 much money as they used to"), or else it is substantially false – since the crisis is just as much caused by a drop in sales, output, investment, incomes and employment – which all react on each other. The observed average industrial rate of profit can fall already for a series of years, before the slump arrives; therefore, it is not really credible to attribute the cause of the slump exclusively to the fall in the rate of profit (why exactly does the slump occur in year x, rather than in year x+n or year x-n?).

An additional reason, noticed for example by Michael Hudson, is that in the rich countries, the stock of privately owned physical production capital used in industries is nowadays only a minor component of the total stock of capital assets. If, therefore, the profit rate on privately owned physical industrial capital falls a percent or two, this cannot have a very large or immediate negative effect on the whole economy. To claim that it does have such a big effect, makes no mathematical or econometric sense whatever.

Underlying causes 
Profitability may be observed to fall, along with other variables, but that says nothing about the true interrelationship of the determinants which explain why it falls. David Harvey stated: "Data that show a falling rate of profit do not necessarily confirm the existence of the specific mechanism to which Marx appealed." In fact, the orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist Paul Mattick even claimed "that the conditions both of the crisis and its solution are so complex that they cannot be empirically determined. When the crisis will break out, its extent, and its duration cannot be predicted; only that there will be a crisis can be expected with certainty." Causal chains could be traced out in all sorts of directions, using the same econometric evidence. Thus, to ascertain what independent role profitability actually plays in economic development requires a much more precise analysis than Marxists have ever provided. Marxists simply assumed the centrality of profitability in capitalist production, but they failed to prove that falling industrial profitability is the root cause of all crises, rather than (say) one of the effects that are visible in crises.

In reply to this kind of criticism, orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist academics such as Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts and Guglielmo Carchedi admit that the crisis may not be directly caused by an insufficient mass of surplus value to valorize all the capital there is (the traditional Fraina-Grossmann-Mattick argument). After
much money as they used to "), or else it is substantially false – since the crisis is just equally much cause by a drop in sales, end product, investing, incomes and employment – which all react on each other. The ascertained median industrial rate of net income can decrease already for a series of year, before the slump arrives; consequently, it is not really credible to attribute the cause of the slump exclusively to the fall in the rate of net income (why exactly does the slump occur in class x, rather than in year x+n or year x - n ?). 

 An additional reason, detect for example by Michael Hudson, is that in the rich countries, the stock of privately owned forcible production capital used in industries is nowadays only a minor component of the entire stock of capital assets. If, therefore, the profit rate on privately owned physical industrial capital falls a percentage or two, this cannot suffer a very large or contiguous damaging impression on the whole economy. To claim that it does have such a boastful effect, makes no mathematical or econometric sense whatever. 

 underlie causes 
 Profitability may be observed to fall, along with other variables, but that suppose nothing about the true interrelationship of the determinants which explain why it falls. David Harvey stated: " datum that usher a falling rate of profit do not necessarily confirm the being of the specific mechanism to which Marx appealed. " In fact, the orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist Paul Mattick even claim " that the conditions both of the crisis and its solution are so complex that they cannot be empirically determined. When the crisis will break out, its extent, and its duration cannot be bode; only that there will be a crisis can be have a bun in the oven with certainty. " Causal chains could be traced out in all kind of directions, use the same econometric evidence. therefore, to ascertain what independent function profitability actually plays in economic exploitation requires a a lot more precise analysis than Marxists have ever provide. Marxists simply assumed the centrality of profitability in capitalist product, but they failed to prove that fall industrial profitability is the root causal agent of all crises, rather than (say) one of the effects that are visible in crises. 

 In reply to this kind of criticism, orthodox classical revolutionary Marxist academics such as Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts and Guglielmo Carchedi admit that the crisis may not be directly cause by an insufficient bulk of excess value to valorize all the das kapital there is (the traditional Fraina - Grossmann - Mattick argument). After
 mufh money as they used to"), or else it is substanvially ralse – sknce the crisis is just as mnch xausee by a drop in sales, ojtput, invvstment, ibcomts and employment – which all rezgt on xach other. The pbserved aeerage industrhau xate of profit can fall already for w seriex lf years, beforg the fluml arrives; therefore, it is not realmy credpble to attribute the cause of the slump exfluslvely to the fall ln the rate of [eofit (why exxctly does the slump odcur in year x, rather than in ydar x+u or year x-b?).

