Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2501.06270

Sectorial Exclusion Criteria in the Marxist Analysis of the Average Rate of Profit: The United States Case (1960-2020)

Abstract

The long term estimation of the Marxist average rate of profit does not adhere to a theoretically grounded standard regarding which economic activities should or should not be included for such purposes, which is relevant because methodological non uniformity can be a significant source of overestimation or underestimation, generating a less accurate reflection of the capital accumulation dynamics. This research aims to provide a standard Marxist decision criterion regarding the inclusion and exclusion of economic activities for the calculation of the Marxist average profit rate for the case of United States economic sectors from 1960 to 2020, based on the Marxist definition of productive labor, its location in the circuit of capital, and its relationship with the production of surplus value. Using wavelet transformed Daubechies filters with increased symmetry, empirical mode decomposition, Hodrick Prescott filter embedded in unobserved components model, and a wide variety of unit root tests the internal theoretical consistency of the presented criteria is evaluated. Also, the objective consistency of the theory is evaluated by a dynamic factor autoregressive model, Principal Component Analysis via Singular Value Decomposition, and regularized Horseshoe regression. The results are consistent both theoretically and econometrically with the logic of Classical Marxist political economy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jose Mauricio Gomez Julian. 2026-01-17. Sectorial Exclusion Criteria in the Marxist Analysis of the Average Rate of Profit: The United States Case (1960-2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06270

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN