2016, pp. 515-529.
- David Harvey, "Afterthoughts on Piketty's Capital", May 2014
- Christian Palloix, “The internationalization of capital and the circuit of social capital”, in: Hugo Radice (ed.), International Firms and Modern Imperialism. Penguin, 1975, pp. 63–88.
- Robert Went, Essays on Globalization: a Journey to a Possibly New Stage of Capitalism. Phd thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2001. Republished as The Enigma of Globalization: A Journey to a New Stage of Capitalism. London: Routledge, 2002 (chapter 4).
- Kozo Uno, Principles of Political Economy: Theory of a Purely Capitalist Society. Translated from the Japanese by Thomas T. Sekine. Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980.
- Murray Bookchin, The next revolution. London: Verso, 2015, p. 21.
- Shinzaburo Koshimura, Theory of capital reproduction and accumulation. Kitchener, Ontario: DPG Publishing Co., 1975, pp. p. 17f.
- Ernest Mandel, The Second Slump. London: Verso, 1978, p. 198. Ernest Mandel, "Marx and Engels on Commodity Production and Bureaucracy". In: Stephen Resnick & Richard Wolff (eds.), Rethinking Marxism: essays for Harry Magdoff & Paul Sweezy. New York: Autonomedia, 1985, p. 243. Geoffrey R. Pearce, Where is New Zealand Going?. Phd dissertation, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1986.
- Jan Toporowski, The End of Finance: Capital Market Inflation, Financial Derivatives and Pension Fund Capitalism. Routledge, 2002.
- Marx, Capital, Volume II, Penguin edition 1978, p. 427.
- Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe [MEGA2] Band II/4.3 Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2012, p. 441.
- "As far as the total social capital is concerned, … a part of this capital is required for secondary operations that are not a part of the valorization process, and … this part of the social capital has to be constantly reproduced for this purpose." – Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 405.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume II, Penguin ed., chapter 20 section 10, pp. 515–516. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "The Problem with Human Capital Theory – A Marxian Critique". The American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, May 1975, pp. 74–82.
- Minqi Li, Feng Xiao, Andong Zhu, "Long waves, institutional changes and historical trends: a study of the long-term movement of the profit rate in the capitalist world economy", Journal of World System Research, Number 1, 2007..
- Michael Roberts, "A world rate of profit". Paper presented to AHE/IPPE/WEA Conference, Paris July 2012 ; Michael Roberts. "Revisiting a world rate of profit". Paper for the 2015 Conference of the Association of Heterodox Economists, Southampton Solent University, July 2015.
- Roberts, Michael, "UK profit rate and British economic history", 2015, accessed 21/03/2018
- John Hamilton Bradford, The Falling Rate of Profit Thesis Reassessed. Masters thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2007.
- Deenpankar Basu & Panayiotis Manolakos, "Is there a tendency for the rate of profit to fall? Econometric evidence for the U.S., 1948-2007", Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 45, 2012, pp. 76-91.
- Basu, D., Vasudevan, R., "Technology, distribution and the rate of profit in the US economy: understanding the current crisis", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37, 2013, pp. 57-89.
- Themistoklis Kalogerakos, Technology, distribution, and long-run profit rate dynamics in the U.S. manufacturing sector, 1948–2011: evidence from a Vector Error Correction Model (VECM). Master's Thesis, Lund University, August 2014.
- Adem Y. Elveren & Sara Hsu, "Military Expenditures and Profit Rates: Evidence from OECD Countries", Working Paper 374, Political Economy Research Institute, 2015, p. 3 et seq.
- Thomas Weiß, The rate of return on capital in Germany – an empirical study. Paper presented at the 19th FMM Conference, “The Spectre of Stagnation? Europe in the World Economy”, Berlin Steglitz, 22–24 October 2015.
- Ivan Trofimov, "Profit rates in developed capitalist economies: a time series investigation", Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 5/06/2017, accessed 19/03/2018
- Marcelo Resende, "Profit rate in the US, 1949–2007: a Markov switching assessment". Applied Economics Letters, Volume 25, Issue 9, 2018.
- An initial bibliography for this project, compiled in New Zealand, was borrowed by Dr Robert Went in Amsterdam in 1999, but he "lost" it, a while before he joined the Dutch Treasury as project manager.
- Michael Hudson, "Piketty's Wealth Gap Wake Up". Interview with Renegade Economists Radio, transcript April 22nd, 2014.
- Simon Mohun, "The rate of profit", in: Ben Fine (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Marxist Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2012, p. 295. See also: Gallina Vincelette, “Estimating Rates of Return on Capital”. Powerpoint presentation, Washington, DC: The World Bank, April 2010.
- Gerard Duménil, Mark Glick & Jose Rangel, "The tendency of the rate of profit to fall in the United States, part 1". Contemporary Marxism No. 9, 1984: pp. 148–164. Gerard Duménil, Mark Glick & Jose Rangel, "The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall in the United States, Part 2", Contemporary Marxism No. 11, 1985, pp. 138–152.
- Fred Moseley, "Falling rate of profit, empirical tests." In: David Glasner (ed.). "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia." New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1997, p. 213-216, at p. 215.
- Philip Armstrong et al., Capitalism since World War II. Fontana Paperbacks, 1984, pp. 458–460.
- Robert J. Gordon, The measurement of durable goods prices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990, p. 4.
- Ernest Mandel, Long waves of capitalist development. London: Verso, 1995.
- Paul Baran & Paul Sweezy, Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966, p. 72 note 22.
- Geoffrey M. Hodgson, "What is capital? Economists and sociologists have changed its meaning: should it be changed back?". Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 38 no. 5, 2014, pp. 1063–1086.
- The MELT is normally defined as the value of total net output per year divided by total paid hours worked per year, which yields the average value of one working hour in a given national economy.
- William Lazonick, "Profits without prosperity". Harvard Business Review, September 2014. "U.S. corporate share buybacks 'explode' in February: research firm", Reuters, 1 March 2018. William Lazonick, "The curse of stock buybacks". The American Prospect, 25 June 2018. Duncan Lamont, “Six reasons you should care about share buybacks”. Schroders.com, 13 November 2018.
- "Property income" in the UNSNA sense, of income from asset ownership, including investment income and rents (see: SNA 2008, p. 150).
- Richard Ruggles and Nancy D. Ruggles, National Income Accounts and Income Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956, chapters 1–4.
- Michael Hudson, The bubble and beyond. Dresden: ISLET, 2012, p. 299. Anwar Shaikh, "Income distribution, econophysics and Piketty". Review of Political Economy, Vol. 29, Issue 1, 2017, pp. 18–29.
- Michael Hudson, The bubble and beyond. Dresden: ISLET, 2012, p. 164.
- Mickaël Clévenot, Yann Guy, and Jacques Maziera, "Investment and the rate of profit in a financial context: the French case". International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 24, No. 6, November 2010, pp. 693–714.
- One implication, noted by Thomas Piketty and others, is that the accumulation of capital (and profit volumes) can grow, even when GDP growth falters or stagnates (causing some business observers to dismiss GDP as a rather useless and irrelevant concept).
- Michael Hudson, "From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital, and the Financialization of Industry". Critique, Vol. 38, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 419–444, at p. 427. Michael Hudson, The bubble and beyond. Dresden: ISLET, 2012, p. 229f.
- Derek Blades, “Depreciation in the National Accounts”. Paris: Statistics Directorate, OECD, 1997.; Charles R. Hulten and Frank C. Wykoff, "Economic Depreciation and the Taxation of Structures in United States Manufacturing Industries: An Empirical Analysis". In: Dan Usher, The measurement of capital. University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp. 83–119.
- Barbara Fraumeni, “The Measurement of Depreciation in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts.” Survey of Current Business, July 1997.
- See e.g. Dan Usher, The measurement of capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp. 23-81.; Michael Jaffey, "Reform of the measurement of all aspects of fixed capital". Statistics Canada background paper, presented to the OECD Capital Stock Conference, Canberra, March 1997. The papers of the conference are available online .
- Robert J. Gordon, The measurement of durable goods prices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
- "Preview of the 2013 Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts; Changes in Definitions and Presentations". Survey of Current Business, Vol. 93, March 2013, p. 21.
- Thomas Piketty & Gabriel Zucman, "Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700–2010", Data Appendix, December 15, 2013, p. 12. (this appendix is a supplement to a working paper, "Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700–2010").
- Richard I.D. Harris and Stephen Drinkwater, “UK Plant and Machinery Capital Stocks and Plant Closures”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2000, pp. 239–261 (at p. 261).