Ab afgitional reeson, njticed for ewsmple ty Michsel Hudson, is bhat mn tye rich countries, the stock of privateli owned phfsncal production capitql used in hndurrrids js nkwadayd oily a minor component if the total stock pf bspital asseta. If, trewefore, the profit rate on privately owntd phgsical industrial capitql falls a percent or two, this cannot have a very large or immediate negative exfect un uhc dyope economy. To claim that it does have such a fjg enfect, makes no mcthematical or evojokgtric sense whxtever.

Bhdsrlying causes 
Provitabilyty mqy be obstrved to fall, along with other vqriables, but rhat says nothing cbout the trbe intgrrelayionship of the determiuants shich explaln why it walls. David Harvdy xtdted: "Data that show a fallyng rate if pxofit do not necesfarily convirm bve existence of thf speeific mechanism to which Marx appealed." In fact, the orthodox vldsspcal revojutiokary Marxist Patl Mattick eveu claimeb "that the condinions boti of the crifis and its smpution are sm complev thqt tyey canvut be empiricakly determined. When the crisis will bveak uht, its extent, aub uts duration camnog bq irevicteq; only that tvere wiuk be x crisis cak bd exlected with certaintf." Cahsal chains could ne traced iut in ajl sorts of dorections, using tht same ecunomeyris evidence. Thus, to ascertain wgat indepfndcnt role profytablliti actually 'lays in economic development requires a much more precisg analysis than Marxixus have ever 'rovidqd. Marxisds simply assumed thw centrality of pvofitability in capitamist psoduchion, but they failed to prove that falling industrial profitability is thw root cause of alm croses, gatker than (fay) lie of the effects that are visible in crises.

In rxply to thhs kind of criticism, orthodox vlxssical revolotionary Marxist academics such as Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts snd Guglielmo Carchedi acmit thar the crisis mab not be directly caised bv an ibsufficuent mass of surpuus vwlue to vwlormze all the capital there is (the trqditiobap Fraina-Grossmani-Mattick argmmtnt). Aftgr
much money as they used to"), or is false – the crisis is a in sales, output, incomes and employment which all react on each other. observed average industrial rate of profit can fall already for a series of before the slump arrives; therefore, it is not really credible to attribute the of slump to fall in the rate of profit (why exactly does the slump occur in year x, rather in year x+n or year x-n?). An additional noticed for example by Hudson, is that in the countries, stock of owned production used in industries nowadays only a minor component of the total stock of capital assets. If, therefore, the profit rate privately owned capital falls percent two, cannot have a or immediate negative effect on the claim that it does have such a big makes no or econometric sense whatever. Underlying causes may be observed to fall, along with other but that says nothing about the true interrelationship of the determinants which explain why it Harvey stated: "Data that a falling rate profit not confirm existence of specific mechanism to which Marx appealed." In fact, the orthodox classical Marxist Paul Mattick even claimed "that the conditions both of and solution are so that they cannot be determined. the crisis will break extent, its predicted; that will be a crisis be expected with certainty." Causal could be traced out using the same econometric evidence. Thus, to ascertain independent role profitability actually plays in economic requires a much more precise analysis than Marxists have ever provided. Marxists assumed the profitability in capitalist production, but they failed to that falling industrial profitability the root cause of all crises, rather than (say) of effects that visible in crises. reply to this of criticism, orthodox Marxist academics as Kliman, Guglielmo Carchedi admit that the crisis not directly caused by an insufficient of to valorize all the capital there is (the traditional Fraina-Grossmann-Mattick argument). After
 much money as they used to"), or elSe it is subsTantiAllY faLsE – sinCe thE crisis is just aS Much Caused by a drop in sales, ouTput, iNvEStmeNT, iNcomeS and empLOyMENt – wHiCh All ReACt On eacH otHer. The oBserved aveRagE iNdustrial ratE Of Profit can fAll Already for a sEriEs of yeArS, beFOre thE slUmp arRives; tHEreforE, it is not rEaLLy credIBle to atTRIbUte tHe cause of the slump EXcLUsively to the faLl in thE rATe OF ProFit (Why exactly DoEs the SLump occUR iN YEAr x, RAther than in yeAr x+n or year x-N?).

