Re: [AG-GOuFP] Final: Blog Artikel Profite, Investitionen und die wirtschaftsliberale Agenda der letzten 20 Jahre

[Rolf Müller <rolf.mueller9 AT t-online.de>]

Am 25.12.2013 15:20, schrieb Patrik Pekrul:

 Ich habe besagt Gleihung in "Trieaties on money" nicht gefunden.

Ist mir zunächst auch so ergangen. 1. Buch, Kapitel 10 "The fundamental equations for the value of money": (viii) Q = I - S (unter der Annahme dass die Unternehmer allen Profit investieren)
Den fehlenden Teil (Unternehmerkonsum) handelt er in Prosa ab:
"There is one peculiarity of profits (or losses) which we may note in passing, because it is one of the reasons why it is necessary to segregate them from income proper, as a category apart. If entrepreneurs choose to spend a portion of their profits on consumption (and there is, of course, nothing to prevent them from doing this), the effect is to increase the profit on the sale of liquid consumption goodes by an amount exactly equal to the amount of profits which have been thus expended. This follows from our definitions, because such expenditure constitutes a diminution of saving, and therefor an increase in the difference between I' and S. Thus, however much of their profits entrepreneurs spend on consumption, the increment of wealth besonging to entrepreneurs remains the same as before. Thus profits, as a source of capital increment for entrepreneurs, are a widow's cruse which remains undepleted however much of them may be devotet to riotous living."
["Witwenkrugtheorem" - Anleihe bei einer biblischen Erzählung]

-- 
instead of focusing on our differences, 
we should look at what we all have in common...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLci5DoZqHU