- "The use of the Perpetual Inventory Method in the UK: Practices and Problems". OECD Capital Stock Conference paper, March 1997, p. 4.
- Gerhard Meinen, Piet Verbiest & Peter-Paul de Wolf, "Perpetual Inventory Method: Service lives, discard patterns and depreciation methods", OECD working paper, Department of National Accounts, Statistics Netherlands, July 1998, p. 38; Piketty & Zucman, p. 8.
- Statistics New Zealand, Measuring capital stock in the New Zealand economy (3rd ed). Wellington: SNZ, 2013, p. 35.
- Piketty & Zucman, as cited above and Le Capital au XXIe siècle Chapter 6.
- Carol E. Moylan, "Employee stock options and the National Economic Accounts". BEA Briefing, Survey of Current Business, Vol. 88 Issue 2, February 2008, p. 7.
- Anwar Shaikh & Ertuğrul Ahmet Tonak, Measuring the wealth of nations (Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 111 note 10, and p. 321.
- Schuyler Velasco, "CEO pay hits $10 million, 257 times worker pay. The gap's been bigger". Christian Science Monitor, 27 May 2014.
- Mark J. Perry, “New BLS data”. American Enterprise Institute, 31 March 2016.
- BLS, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2017
- "Capital formation excludes the cost of land, since land is not a produced asset". Statistics Canada, "Guide to Income and Expenditure Accounts", section 9.15, p. 199.
- Joseph B. Nichols, Stephen D. Oliner, and Michael R. Mulhall, "Commercial and Residential Land Prices Across the United States". Working paper, Federal Reserve Board, 2010. In the US, land and property values are estimated e.g. by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Bureau of Economic Analysis , as well as by teams of academic researchers.
- Corey Allan and Suzi Kerr, "Examining Patterns in and Drivers of Rural Land Value." Wellington, N.Z.: Working Paper, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, 19 June 2014.
- Mary N. Taylor, "Land-grabbing and the Financialization of Agricultural Land." CADTM website, 28 May 2018.
- Geert Reuten, "Destructive creativity: institutional arrangements of banking and the logic of capitalist technical change in the perspective of Marx's 1894 law of profit." In: Riccardo Bellofiore (ed.), Marxian economics: a reappraisal. Essays on Volume III of 'Capital'. Volume 2: Profits, prices and dynamics. New York: St Martin's Press, 1998, pp. 177–193.
- Jochen Hartwig, "On Misusing National Accounts Data for Governance Purposes". Working Papers, Swiss Institute for Business Cycle Research & Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, No. 101, March 2005, i + 23 pp.
- Tim Dickinson, "The Biggest Tax Scam Ever". Rolling Stone, August 27 issue, 2014. Mona Chalabi, "Tax evasion: how much does it cost?". The Guardian, 27 September 2013.; Kitty Richards and John Craig, Offshore Corporate Profits: The Only Thing ‘Trapped’ Is Tax Revenue. Center for American Progress, 9 January 2014. ; Scott Thurm & Kate Linebaugh, "More U.S. Profits Parked Abroad, Saving on Taxes". Wall Street Journal, 10 March 2013. 
- Rosemary Marcuss, Corporate profits in the GDP accounts. Powerpoint presentation for the National Association of Business Economics by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Kissimmee (Florida), May 2004. See also the NIPA's handbook, chapter 13.
- See the site   See also: Dhammika Dharmapala, “What Do We Know About Base Erosion and Profit Shifting? A Review of the Empirical Literature”. Working paper, University of Chicago Law School, September 2014..
- Thomas Rasmusen Tørsløv, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman, The missing profits of nations. Working paper, University of Berkeley, July 2018. Richard Rubin, "Corporations Push Profits Into Tax Havens as Countries Struggle in Pursuit, Study Says". Wall Street Journal, 10 June 2018. Gabriel Zucman, “How corporations and the wealthy avoid taxes.” New York Times, 10 November 2017.
- Ludvig Wier & Hayley Reynolds, Big and 'unprofitable': How 10% of multinational firms do 98% of profit-shifting. SA-TIED Working Paper #24, December 2018.[sa-tied.wider.unu.edu/article/big-and-unprofitable-how-10-multinational-firms-do-98-profit-shifting] 
- David Henry, "Fuzzy Numbers', Bloomberg Businessweek, 3 October 2004.; David Kocieniewski, “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether”, New York Times, 24 March 2011.
- Kenneth A. Petrick, "Corporate Profits, Profits Before Tax, Profits Tax Liability, and Dividends". Methodology Paper, National Income and Wealth Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, 2002.
- Michael Perelman, Keynes, Investment Theory and the Economic Slowdown. The Role of Replacement Investment and q-Ratios. London: Macmillan, 1989.
- Stephen Cullenberg, The falling rate of profit. Recasting the Marxian debate. London: Pluto Press, 1994, p. ix.
- Anwar M. Shaikh, "The falling rate of profit and the economic crisis in the US". In: Robert Cherry et al. (eds.), The imperiled Economy. New York: URPE, 1987, pp. 115–126, at p. 119.
- Tony Norfield, "Capitalist Production Good, Capitalist Finance Bad." Economics of Imperialism blog, 6 January 2014, p. 12 (note 13).
- Michael Perelman, "The Qualitative Side of Marx's Value Theory",Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1993, p. 94.
- Rob A. Bryer, "A Marxist accounting history of the British industrial revolution: a review of evidence and suggestions for research." Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 30, Issue 1, January 2005, 25-65. Geoffrey Whittington, Profitability, Accounting Theory and Methodology. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007. Grahame Thompson, Economic Calculations and Policy Formation. London: Routledge, 2014.
- D. W. Feenstra & H. Wang, "Economic and accounting rates of return". Working paper, Faculty of Economics, University of Groningen, October 2000.
- This business concept of the conventional profit rate should not be confused with the concept of conventional profit rate used by Fred Moseley in The Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States Economy. New York: St Martins Press, 1991, chapter 4.
- Utz-Peter Reich, National Accounts and Economic Value: A Study in Concepts. New York: Palgrave, 2001. See also the FASB Conceptual Framework
- Yoshiko M. Herrera, "Accidental hegemony: how the system of national accounts became a global institution". In: Gerald Berk et al. (eds.), Political Creativity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013, pp. 167-187 at p. 170.
- Andrew Kliman, The failure of capitalist production, p. 94.
- Bobby Seagull, “Maths is a potential life changer — from wages to dating”. Financial Times, 26 October 2018.
- Frits Bos, The national accounts as a tool for analysis and policy; past, present and future. Phd Dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 2003, p. 3.
- Diane Coyle picked up this idea, see: Diane Coyle, “Measuring the modern economy with 1940s methods”. In: Urs Rohner (ed.), The future of GDP. Zurich: Credit Suisse Research Institute, 2018, p. 14 ; Michael Hudson & Dirk Bezemer, "Incorporating the rentier sector into a financial model". World Economic Review, Vol. 1, 1–12, 2012.
- Noah Smith, "How Finance Took Over the Economy". Bloomberg, 20 April 2016.
- Dennis J Fixler, Marshall B Reinsdorf and Shaunda Villones, "Measuring the services of commercial banks in the NIPA." IFC Bulletin No. 33 (Irving Fisher Committee on Central Bank Statistics, Bank of International Settlements), 2007. The conceptual grid for standard SNA-type financial accounts is explained in: Financial Production, Flows and Stocks in the System of National Accounts. Handbook on National Accounting Series, series F No. 113. New York: United Nations, 2015.
- Michael Hudson, "How Rent Gets Buried in the National Income Accounts". Working paper presented at the Conference of the Council of Georgist Organizations, Evanston (Ill.) 1995.
- Anwar Shaikh & Ertuğrul Ahmet Tonak, Measuring the Wealth of Nations: The Political Economy of National Accounts. Cambridge University Press, 1994; Brett Christophers, "Making finance productive". Economy and Society, Volume 40, Number 1, February 2011, pp. 112-140.
- On 11 October 2007, a White House press release stated: "As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now lower than the average of the last forty years.""Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-12-03. Retrieved 2014-09-29.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link) What it meant was: "The total US federal budget deficit, stated as a percentage of GDP, is now lower than the percentage of GDP which this deficit represented on average across the last forty years."
- Charles R. Hulten & Marshall B. Reinsdorf (ed.), Measuring Wealth and Financial Intermediation and Their Links to the Real Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.
- Michael Heise, "The myth of the stupid German investor". Wall Street Journal, 25 September 2014.
- In Europe, "Statistical Data Warehouses" are provided by the ECB, the BIS, Eurostat and the OECD. See also: Ad Feelders, "Data mining in economic science", in: Jeroen Meij (ed.), Dealing with the data flood: mining data, text and multimedia. The Hague: STT, 2002, pp.166-175. and Bill Goffe, Resources for economists on the Internet, Dept. of Economics, Penn State University, 2018. Data Warehouses are provided e.g. by the Department of Statistics Malaysia, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the University of Saskatchewan, etc. Many private companies managing large data collections (e.g. business intelligence) can also provide data warehouse services.
- Peter van de Ven, "New standards for compiling national accounts: what's the impact on GDP and other macro-economic indicators?". OECD Statistics Brief, Issue 20, February 2015.
- Hyunbae Chun et al, “Declining Rate of Return on Capital and the Role of Intangibles in Japan and Korea”. Paper presented at the Fourth World KLEMS conference, Madrid, 23 May 2016. 
- Hyunbae Chun et al., “Intangibles and productivity growth: Evidence from Japan and Korea”. VoxEU CEPR policy Portal, 9 October 2015.
- "Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st century". Washington, World Bank, 2006, p. 4.
- Ben Fine, Social capital versus social theory. London: Routledge, 2001.
- "A price on the priceless: measuring intangible assets". The Economist, 10 June 1999.
- Doug Henwood, After the new economy. New York: The New Press, 2003.
- Anthony Scholefield, “Economic delusions are based on inadequate accounting – it’s all in the figures”. Futurus, 31 January 2009.
- Andrew Kliman, The failure of capitalist production. London: Pluto, 2011, chapter 6.
- Andrew Kliman and Shannon D. Williams, "Why ‘financialisation’ hasn’t depressed US productive investment". Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 38 No. 5, September 2014.
- Ascension Mejorado and Manuel Roman, Profitability and the great recession: the role of accumulation trends in the financial crisis. London: Routledge, 2013.
- Matthew J. Bezreh and Jonathan P. Goldstein, "Real and financial determinants of the profit share: the financial profit squeeze". Working paper 307, PERI, Umass Amherst, January 2013.
- Wilfried Parys, "The deviation of prices from labor values". The American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 5, December, 1982, pp. 1208–1212; P. Petrovic, "The deviation of production prices from labour values: some methodology and empirical evidence." Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 1987, pp. 197-210; Andrew J. Kliman, "The law of value and laws of statistics: sectoral values and prices in the US economy, 1977-97". Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, 2002, pp. 299–311; Emilio Diaz & Ruben Osuna, "Can we trust cross-sectional price-value correlation measures? Some evidence from the case of Spain." Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. Vol. 28 No. 2, Winter 2006, pp. 345–363; Andrew Kliman, "What Is Spurious Correlation? A Reply to Díaz and Osuna.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, Vol. 31 No. 2, Winter 2008–9 pp. 345–356. Emilio Díaz & Rubén Osuna, "Understanding Spurious Correlation: A Rejoinder to Kliman". Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Winter, 2008–2009), pp. 357-362; Emilio Díaz & Rubén Osuna, "Indeterminacy in Price–Value Correlation Measures”. Empirical Economics, Vol. 33, No. 3, November 2007, pp. 389–399; Emilio Díaz & Rubén Osuna, “From Correlation to Dispersion: Geometry of the Price–Value Deviation.” Empirical Economics, Vol. 36, No. 2, May 2009, pp. 427–440; Jonathan Nitzan & Shimshon Bichler, Capital as power. Routledge, 2009. Nils Fröhlich, "Dimensional Analysis of price-value deviations". Unpublished paper, 18 October 2010. Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell & Alejandro Valle Baeza, "The empirics of the labour theory of value: reply to Nitzan and Bichler". Investigación Económica, vol. LXXIII, no. 287, January–March 2014, pp. 115-134. Andrea Vaona, "Further econometric evidence on the gravitation and convergence of industrial rates of return on regulating capital". Journal of Post-Keynesian economics, Vol. 25 Issue 1, 2012, pp. 113-136. Andrea Vaona, "Price-price deviations are highly persistent". Structural change and economic dynamics, Vol. 33, Issue April 2015, pp. 86-95. Deepankar Basu, "A selective review of recent quantitative empirical research in Marxist political economy." Working paper, University of Amherst, 2015.
- Fred Moseley, "Marx´s concepts of productive labor and unproductive labor: an application to the postwar U.S. economy". Eastern Economics Journal, Volume IX, no. 3, July/September 1983, pp. 180–189. Fred Moseley, "The Decline of the Rate of Profit in the Postwar U.S. Economy: An Alternative Marxian Explanation". Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 22, no. 2-3, Summer-Fall 1990, pp. 17–37.
- Fred Moseley, The Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991. See also: Fred Moseley, The rate of profit and economic stagnation in the United States economy. Historical Materialism, Volume 1, Number 1, 1997.
- Chris Harman, "The rate of profit and the world today". International Socialism (2nd series), No.115, Summer 2007.
- Stephen Cullenberg, "Unproductive Labor and the Contradictory Movement of the Rate of Profit: A Comment on Moseley," Review of Radical Political Economics, 26:2, (1994): 109–119. Thomas E. Weisskopf, The rate of surplus value in the postwar US economy: a response to Moseley's critique". Cambridge Journal of Economics 1985, 9, pp. 81–84.
- Gérard Duménil & Dominique Lévy, "Unproductive Labor as Profit-Rate-Maximizing Labor". Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, Volume 23, Issue 2, April 2011."Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-16. Retrieved 2014-10-16.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
- See further Tony Smith, Technology and Capital in the Age of Lean Production. New York: SUNY Press, 2000; Charlie Post and Jane Slaughter,Lean Production: Why Work is Worse Than Ever. A Solidarity working paper. Detroit: Solidarity, 2000.; Chrystia Freeland, "The rise of "lovely" and "lousy" jobs". Reuters, 12 April 2012.
- Karl Marx, Das Kapital Vol. 3 (1894), Dietz ed. p. 397. Penguin edition, p. 507.
- Karl Marx, Theories of surplus value, Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978, chapter 4.
- Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin edition, 1976, pp. 1040, 1052–1055.
- One of the first to make the argument was Shane Mage, The Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit; Its Place in the Marxian Theoretical System and Relevance to the US Economy. Phd Thesis, Columbia University, 1963, p. 66. See further Murray E. G. Smith, "Productivity, Valorization and Crisis: Socially Necessary Unproductive Labor in Contemporary Capitalism". Science and Society, Vol. 57 No. 3, 1993, pp. 262–293
- David Ramsay Steele, From Marx to Mises: post-capitalist society and the challenge of economic calculation. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1992, pp. 195-200.
- S. Marginson, "Value creation in the production of services: a note on Marx", Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 22, 1998, pp.573–585.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin 1976, p. 644.
- Christian Girschner, Die Dienstleistungsgesellschaft: zur Kritik einer fixen Idee. Köln: PapyRossa Verlag, 2003, esp. chapter 5.
- David Harvie, "All labor is productive and unproductive." Discussion paper in political economy, no. 2003/2 ISSN 1479-2664. Department of Economics and Politics. The Nottingham Trent University, June 2003.
- Jan Lucassen, "Outlines of a History of Labor". IISH-Research Paper 51, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam 2013, p. 19.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin 1976, p. 697-698, p. 1072. Research from Hungary however suggested that a piece-wage regime is more problematic than one might think. See: Miklós Haraszti, A worker in a worker's state: piece rates in Hungary. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977.
- Cosimo Perrotta, Unproductive Labour in Political Economy – The History of an Idea. Milton Park: Routledge, 2018.
- Todd J. Zywicki & Christopher Koopman, "The Changing of the Guard: The Political Economy of Administrative Bloat in American Higher Education." George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper, No. 17-12, 29 March 2017. Benjamin Ginsberg, "Administrators Ate My Tuition". Washington Monthly, September–October 2011.
- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975, p. 406.
- Nicos Poulantzas, Classes in contemporary capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975, p. 209f. Sungur Savran and Ertuğrul Ahmet Tonak, "Productive and Unproductive Labor: An Attempt at Clarification and Classification", Capital & Class #68, 1999, pp. 113–152
- Paul Cockshott and David Zachariah, "Hunting Productive Work". Science & Society, 70:4, 2006, pp. 509–527. Piero Sraffa, Production of commodities by means of commodities. Cambridge University Press, 1960, p. 8.