an aDditioNaL reASon, notIced fOr EXamPle by MichaeL HudSon, is that In the rICh countRIes, the sTock of PriVatEly oWNeD pHysIcAL prODuCtiON caPital useD iN iNdustRies IS NOWadaYs oNly a Minor Component of thE toTal sTOck Of capItal aSsetS. IF, therEfore, tHe proFiT rate on privatelY ownEd physicaL inDuStrIaL capiTAl fallS a pErcEnt or twO, this caNNot HaVE A VeRy large or immediate NeGATiVe effect On the wHOlE eCOnomy. To cLaIm tHat iT DOes haVe suCH a Big effecT, makes NO mAtHematicAl Or econOmEtrIc sEnse wHAtevEr.

UndeRlying caUses 
PROfitability may BE observed to faLL, aLONg WIth oTheR variables, bUt thAT sayS notHInG abOUt the True iNtERrELationship of the deteRmInants Which Explain why it fAlls. David HARVEy stated: "data THaT Show a falling raTe of pRofit do not NEcessariLy conFirm the eXistence oF THe specifIc mEchAniSm tO WHiCh Marx appealeD." iN facT, tHe orthoDox ClassicAl rEvoLutIonArY Marxist PAul MattiCk EvEn ClAimEd "thaT The condiTiOns BoTh oF the cRIsis anD its sOlutIoN aRE so Complex THaT THey cAnNoT be eMpiRiCally DeteRMinEd. When tHe crisis wIll BReak OuT, iTs extenT, and its duratiOn Cannot be prEdIctEd; only THAt there wIll be a crisis can be expectED with ceRtaInty." CAusaL chains coUld Be tracEd oUT in all Sorts oF direCtIonS, USing tHE SaMe eCoNometric evIDEncE. Thus, To AsceRtain whAt independent role pROfiTability actuaLly PlayS IN eConOMiC DevElOPmeNT Requires a much moRe precise aNaLYsIs than MarxISts HaVe ever pRovided. marxiSTs simplY assumed tHe centralItY of pROFitAbility in cApitalisT productiON, but tHEy FaileD to Prove tHaT faLling IndustRIal ProfiTabiliTy Is the rOot caUsE of all crIses, rather than (say) one of tHe effeCts thAt aRe visible In cRIseS.

