> What are your figures on the rate of exploitation
> in these periods ? The parasitic draining is
> in the exploitation, the surplus value underlying
> profit.
>
Charles, I don't understand what you're talking about. The "parasitic draining" that someone referred to was the alleged drain of finance from the real economy. ("The real economy" =the non-financial portion of the economy, in standard jargon.) If you want to talk about the rate exploitation, that's fine, but it's a change of subject.
profits/wages, all corporations 1930's 14.0% 1940's 32.5% 1950's 29.9% 1960's 28.1% 1970's 20.2% 1980's 16.7% 1990's: 19.8% 2000-07 19.2%
> You say Marxists need
> to learn the political economic (economic)theories
> since Marx, as if you apply Marx and those after Marx.
>
I don't think Marxists are under any obligation to learn post-Marx economics if economics isn't what they're into.
> But I don't see the Marx in your analysis.
> Looks like you've gone "beyond" Marx , and
> dropped Marx. That's why you need it
> explained to you which resources finance
> has drained from the "real" economy.
>
So what exactly was Marx's position on the expansion of the financial sector in the early twenty-first century, which is what we were talking about just now?
If you want more Marx in my posts, maybe someone on the list could write me software that would randomly paste quotes from Capital into my emails. Sometimes I get the feeling you've been using that program, actually.
SA