- Ali Rattansi, Marx and the Division of Labor (Macmillan, 1982). André Gorz (ed.), The Division of Labor: The Labor Process and Class Struggle in Modern Capitalism. Harvester Press, 1976. Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974. Michael Perelman “The Curious Case of Adam Smith's Pin Factory”. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meetings of the History of Economics Society. University of Quebec, Montreal June 20–22, 2014..
- J. Frobel, J. Heinrichs & O. Kreye, The new international division of labor. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
- Keith Breene, "Meet the ‘New-Collar’ Workers in Manufacturing." Spectra (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Group), 11 September 2017.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin 1976, chapters 13–15.
- Gareth R. Jones & Jennifer M. George, Essentials of contemporary management, 5th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2013, p. 125.
- S. Zhou, “European and American Scholars’ Debate about the Current Crisis and the Rate of Profit to Fall.” [In Chinese.] Foreign Theoretical Trends, no. 10: 29–38, 2010. The papers were never collated in a book, but many are still available online.
- Michel Husson, "The debate on the rate of profit". International Viewpoint, n°426, July 2010.
- Michael Heinrich, An introduction to the three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012.
- Chris O'Kane, "Review of Michael Heinrich, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital." In: Marx & Philosophy Review of Books, January 2013.; Dominic Alexander, "An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital". Counterfire, 26 October 2012.; Carl Cassegard, "Heinrich's introduction to Marx' Capital". The world (and books) blog, 8 May 2013.
- Michael Heinrich, An introduction to the three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012, p. 153.
- Michael Yates, "Profits May Rise, Profits May Fall, the Capitalist System Does not Care at All." CounterPunch, 31 December 2013.
- "Exchange with Michael Heinrich on Marx's Crisis Theory", in Monthly Review (New York), December 2013.
- Michael Heinrich, "Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and Marx's Studies in the 1870s." Monthly Review, Vol. 64, No. 11, April 2013.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin ed. 1981, p. 970.
- Kozo Uno, Principles of Political Economy. Harvester Press, 1980. Leszek Nowak, The Structure of Idealization. Toward a Systematic Interpretation of the Marxian Idea of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980.
- Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems. Institute of General Semantics, 5th ed. 1995. Oskar Morgenstern, On the accuracy of economic observations, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, 1963.
- Allen Oakley, Marx's critique of political economy, Vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1985, p. 33f.
- Michael Roberts, The long recession. Chicago: Haymarket, 2016.
- Historical Materialism Blog, November 2016 
- Guglielmo Carchedi and Michael Roberts, World in Crisis: Marxist Perspectives on Crash & Crisis. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2018.
- Lewis Corey, The Decline of American Capitalism. New York: Covici-Friede, 1934. Paul Mattick, Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1969 and Economic Crises and Crisis Theory (1974), chapter 2; Henryk Grossman, The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System. Pluto 1992. Steve Cullenberg, The Falling rate of Profit. London: Pluto, 1994.
- Guglielmo Carchedi & Michael Roberts, "The long roots of the present crisis: Keynesians, Marxians and Marx's law". World Review of Political Economy, Vol. 4 No. 1, Spring 2013.
- Frank Beckenbach and Michael R. Krätke, "Zur Kritik der Uberakkumulationstheorie". PROKLA Vol. 8 No. 1 (3), pp. 43–81, and Ernest Mandel, "Introduction" to Capital, Volume III. Penguin, 1981, p. 38ff.
- L. Randall Wray, "Saving, Profits, and Speculation in Capitalist Economies," Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 25, December 1991, pp. 951–975. Frederic S. Lee, Post-Keynesian Price Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1999. Wynne Godley and Mark Lavoie, Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan 2007. Steve Keen, "Minsky's thesis: Keynesian or Marxian?". chapter 6 in: Riccardo Bellofiore & Piero Ferri (eds). Financial Keynesianism and Market Instability. The Economic Legacy of Hyman Minsky, Volume I. Edward Elgar, 2001.
- Robert A. Blecker, "Wage-led versus profit-led demand regimes: the long and the short of it." Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol, 4 No. 4, October 2016, pp. 373-390  ; Sebastian Budgen & Costas Lapavitsas, "Greece: Phase Two." Jacobin, March 12, 2015.; Geoff Mann, In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy, and Revolution. London: Verso, 2017. Stephen Thompson, "Profit Squeeze in the Duménil and Lévy Model". Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 50 Issue 2, 2018, pp. 297-316. See also Anwar Shaikh's UMass lectures on youtube 
- Samuel Bowles, Richard Edwards and Frank Roosevelt, Understanding Capitalism: competition, command and change, 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 248-249;Rajani Kannepalli Kanth, Against Economics: Rethinking Political Economy. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.
- Michael Hudson, The bubble and beyond. Institute for the Study of Long term Economic Trends, 2012.
- David Harvey, "Crisis theory and the falling rate of profit". In: Turan Subasat, The great financial meltdown: systemic, conjunctural or policy created? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2016, p.46.
- Paul Mattick,Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory(1974), chapter 2
- Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production: Underlying Causes of the Great Recession, 2011. Guglielmo Carchedi, Behind the Crisis. Michael Roberts blog http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/.
- Luci Ellis and Kathryn Smith, "The global upward trend in the profit share", Working paper, Monetary and Economic Department, Bank of International Settlements, July 2007. Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt, "Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity". New York Times, 28 August 2006.
- Interview with Andrew Kliman, "The relevance of Marxian Economics Today". Socialist Standard, April 2014, p. 13.
- Doug Henwood, "A Return to a World Marx Would Have Known". New York Times, 30 March 2014. Anwar Shaikh, "The First Great Depression of the 21st Century." Socialist Register Vol. 47, 2011.
- Guglielmo Carchedi, "Profitability and modern capitalism." In: Richard Westra, Dennis Badeen, Robert Albritton (ed.), The future of capitalism after the Financial Crisis. London: Routledge, 2017, pp. 205-227. Martin Thomas (ed.), Crisis and Sequels: Capitalism and the New Economic Turmoil since 2007. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
- Emily Kaiser, "U.S. productivity boom a bust for workers", Reuters press agency (Washington DC), 20 July 2009.
- Mohamed El-Erian, "American jobs data are worse than we think". Financial Times, 2 July 2009.
- "The disappearing labor force: Over 800K Americans drop out of labor force". My Budget 360, May 2014.
- Thomas Frank, "Bernie Sanders: Longterm Democratic strategy is “pathetic”. Salon.com, 28 September 2014.;Pete Dolack, "Why the Real Unemployment Rate is Double the ‘Official’ Unemployment Rate". Counterpunch, 20 March 2015.
- Mario Draghi, "Unemployment in the euro area". Speech at Annual central bank symposium, Jackson Hole USA, 22 August 2014.
- Ross Kerber and Peter Szekely, "Earnings gap over U.S. workers grows for S&P 500 CEOs: union report". Reuters press release, 9 May 2017.
- Robert Reich, "Why the Economy is Still Failing Most Americans", Robert Reich blog, September 28, 2014.
- Doug Henwood, "Bosses getting raises, working stiffs not." LBO news from Doug Henwood (blog), 5 February 2018.
- Alexander W. Richter et al., "Declining U.S. Labor Force Participation Rates Stand Out". Economic Letter (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas), Vol. 13 Issue 6, April 2016. Alan B. Krueger, "Where Have All the Workers Gone? An Inquiry into the Decline of the U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate". Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2017. Didem Tüzemen, "Why Are Prime-Age Men Vanishing from the Labor Force?". Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City), Vol. 103, Issue 1, March 2018, pp. 5-30.
- Patrick Gillespie, "American businesses can't find workers". CNN Money, 17 January 2018.
- Simon Mohun and Roberto Veneziani, "The incoherence of the TSSI". MPRA Paper No. 30451, posted 22 April 2011, p. 1.
- Michio Morishima, Marx's Economics. Cambridge University Press, 1973, p. 6.
- First argued by Nobuo Okishio, "A mathematical note on Marxian theorems". In: Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 91, No. 2, 1963, pp. 287-299. See also e.g. Dong-Min Rieu, "Interpretations of Marxian Value Theory in Terms of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem." Review of Radical Political Economics, Volume 41, No. 2, Spring 2009, 216–226. John E. Roemer, Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory. Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 62f. M.C. Howard and J.E. King, A history of Marxian economics, Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 230.
- Marx, Capital, Volume I, Penguin edition 1976, p. 268-269, p. 277, p. 329 note 9, p. 340, p. 417, p. 656, p.710, p. 966. This assumption continues right up to the discussion of the equalization of the rate of profit in Capital, Volume III. See Capital, Volume II, Penguin 1978, p. 109, p. 145, p. 207 and Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 142, p. 203, p. 249, p. 252, p. 279, p. 294, p. 895.
- Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), chapter 1, Note A. "Historical Notes on the Analysis of Commodities." Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877), Part 2, chapter 7.
- "In Volumes 1 and 2 we were only concerned with the values of commodities. Now a part of this value has split away as the cost price, on the one hand, while on the other, the production price of the commodity has also developed, as a transformed form of value". Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, p. 263.
- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Penguin 1981, pp. 127–128.
- "...it turns out that in this imperfect world commodities are sold sometimes above, sometimes below their value, and indeed not only as a result of ups and downs in competition." – Friedrich Engels, Preface to the First German Edition of Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy.
- John Smith, "The GDP Illusion: Value Added versus Value Capture". Monthly Review, Vol. 64, No. 3, July–August 2012.
- Ernest Mandel, "Die Marxsche Theorie der ursprünglichen Akkumulation und die Industrialisierung der Dritten Welt", in: Ernst Theodor Mohl (ed.), Folgen einer Theorie. Essays über 'Das Kapital' von Karl Marx. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1969, pp. 71–93.
- People can be exploited by robbing them; short-changing them; forcing them to work for someone else without compensation (including slavery); using them, or their belongings, without their consent; and through differential treatment with the motive of personal gain. Veit-Michael Bader & Albert Benschop, Ongelijkheden. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff, 1988, chapter 7.
- Eric Toussaint, Your money or your life! The tyranny of global finance. London: Pluto Press, 1999, p. 167.
- Jayati Ghosh, “Why more Exports have not made Developing Countries Richer” International Development Economics Associates Network, 11 May 2002.
- Anwar Shaikh, "Foreign trade and the law of value, Part 2." Science & Society, Vol. 44, No. 1, Spring, 1980, p. 53f.
- Ulrich Krause, Money and Abstract Labor. London: Verso, 1982; Emmanuel Farjoun & Moshe Machover, Laws of Chaos. London: Verso, 1983; Philip Mirowski, More Heat than Light. Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 174f. Anwar Shaikh, "The Empirical Strength of the Labor Theory of Value". In: Riccardo Bellofiore (ed.), Marxian Economics: A Centenary Appraisal, Vol. 2.. London: Macmillan, 1998; Patrick Julian Wells, "The rate of profit as a random variable". Phd Thesis, School of Management The Open University, July 2007; W. Paul Cockshott et al., Classical econophysics. London: Routledge, 2009; Diego Guerrero, "The quantitative determination of abstract labour and values." Marxismo Critico, posted 15 January 2012 ; Julius Sensat, The Logic of Estrangement. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
- Nils Fröhlich, "Labor values, prices of production and the missing equalization of profit rates: Evidence from the German economy". Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 37 No. 5, 2013, pp. 1107–1126.
- Reinaldo A. Carcanholo, "The great depression of the 21st century and fictitious wealth: on the theoretical categories of fictitious capital and fictitious profit." In: Rémy Herrera, Wim Dierckxsens & Paulo Nakatani (eds.), Beyond the systemic crisis and capital-led chaos: theoretical and applied studies. Brussels: Peter Lang, 2014, pp. 153-175, at p. 170.
- Peter M. Lichtenstein, Theories of International Economics. New York: Routledge, 2016, chapter 11.
- Michael Kidron, “Black reformism: the theory of unequal exchange”. In: Michael Kidron, ‘’Capitalism and Theory.’’ London: Pluto Press, 1974, pp. 94-123.
- Michael Barratt-Brown, Fair trade: reform and realities in the international trading system. London: Zed Books, 1993.
- Geoffrey Pilling, "Imperialism, Trade and 'Unequal Exchange': The work of Aghiri Emmanuel", Economy and Society, Vol. 2, 1973.
- W. Paul Cockshott & Allin Cottrell, Toward a New Socialism. Coronet Books, 1993, chapter 10.
- Raved (pseud.), "Living Marxism archive. Crisis of Overproduction." 18 March 2009.
- Kunibert Raffer, Unequal exchange and the evolution of the world system – reconsidering the impact of trade on North-South relations. New York: St Martin's Press, 1987; John Brolin, The Bias of the World. Theories of Unequal Exchange in History. Lund: Lund University, 2006.
- Anwar M. Shaikh, Capitalism: competition, conflict, crises. Oxford University Press, 2016 (this wiki article was for the most part written well before Shaikh's book was published). Shaikh had already used this distinction in the early 1980s, see: Anwar Shaikh, "The transformation from Marx to Sraffa". In: Ernest Mandel & Alan Freeman (ed.), Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa: the Langston memorial volume. London: Verso, 1984, p. 52f.
- Andrea Ricci, “Unequal Exchange in International Trade: A General Model”. Working paper 2016/05, Department of Economics, Society and Politics, University of Urbino, 2016.
- Persefoni Tsaliki, Christina Paraskevopoulou and Lefteris Tsoulfidis, "Unequal exchange and absolute cost advantage: evidence from the trade between Greece and Germany". Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 42, Issue 4, 14 July 2018, pp. 1043–1086, at p. 1048.
- Elmar Altvater, Gesellschaftliche Produktion und ökonomische Rationalität – Externe Effekte und zentrale Planung im Wirtschaftssystem des Sozialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1969. Guido Speckman, "A Christmas with Marx: Elmar Altvater (1938–2018)". Verso Books blog page, 25 May 2018.
- Elmar Altvater, "Is there an ecological Marxism?". In: Amandla!, 20 November 2011."Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-04-16. Retrieved 2014-04-15.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
- Howard C Petith; “The Hound of the Baskervilles: Natural Resources in Marx's Explanation of the Falling Rate of Profit.” Barcelona : Economics Department discussion paper, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1997.
- K. W. Kapp, The Social Costs of Private Enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950.
- David Roberts, "None of the world's top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use." Grist, 17 April 2013. Larry Elliott, "Capitalism can crack climate change. But only if it takes risks". The Guardian, 16 August 2018.
- Duncan K. Foley, “The economic fundamentals of global warming”, Santa Fe Institute, October 2007. Archived 2014-10-06 at the Wayback Machine published in: Jonathan M. Harris & Neva R. Goodwin (eds.), ‘’Twenty-First Century Macroeconomics: Responding to the Climate Challenge’’ (Edward Elgar, 2010). The top 10% of global income earners are responsible for almost as much total greenhouse gas emissions as the bottom 90% combined. See: Safa Motesharrei et al., "Modeling sustainability: population, inequality, consumption, and bidirectional coupling of the Earth and Human Systems." National Science Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2016, pp. 470-494, at p. 475.
- Fred Smith, "Profits, Despite What You Hear, Do Not Equal Environmental Pollution." Forbes Magazine, 29 May 2013. Anuradha Shukla, "Going "Green" is Profitable". Asia-Pacific Business Technology Report, 1 December 2009.. Patricia Tomic, Ricardo Trumper and Rodrigo Hidalgo Dattwyler, "Manufacturing Modernity: Cleaning, Dirt, and Neoliberalism in Chile". In: Luis L M Aguiar and Andrew Herod, The Dirty Work of Neoliberalism. Cleaners in the Global Economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
- Luca Di Leo, “Oil Spill May End Up Lifting GDP Slightly.” Wall Street Journal, 15 June 2010. (see also Economic effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill).
- BEA FAQ page
- Kimberley Amadeo, "BP Gulf Oil Spill Facts and Economic Impact". The Balance, 20 June 2018.
- "Aanschaf e-scooters door tijdelijke actie nu zeer aantrekkelijk", Heemskerk town council press release, 15 September 2014.
- Frank Richards (pseud. Frank Furedi), "Can capitalism go Green?", Living Marxism, No. 4, February 1989, p. 18; J. H. Bragdon and J. T. Marlin, "Is pollution profitable?" Risk Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1972, pp. 9–18.
- Odran Bonnet et al., "Capital is not back: A comment on Thomas Piketty’s ‘Capital in the 21st Century’". Vox, 30 June 2014.; Boe Thio, "Macro-fundering van ongelijkheid – kanttekeningen bij Piketty." Tijdschrift voor politieke economie, Vol. 8 No. 3, 2014, p. 88."Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2015-03-21.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link); Michel Husson, "Wealth of data, poverty of theory". Historical Materialism, Vol. 23 Issue 1, 2015, pp 70-85, at p. 84; Matthew Rognlie, "Deciphering the fall and rise in the net capital share", Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, March 2015.;Gianni La Cava, "Piketty’s rising share of capital income and the US housing market". VOX CEPR Policy Portal, 08 October 2016.
- See also: "How the imputed rental value of owner-occupied housing can boost GDP."  and for more detail chapter 12 of the NIPA's handbook of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, updated to 2017  See also Michael Hudson, "The “Next” Financial Crisis and Public Banking as the Response." LeftOut/The Hudson Report, 1 August 2018. Craig Richardson & Margaret Dolling (Office of National Statistics), "Imputed rents in the National Accounts". Economic Trends #617 (London, HMSO), April 2005.
- Michael Hudson, The bubble and beyond. Dresden: ISLET, 2012, p. 273 note 6.
- Anwar Shaikh, "Income Distribution, Econophysics and Piketty". Review of Political Economy, Volume 29, Issue 1, 2017.
- William R White, "Measured wealth, real wealth and the illusion of saving". Keynote speech, at the Irving Fisher Committee Conference on "Measuring the financial position of the household sector", Basel, 30–31 August 2006.   See also: Bob McColl et al., OECD framework for statistics on the distribution of household income, consumption and wealth. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013.
- Yolande Barnes et al., “World real estate accounts for 60% of all mainstream assets”, Savills Research, 25 January 2016. The main report is also available  See also: Isabelle Fraser, "What is all the property in the world worth? The Telegraph (London), 24 January 2016. Shawn Langlois, "Some perspective on how real estate dwarfs the rest of the asset universe". MarketWatch, 25 January 2016.
- "Developed real estate" means real estate in "developed real estate markets" which exist mainly in "developed countries" and big cities. Global real estate funds are companies that invest world wide in real estate that is available for sale. See also: Samvit Kanoria and Hasan Muzaffar, "Understanding real estate as an investment class". McKinsey & Company Insights, 2016.
- Yolande Barnes et al., “World real estate accounts for 60% of all mainstream assets”, Savills Research, 25 January 2016.
- Annex to: Yolande Barnes et al., “World real estate accounts for 60% of all mainstream assets”, Savills Research, 25 January 2016.
- "Global capital stock 2005–2014: a natural benchmark for multi-asset portfolios." Paris: OECD, 6 October 2015.
- Dawn Foster, "UN report lays bare the waste of treating homes as commodities". The Guardian, 28 February 2017 ; Report of the special rapporteur on housing to the Human Rights Council, 34th session, released 18 January 2017.
- "Cities must preserve affordable housing, Barcelona mayor tells UN." News4Europe press release, 17 July 2018. Cities for Adequate Housing: Municipalist Declaration of Local Governments for the Right to Housing and the Right to the City, New York, 16th July 2018. 
- "Don't let California's housing crisis get worse", LA Times editorial, 4 September 2017.
- Armando Aparicio and David Zlutnick, “These Tenants Are Leading the Largest Rent Strike in LA History”. The Nation, 20 August 2018.
- Allen Oakley, The making of Marx's critical theory: a bibliographical analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983, p. ixf.
- Maximilien Rubel & Margaret Manale, Marx without myth: a chronological study of his life and work. New York: Harper & Row, 1975, pp. 333-340.
- For example, in 1919, the first secretary of the New Zealand Marxian Association, Tom Feary, traveled to San Francisco twice by boat, to smuggle texts sold by Charles Kerr & Co. back into New Zealand – dodging the local sedition laws. See: T.W.F. [pseud. Tom Feary], “Some Marxist Pioneers in New Zealand”, New Zealand Labour Review, March 1956, p.20, cited in: Kerry Taylor, "Our motto, no compromise." New Zealand Journal of History, October 1994, pp. 160-177, at p. 172. In the 1920s, the left-wing NZ Labour Party parliamentarian Harry Holland would read the titles of censored books into the Hansard, so that people could at least know what they were not allowed to read.
- The New York Times (22 May 1933, p. 9) reported that 500 tonnes (i.e. half a million kilo's) of Marxist books had been burned in Germany (see also Nazi book burnings). Marx's original manuscript of Capital, Volume I, archived with the publisher Otto Meissner Verlag in Hamburg, was destroyed in July 1943, after a bombardment by the British Royal Air Force. 
- Hal Draper, The Marx-Engels Register: a complete bibliography of Marx & Engels' individual writings. New York: Schocken Books, 1985, appendices I to IV, pp. 202-218. After the cultural revolution, the scholarly interpretation of Marx in China was guided to a large extent by the Academy of Marxism of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
- Ronald L. Meek, Studies in the labour theory of value. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973, p. 241.
- Hal Draper, Karl Marx's theory of revolution, Vol. 2: the politics of social classes (Monthly Review Press, 1978), p. 1.
- Cyril Smith, Karl Marx and the future of the human. Oxford: Lexington Books, 2005, p. 47.
- Christoph Henning, Philosophy after Marx: 100 years of misreadings and the normative turn in political philosophy. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
- The MEGA2 is published by the Internationale Marx-Engels-Stiftung.  
- Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe.
- MEGAdigital online..
- "China Focus: For translators, Marxist works a lifetime labor of love." Xinhua (Beijing), 3 March 2018.
- Gareth Stedman Jones, Karl Marx- Greatness and Illusion. London: Allen Lane, 2016, p. 712.
- "Marx-Engels papers completely available online now". Amsterdam: IISH press release, 2015.
- Marcel van der Linden & Gerald Hubmann (eds.), Marx’s Capital – An Unfinishable Project? Leiden: Brill Publishers, May 2018 (papers of the MEGA2 conference at the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, on 9–11 October 2014); Judith Dellheim and Frieder Otto Wolf, Karl Marx’s Unfinished System as a Challenge for Our Times: Reflections on Marx’s Third Volume. London: Palgrave, 2018.
- Michael Heinrich, "Engels’ Edition of the Third Volume of Capital and Marx’s Original Manuscript". Science & Society, Vol. 60. No. 4, Winter 1996–1997, pp. 452-466.
- Fred Moseley, Marx’s Economic Manuscript of 1864–1865 (transl. Ben Fowkes). Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2016.
- Lucia Pradella, Globalisation and the critique of political economy: new insights from Marx’s writings. Milton Park: Routledge, 2015, p. 173.
- Raúl Rojas, Das unvollendete Projekt. Zur entstehungsgeschichte von Marx’s Kapital. Berlin: Argument Verlag, 1989, p. 255; Otto Bauer, “The History of a Book (1907)”, pp. 112-128 in Richard B. Day & Daniel F. Gaido (eds), Responses to Marx’s Capital; From Rudolf Hilferding to Isaak Illich Rubin. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
- The main differences between classical and neoclassical perspectives are discussed by top economists in Jan A. Kregel (ed.), Rate of Profit, Distribution and Growth: Two Views. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1971.
- A mathematical description of traditional growth models is, for example, here: * Allen, R.G.D.: Macroeconomic Theory : A Mathematical Treatment. – London, Melbourne, Toronto: Macmillan, 1968.
- "Perfect competition in the long run", Principles of economics handout, University of Minnesota.
- Lawrence Summers, “The Inequality Puzzle”. In: Democracy: a journal of ideas, issue 33, Summer 2014.
- Ben Marlow, and Ashley Armstrong, "Global firms sitting on $7 trillion war chest". The Telegraph (London), 17 August 2014.
- Steven Rattner, "The Myth of Corporate America’s Short-Term Thinking". New York Times, 2 July 2018.
- Tasos Vossos and Justina Lee, “American Firms Are Splashing Out”. Bloomberg News, 7 December 2018.
- Jeff Cox, "Companies set to buy back $1 trillion". CNBC News, 6 August 2018. Jamie Condliffe, "The Stock Market’s Next $1 Trillion Milestone: Buybacks". New York Times, 6 August 2018 
- Justina Lee, "Europe Finally Gets Its Share of Mega Buybacks". Bloomberg, 13 August 2018.
- Leo Lewis, “Japan share buybacks pick up pace ahead of AGM season”. Financial Times, 17 May 2018.
- Jacky Wong, “Record Buybacks Don’t Mean Buy in China”. Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2018.
- See Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st century. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2014, p. 216-217.
- Lawrence Summers, “The Inequality Puzzle”. In: Democracy: a journal of ideas, issue 33, Summer 2014.
- Larry Summers, "Corporate profits are near record highs. Here’s why that’s a problem". Larry Summers blog, 30 March 2016.
- Kathleen M. Kahle & René M. Stulz, Is the U.S. Public Corporation in Trouble? Working paper 495/2017, European Corporate Governance Institute, May 2017.
- Gustavo Grullon et al., "Are U.S. Industries Becoming More Concentrated?", June 2018.
