Artikel

De verspilling van het potentieel economisch surplus: een kwantitatieve analyse

---

Abstract

The dissipation of the potential economic surplus: a quantitative analysis - After a long period of semi-official concealment, the concept economic surplus was reintroduced in economic theory by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy. According to this neo-marxist authors, an evergrowing part of the economic surplus should be dissipated on publicity, finance, sales-promotion, luxurious offices, militarism, etc. We tried to prove the accuracy of this thesis by a multiple regression of three different ratios based on the figures to which Baran and Sweezy refer in their Monopoly capital. Moreover, we tried to show that the cyclical path of total and relative dissipation of the economic surplus (ES) and of the potential economic surplus (PES) in the United States is determined by - the dissipation of potential output for the period 1929-1940; - the dissipation of potential output and public expenditure on warfare for the period 1941-1946; - the dissipation of public expenditure on national security for the postwar period. The dissipation of PES in the process of monopolistic competition was not taken into account. Because it has no reference to the thesis of Baran and Sweezy, its introduction might outstrip the conclusions of our calculations, without nullifying our agreement with the view of the above mentioned authors.

How to Cite:

Cuyvers, L., (1972) “De verspilling van het potentieel economisch surplus: een kwantitatieve analyse”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen 17(1), 51–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/tvsw.95905