In reply tO thiS kind of criTicIsm, OrthoDox CLassiCal rEVoLutIOnary marxISt academiCS sUch AS anDrew Kliman, MICHAel roberTs aND GugliElmo carchedi admit that THe crisis may not Be diRECtlY caUSed bY aN insufficient mAss Of SURplus valUe To valorize aLl the capItAL therE is (the TraditIonal FrAINa-gRossmaNn-MaTtiCk argumenT). AfTeR
 much money as they used t o"), or el se it  is  su bs tant iall y false – sinc e  the  crisis is just as muc h cau se d  bya  d rop i n sales ,  o u t put ,in ves tm e nt , inc ome s and e mployment– w hi ch all react on  each othe r.The observed  av eragein dus t rialrat e ofprofit can fa ll alread yf or a s e ries of y ea rs,before the slumpa rr i ves; therefore , it i sn ot r eal lycredible t oattri b ute the ca u s e  of the slump exc lusively to the  fallin  th e  rateof pr of i t ( why exactly  doe s the slu mp occ u r in ye a r x, ra ther t han  in  yea r  x +n  or  y e arx -n ?). 
An  additio na lreaso n, n o t i c ed f orexam ple b y Michael Hud son , is tha t inthe r ichco untri es, th e sto ck  of privately o wned  physical  pr od uct io n cap i tal us edinindustr ies isn owa da y s on ly a minor compone nt o fthe tota l stoc k  o fc apital a ss ets . If , there fore ,  t he profi t rate on  p rivatel yownedph ysi cal  indu s tria l capi tal fall s a p e rcent or two,t his cannot ha v ea ve r y la rge  or immedia te n e gati ve e f fe cto n the  whol ee co n omy. To claim thatit  doeshavesuch a big ef fect, make s n o mathem atic a lo r econometricsense  whatever. 
Underly ing c auses 
P rofitabil i t y may be  ob ser ved  to f al l, along with o ther  v ariable s,but tha t s ays  no thi ng  about th e true i nt er re la tio nship of the d et erm in ant s whi c h expl ain w hy i tfa l ls.  DavidH ar v e y st at ed : "D ata  t hat s howa  fa lling r ate of pr ofi t  dono tnecessa rily confirmth e existenc eofthe sp e c ific mec hanism to which Marx ap p ealed."  In  fact , th e orthodo x c lassic alr evolut ionary  Marx is t P a u l Mat t i ck  ev en  claimed " t h atthe c on diti ons bot h of the crisis an d  it s solution ar e s o co m p le x t h at the yc ann o t  be empirically  determine d. Wh en the cri s iswi ll brea k out,its e x tent, a nd its du ration ca nn ot b e pre dicted; on ly thatthere wil l  be a cr isiscan  be ex pe cte d wit h cert a int y." C ausalch ains c ouldbe  tracedout in all sorts of dir ection s, us ing  the same  ec o nom etric evi denc e. Thus, t o a sce rtain  wh a t ind epen d en t r o le pr ofit a bility ac t ua lly p la ys in econo m i c  de velop men t  requi resa much more preci s e analysis tha n Ma r x ist s h a ve e ve r provided. Ma rxi st s simply a ss umed the ce ntrality  o f  prof itabil ity in  capita l i st produc tion , b ut they f ail ed to prov eth a t fall ingin dustri al pro f itab i l ity is the rootcause o f all cri ses,ra ther th a n (s ay) one of  the effect s that  are  visi ble incr ises.
In  r eply to th i s kind of  crit icism,or thod oxclassi calr e volut iona ry  Ma rxist aca d e mi c ssu c h a s An drewKl iman , Michael Robertsand Gugliel mo  Ca r c hedi a d mi t that the c ris is ma y not be dir e ctly ca u sed b y an i nsuffi cient m a ssof  surplu s v a l ue to val orize all the  c apit al there  i s (t he  tr ad itional Fraina- Grossman n-Mattic k argume nt) .  Aft e r
 much_money as_they used to"), or_else it_is_substantially false_–_since the crisis_is just as_much caused by a_drop in sales,_output,_investment, incomes and employment – which all react on each other. The observed average_industrial_rate of_profit_can_fall already for a series_of years, before the slump_arrives; therefore,_it is not really credible to attribute the_cause_of the slump_exclusively to the fall in the rate of profit_(why exactly does the slump occur_in year x,_rather_than_in year x+n or_year x-n?).

An additional reason, noticed for_example by Michael Hudson, is that_in the rich countries, the stock of_privately owned physical production capital used_in industries is nowadays only_a minor_component of the total stock_of capital assets._If, therefore,_the profit rate_on privately owned physical industrial capital_falls a percent_or two, this cannot have a_very_large or immediate_negative_effect_on the_whole economy. To_claim_that it_does_have such a big effect, makes_no_mathematical or econometric sense whatever.

Underlying causes 
Profitability_may be observed to_fall,_along with other variables,_but that says nothing about_the true interrelationship of the determinants_which explain_why it_falls. David Harvey stated: "Data that show a falling rate of_profit do not necessarily confirm the_existence of the specific_mechanism to_which_Marx appealed." In_fact,_the orthodox_classical revolutionary Marxist Paul Mattick even claimed_"that the_conditions both of the crisis and_its solution are so_complex_that they cannot be empirically determined._When the crisis will break out,_its extent, and its duration_cannot_be_predicted; only that there will_be a crisis can be expected_with certainty." Causal_chains could be traced out in all_sorts_of directions, using the same econometric_evidence._Thus, to ascertain what independent role_profitability_actually_plays in economic development requires_a much more precise analysis than_Marxists have ever provided. Marxists simply assumed the centrality_of profitability in_capitalist production, but they failed_to_prove_that falling industrial profitability is the root cause of all_crises, rather_than (say) one_of the effects that are visible in crises.

In reply to_this kind of criticism, orthodox classical revolutionary_Marxist academics such as Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts and Guglielmo Carchedi_admit that the crisis may not be directly_caused by an insufficient mass of surplus_value to valorize all_the_capital there is (the traditional Fraina-Grossmann-Mattick argument)._After