- Matt Phillips, "Apple’s $1 Trillion Milestone Reflects Rise of Powerful Megacompanies". New York Times, 2 August 2018.
- Lawrence Summers, “I discovered the rest of America on my holiday”. Financial Times, 8 October 2018.
- Paul Krugman, "Technology or Monopoly Power?", New York Times, 9 December 2012  and "Profits without production". New York Times, 20 June 2013.
- Joseph E. Stiglitz, Monopoly’s New Era. Project Syndicate, 13 May 2016.
- “An overdue look at the effects of monopoly distortion”. Financial Times, 12 September 2018, p. 11.
- Jan De Loecker & Jan Eeckhout, The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications. NBER Working paper 23687, August 2017. 
- Federico J. Díez et. al., Global market power and its macroeconomic implications. IMF working paper, June 2018.
- John P. Weche & Achim Wambach,The fall and rise of market power in Europe. Centre for European Economic Research, Discussion Paper No. 18-003, January 2018. Market Concentration. Issues paper 46, Paris: OECD Secretariat, June 2018.
- Papers of the market concentration discussion. Paris: OECD, June 2018.
- Martin Wolf, "Work in the age of intelligent machines", Financial Times, 26 June 2018.
- John Maynard Keynes (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Chapter 24
- For example, J. L. Walker, “Estimating companies’ rate of return on capital employed”. Economic Trends (London: HMSO), November 1974; T.P. Hill, Profits and rates of return. Paris: OECD, 1979; James H. Chan-Lee and Helen Sutch, "Profits and rates of return in OECD countries", OECD Economic and Statistics Department Working Paper N°20, 1985. ; Daniel M. Holland (ed.) Measuring profitability and capital costs : an international study. Lexington, Mass. : Lexington Books, c1984.; Dennis C. Mueller, Profits in the Long Run. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Dennis C. Mueller, (ed.) The Dynamics of Company Profits: An International Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; James Poterba, “The rate of return to corporate capital and factor shares: new estimates using revised national income accounts and capital stock data”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 48, June 1998, pp. 211-246; Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton, The Millennium Book, A century of Investment Returns. London: London Business School and ABN AMRO, 2000; Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton, Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press 2002; Paul Gomme et al., “The return to capital and the business cycle.” Review of Economic Dynamics, Vol. 14, Issue 2, April 2011, pp. 262-278; Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook. Zurich: Credit Suisse Research Institute, 2018.
- M. Panic & R. E. Close, "Profitability of British manufacturing industry". Lloyds Bank Review #109, July 1973, pp. 17-30; Martin Feldstein & Lawrence Summers, "Is the rate of profit falling?". Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1977; William Nordhaus, "The falling share of profits". Brookings papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, 1974, pp. 169–217."Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2014-08-19.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link). Jeffrey D. Sachs, "Wages, profits, and macroeconomic adjustment: a comparative study." [with comments by William H. Branston and Robert J. Gordon] Brookings papers of economic activity, No.2, 1979, pp. 269-319 ; Thomas R. Michl, “Why is the Rate of Profit Still Falling?” New York: Jerome Levy Economics Institute, Working Paper no. 7, September 1988.
- For example, Palle S. Andersen, "Profit shares, investment and output capacity." Bank of International Settlements, BIS Working Papers No. 12, July 1987; Luci Ellis and Kathryn Smith, "The global upward trend in the profit share" Working paper, Monetary and Economic Department, Bank of International Settlements, July 2007.
- Angela Monaghan, "UK companies at their most profitable since 1998". The Guardian, 14 November 2014. The ONA quarterly data are titled "Profitability of UK companies".
- EY Profit Warning Stress Index
- Profit Watch UK Report.
- Yardeni stock market briefing on profit margins  .
- David Mikics, “Karl Marx: the greatest intellectual fraud of the 19th and 20th centuries”, Tablet, 18 June 2013.
- Richard Dobbs et al, Diminishing Returns: why investors may need to lower their expectations. San Francisco: McKinsey Global Institute, May 2016."Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-04-23. Retrieved 2017-04-22.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
- Justin Lahart, "Why Corporate Profits May Be Weaker Than They Seem", Wall Street Journal, 30 May 2018. Ben Leubsdorf, "Corporate Profits Boosted in Early 2018 by Tax Cuts". Wall Street Journal, 30 May 2018.
- Sarah Ponczek and Vildana Hajric, “Stocks Have Worst Week Since 2011 Amid D.C. Chaos: Markets Wrap.” Bloomberg News, 20 December 2018.
- Michael Wursthorn, "Signs of Profit Peak Put Global Stocks at a Crossroads". Wall Street Journal, 4 November 2018.
- Jeff Cox, “Corporate profits are reaching their peak”. CNBC News, 5 November 2018.
- ”The World's Richest People Lost $511 Billion in 2018.” Bloomberg News, 21 December 2018 ("511" is also a type of Levi's slim fit jeans).
- Frederic Lee, A history of heterodox economics. London: Routledge, 2009, p. 201. M. C. Howard and J. E. King, "Where Marx was right: towards a more secure foundation for heterodox economics". Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 25, No. 6, November 2001, pp. 785-807, at p. 785.
- Neil Gross & Solon Simmons, "The social and political views of American Professors". Harvard University/George Mason University, Working Paper, September 24, 2007. Peter Clarke & Andrew Mearman, "Why Marxist economics should be taught but probably won't be!" Capital & Class #79, March 2003, pp. 55-80.
- Robert M. Solow, "The wide, wide world of wealth". New York Times, 20 March 1988.
- George J. Stigler, "Palgrave's Dictionary of Economics". Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 26 Issue 4, December 1988, pp. 1729–36.
- M.C. Howard & J.E. King, A history of Marxian economics, Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 389-390.
- Mike Beggs, "Zombie Marx and Modern Economics, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Forget the Transformation Problem." Journal of Australian Political Economy, issue 70, Summer 2012/13, p. 16 ; Gary Mongiovi, "Vulgar economy in Marxian garb: a critique of Temporal Single System Marxism." In: Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 34, Issue 4, December 2002, pp. 393-416, at p. 398.
- Samuel Bowles, "Marx and modern microeconomics". VoxEU, 21 April 2018.
- "I have come across people who regarded the acceptance of the labour theory of value – or more bizarrely, of the falling rate of profit – as a sine qua non of authentic Marxist identity." – Norman Geras, "What does it mean to be a Marxist?". Global Discourse, Vol. 2 Issue 1, May 2013, pp. 23-11.
- David Yaffe, "Hodgson and activist reformism". Revolutionary Communist (London), 1976.
- Rick Kuhn, Henryk Grossman and the recovery of Marxism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
- Geoffrey Hodgson, "Wrong turnings: how the left got lost". Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
- Hodgson, Wrong turnings, p. 214.
- "The Council of Global Unions condemns attacks on labour rights". Education International, 14 February 2018.
- Thomas U. P. Charlton, The life of Major General James Jackson. Augusta, Georgia: Randolph & Co, 1809, p. 85.
- Matthew Guariglia, "Too much surveillance makes us less free. It also makes us less safe." Washington Post, 18 July 2017 
- "I.K." (pseud.), "Welcome to the revolution: students lead a vast protest against gun violence". The Economist, 24 March 2018. Rachael Revesz, "Anders Breivik: Norwegian far-right mass murderer changes his name to Fjotolf Hansen.". The Independent (London), 11 June 2017.
- Valentina Pop, "EU Plan Promises More Sensible Regulations". Wall Street Journal, 19 May 2015.
- Anne-Sylvaine Chassany, “Ségolène Royal: ‘It’s quite simple, the French people have had enough of taxes’”. Financial Times, 7 December 2018.
- Alex Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
- Cullen Roche, “The Market Is A Heartless Beast”. Business Insider, 11 January 2011. In the new literature, see e.g. Alisoun Mackenzie, Give to Profit. Alisoun Mackenzie, 2017. Jill Lublin, The profit of kindness. Career Press, 2017.
- Noah Smith, "Why Workers Are Losing to Capitalists". Bloomberg, 20 September 2017. Loukas Karabarbounis & Brent Neiman, "Labour shares, inequality, and the relative price of capital". VOXEU CEPR Policy Portal, 25 November 2014. 
- Andrew Soergel, "Yellen: I Don't See a Financial Crisis Occurring 'In Our Lifetimes'". U.S. News & World Report, 27 June 2017.
- Michael Keen, "False profits". Finance & development, Vol. 54, Issue 3, September 2017.
- Linsey McGoey, "Philanthrocapitalism and its critics". Poetics, Volume 40, Issue 2, April 2012, pp. 185-199.
