>>Interesting numbers, Jim.
>
>
>Comparing £491 billion to £787 billion would imply a rate of exploitation
>of about 60% which would be massive.
Not that massive considering the long run trend to increase labour productivity and thereby cheapen the value of labour power.
>Does the figure of £787 billion
>include raw materials and fixed capital costs?
No. As I see it, surplus value under private property relations is the
capitalist's to spend as he pleases - if he invests, then that's his
investment. If not, not. The alternative view would be to consider the
capitalist's property as being held in stewardship for the rest of
society, which seems apologetic to me.
>
>Any gross breakdown of the added value for the employers?
Not sure what you mean. The figure I took was the Gross Added Value, assuming in my vulgar Marxist way that all value is produced by workers.
> what proportion
>of this ends up redistributed to pension and insurance funds from which
>working people arguably get some slice of capitalist profits (admittedly
>from participating in a system totally run according to the requirements of
>finance capital)?
The contributions to pension and insurance funds would come out of wages, not Gross Value Added.
Seasonally -- James Heartfield