- David Kocieniewski, "A Closer Look at Taxes on the Rich", New York Times, 15 August 2011. Robert Frank, "Warren Buffett is the most charitable billionaire". CNBC News, 21 September 2017.
- Paul Ryan, "Keynote address, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Board of Directors Meeting", 8 October 2009.
- Capital, Volume II, Penguin ed., p. 550.
- Len Doyal & Ian Gough, A theory of human need. New York: The Guildford Press, 1991.
- G. Duan et al., "Independent unfair-profits management organisation for power transmission system operations". Sixth International Conference on Advances in Power System Control, Operation and Management ASDCOM 2003 (Conf. Publ. No. 497). 
- Paul Buchheit, "4 Ways Greedy Capitalists Rig the System to Profit Off Our Misery." Alternet, 7 September 2014.
- Kathleen Gray, "Michigan OKs Nestlé permit for increased water withdrawal for bottled water plant". Detroit Free Press, 2 April 2018. Charlie Mitchell, "Elation as Ashburton council backs out of controversial water bottling deal." Stuff.co.nz, 11 July 2016.
- Henry Blodget, "We Need To Stop Maximizing Profit And Start Maximizing Value".Business Insider, 8 December 2012. "Too much of a good thing", The Economist, 26 March 2016. "The problem with profits", The Economist, 26 March 2016.
- Debbie Schipp, "Why Venezuela's economy is on the brink of collapse". New Zealand Herald, 12 January 2018.; Max Chafkin, "A constant feeling of crisis". Inc. Magazine, 14 July 2017.
- Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, The time of Stalin: portrait of a tyranny. New York: Harper & Row, 1980. Ian Kershaw, Hitler: a biography. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: the unknown story. London: Jonathan Cape, 2005.
- Jinglian Wu, Understanding and interpreting Chinese Economic Reform. Mason, Ohio: Thomson, 2005. Abel Aganbegyan, Inside perestroika: the future of the Soviet economy. New York: Perennial Library, 1990.
- Alvin Gouldner, “The importance of something for nothing”. In: Gouldner, For sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973, pp. 260-299.
- Michael D. Yates, "Profits May Rise, Profits May Fall, the Capitalist System Doesn’t Care at All". Counterpunch (New York), 31 December 2013.
- Elizabeth T. Boris, The Nonprofit Sector in the United States: Size and Scope (powerpoint). Data from Nonprofit Almanac 2012; Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2012, Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute, Washington D.C.
- National Center for Charitable Statistics. 
- William Foster & Jeffrey L. Bradach, "Should Nonprofits Seek Profits?". Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, Issue 2, February 2005.
- Chris Isidore, "Elon Musk's brash promise: Tesla will soon make money". CNN tech, 13 April 2018.
- Greg MacLeod, "The Mondragon Experiment'. Harvard International, 4 April 2009.
- J. Wilczynski, Profit, risk and incentives under socialist economic planning. London: The Macmillan Press, 1973.
- Rhett Jones, "Chinese Citizens with bad 'social credit' to be blocked from taking planes and trains". Gizmodo, 16 March 2018.
- Jonathan Sperber, "Is Marx still relevant?" The Guardian, 16 May 2013.
- Elizabeth Winkler, "Socialism isn’t a dirty word in American politics anymore". Quartz, 23 October 2015.
- Ami Ginsburg, "Profit Is Not a Dirty Word". Haaretz, 18 December 2008.
- Thomas Küchenmeister et al., Dirty Profits: Report on Companies and Financial Institutions Benefiting from Human Rights Violations and Environmental Destruction. Berlin: Facing Finance e.V., 2018.
- Philip Short, Pol Pot: anatomy of a nightmare. New York: Henry Holt, 2004.
- Janine R. Wedel, "Bureaucracy shouldn’t be a dirty word". Real world economics review, Issue 84, 19 June 2018.
- Patricia Cohen, "Paychecks Lag as Profits Soar, and Prices Erode Wage Gains". New York Times, July 13, 2018.
- Jonathan Spicer, "Mortgage, Groupon and card debt: how the bottom half bolsters U.S. economy." Reuters Business News, 23 July 2018.
- Joseph Stiglitz, "Globalisation isn't just about profits. It's about taxes too." The Guardian, 27 May 2013.. Michelle Fox, "Why we need a global wealth tax: Piketty". Reuters/CNBC News, 10 March 2015.
- Neil Brenner et al., Cities for people, not for profit. London: Routledge, 2012, p. 30.
- "Why is entrepreneurship important?". Center of American entrepreneurship, 2017.
- House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, Poverty in Scotland. Second report of session 2007-08, Volume II. London: The Stationery Office Ltd, 2007.
- "Swiss say 'no thanks' to basic income for all". The Local (ch), 5 June 2016.
- The Local (ch), 6 June 2018
- Robin Blackburn, "The Corbyn project". New Left Review #111, May–June 2018, p. 28. Michael Hudson, And forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption — From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year. Dresden: ISLET-Verlag, 2018.
- Jennifer Anikst, "How millennials make ‘pragmatic idealism’ work". Globe and Mail (Toronto), 15 May 2018. Leonid Bershidsky, “Europe’s Left Nearly Died in 2018. Here’s How It Can Rise”. Bloomberg News, 30 December 2018.
- "What would a workable society look like? (1-4)" New Scientist, 28 February 2018.
- Daniel Singer, "Top Down or Bottom Up?". The Nation, 2 January 1998.
- Kim Moody, Us Labor in trouble and transition: the failure of reform from above, the promise of revival from below. London: Verso, 2007. Bhaskar Sunkara, "Workers Hold the Keys. An interview with Vivek Chibber". Jacobin, March 2017.
- Tariq Ali, Revolution from above: Soviet Union Now. London: Hutchinson, 1988. David Kotz & Fred Weir, Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System. Milton Park: Routledge, 1997.
- Moisés Naím, "The Uprising of the Global Middle Class". The Atlantic, 25 August 2017.
- Bono, the singer of the rockband U2, wrote in a song that "I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me" ("Rejoice", October 1981).
- Jessica Elgot and Dan Sabbagh, "Labour draws up plans for government in case of snap election". The Guardian, 19 July 2018.
- Ernest Mandel, "The Marxist Case for Revolution Today", Socialist Register 1989, pp.159-184. Jonathan Chait, "100 Years After the Bolshevik Revolution, Communism Hasn’t Changed." Daily Intelligencer, 28 June 2017.
- Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1992.
- Jeffrey C. Isaac, "Does Liberalism Still Have a Future?". Los Angeles Review of Books, 22 November 2017.
- Green Party US Strategic Plan
- Michelle Goldberg, "The Millennial Socialists Are Coming". New York Times, 30 June 2018. Peter Dreier, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Resurgence of Democratic Socialism in America." The American Prospect, 3 July 2018.
- Feder, J. Lester (November 16, 2016). "This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World". BuzzFeed News.
- Legendre, Juliette (7 March 2018). "The Far-Right Effort to Win Hearts and Minds Across the Atlantic". Foreign Policy In Focus.
- Hosenball, Mark (July 23, 2018). "Former Trump aide Bannon sets up group to undermine EU". Reuters.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to rate of profit.|
- Tendency of the rate of profit to fall wiki, audio version
- Economarx bibliography
- Anwar Shaikh, Is capitalism sustainable? video
- Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism: video Lecture # 24 – Demand, Profitability and Growth
- Anwar Shaikh complete video course in classical economics, in 30 lectures
- Marx Now: A symposium 2018 (BISR)
- Turan Subasat YouTube video: David Harvey – "A commentary on the falling rate of profit in Marx’s crisis theory". Izmir University of Economics – Workshop on "The Great Meltdown of 2008: Systemic, Conjunctural or Policy-created?" (there are more videos available in this series).
- Thomas Weiss, 2018: A comment on Anwar Shaikh’s description of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
- Andrew Kliman interview 1 of 4 video
- Minqi Li, Capitalism with Zero Profit Rate? video
- Joseph Choonera, The rate of profit and capitalism today video
- Michael Roberts – Profits, Cycles, and Breakdown video
- Cliff Bowman, Marx's Theory of Economic Crisis video
- Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall video
- The Falling Rate of Profit Explained: Why Capitalism will Fail video
- Falling Rate Of Profit/"Late Stage Capitalism" DEBUNKED video
- Falling Rate of Profit & Okishio's Theorem video
- Robot Burger Flippers and the Falling Rate of Profit video
- Marxian Econ Made Easy 7: The Falling Rate of Profit video