price of society's new gross output with the total production capital advanced to produce it, abstracting from many intervening variables such as capital depreciation and turnovers. Marx furthermore assumed, that at the point where a new output had been produced, its cost-price in the bookkeeping (a sum of money-capital representing materials costs, wage costs and operating costs) was a given, unchangeable datum, and he considered that price-value discrepancies of inputs bought were irrelevant to his analysis, since it was the value of this new output (and not the capital advanced) that was being related to a general price level and a general profitability level in the markets where the output was sold.

The cost-price of the new output was not based on a hypothetical "labor-value" of inputs, but based on what the producers actually paid for the inputs that were used up to create their outputs. Using various inputs, a new output was produced. This new output had a value, but precisely how much of that value would be realized as revenue, was difficult to know in advance. The difference between the selling price and the cost price of the new output sold, was the surplus value realized as profit by the producer of that output, and the argument was, that this profit would normally (assuming ordinary competition) tend to gravitate to an amount reflecting the average profit rate on capital. The question was about how the profit volume included in the total value product would be distributed among the producing enterprises.

If businesses could not reach a baseline profitability, they would be driven out of business sooner or later, or they would be taken over by another business and restructured, so that they did become sufficiently profitable. Inversely, if businesses overcharged for their commodities to obtain more profit, fewer people would buy them, and they would suffer decline as well. So output could normally be sold only within a fairly narrow range of prices, acceptable to both buyers and sellers. Marx then examined what the division of the total newly produced surplus value would be, among producing enterprises with varying capital compositions, on the hypothetical assumption of a uniform profit rate established by free competition.

Under Marxism–Leninism and Sraffianism, the "uniform rate of profits" was often taken as the literal truth. Marx himself knew very well though that a uniform profit rate (a "general profit rate", e.g. a 10% net profit on all production capital) did not truly exist in the real world, except as a
price of society's new gross end product with the entire production capital advanced to grow it, abstracting from many intervening variable such as das kapital depreciation and turnovers. Marx furthermore assumed, that at the point where a new output signal had been produced, its cost - monetary value in the bookkeeping (a sum of money - capital representing materials costs, wage costs and operating costs) was a contribute, unchangeable datum, and he considered that price - value discrepancies of input bought were irrelevant to his analysis, since it was the value of this new output (and not the das kapital advanced) that was being relate to a general price level and a cosmopolitan profitability level in the markets where the output was sold. 

 The cost - monetary value of the fresh output was not based on a hypothetical " labor - value " of inputs, but based on what the producers actually paid for the inputs that were use up to create their outputs. use versatile inputs, a new end product was produced. This new output had a value, but precisely how much of that value would be realize as revenue, was difficult to know in advance. The difference between the selling monetary value and the cost price of the new output sold, was the surplus value realized as net income by the manufacturer of that end product, and the argument was, that this profit would normally (assuming average competition) tend to gravitate to an amount reflecting the average profit rate on capital. The question was about how the profit book included in the full value product would be distributed among the produce enterprises. 

 If business could not reach a service line profitability, they would be driven out of clientele sooner or later, or they would be take over by another business and restructured, so that they did become sufficiently profitable. Inversely, if businesses overcharged for their commodities to obtain more profit, fewer people would buy them, and they would suffer decay as well. So output signal could normally be sold only within a reasonably narrow range of prices, acceptable to both buyers and sellers. Marx then examined what the division of the total newly produced surplus value would be, among produce enterprise with change capital compositions, on the hypothetical assumption of a uniform profit pace established by free competition. 

 Under Marxism – Leninism and Sraffianism, the " uniform rate of profits " was often taken as the literal truth. Marx himself know very well though that a uniform profit rate (a " general profit rate ", for example a 10% net profit on all production capital) did not truly exist in the real world, except as a
prife of society's new gross output with thg rotal 'roductjon capigal advanced to produce it, austrqctint from many intervenine variablvs such aw cakital depreciatioi and tuvuovera. Marr hurthermore assomed, that at the point whese a new output had been produced, its cjst-pricr ln the bookkeeking (s sum of money-capital representing matedials cmsts, wage cosys and operating costs) was a glven, unchangeable fatum, and hg cogwidered that price-valut biscrepancigs of inputs bought were irrelevxnt tp his analisjs, vince it waw the value of thlx new mutput (snd not the caiital adcanced) that was being related to a genetal price nerel and a general prodirabilhty neveu in tht merksts whfre the outpuf was sold.

Tye cost-price of the nqq output was hot bafeq on a hypothetical "labor-value" of inputv, bht based on what the priducers actually paid for the ynputs that were used up to create their outputs. Gsing xarnius ivpuhs, a new output was produced. This new output rzd a value, but pregisely how much of tjay value would ce realizsd as revenue, was fifficujt to know in wdvamce. The difference between rhe selling iricw and the cost priee of the nec outpot solc, was the surplus value reamized as prlfit by tgd producer of thxt pudput, and the argument was, ehat this proyit woula notmally (wssuming ogdinavf competition) tend to gtavitade to an alount reflecting the average profit rate on csphtan. The quzstion was about hor the profit vplume iucludea in the tktal vanue product would be disdtibuted among the proqucibg ebterprirds.

If businessex could not reach a baseline profitabllity, fhey would be dxnvtn out of businexs roogeg oc latqs, or they wogld ce gsken uver by anobhef buxiness and restructused, ao that they did brcjme suffuciently profitable. Imversely, if businedses mvecchargrd sor their commodities to obtaih more prlfib, fewer peoplq womld fuy them, aud they would suffer decline as well. So iutput could normaoly be sold only wijhik a fairly nerrow wange of [rices, acceptable to both buyers and xellers. Marx then exajined fhat hhe division of the total newly produced surplus value would be, among proeucing enterprises witn varjiny ccpital somplritions, on the hjpothetical assumption of a unifurm profht rate established by free cokpdtition.

Under Oarxism–Leninism and Srafrianism, yhe "uniform rate of profits" was often taken as the liteval truth. Marx himself kiew very well though that c unifirm prodit vate (a "general prpflt rate", e.g. a 10% iet profit on all production capitao) did boh truly exist in the real wlvld, exbept as a
price of society's new gross output with production advanced to it, abstracting from capital and turnovers. Marx assumed, that at point where a new output had produced, its cost-price in the bookkeeping (a sum of money-capital representing materials costs, costs and operating costs) was a given, unchangeable datum, and he considered that discrepancies inputs were to his analysis, since it was the value of this new output (and not the capital that was being related to a general price and a general profitability in the markets where the was The cost-price the output not based on hypothetical "labor-value" of inputs, but based on what the producers actually paid for the inputs that were up to outputs. Using inputs, new was produced. This had a value, but precisely how value would be realized as revenue, was difficult know in The difference between the selling price the cost price of the new output sold, the surplus value realized as profit by the producer of that output, and the argument this profit would normally ordinary competition) tend gravitate an reflecting average profit on capital. The question was about how the profit volume included the total value product would be distributed among the producing businesses not reach a profitability, they would be out business sooner or later, would taken business restructured, that they did become profitable. Inversely, if businesses overcharged their commodities to obtain buy them, and they would suffer decline as So output could normally be sold only a fairly narrow range of prices, acceptable to both buyers and sellers. then examined division of the total newly produced surplus value be, among producing enterprises varying capital compositions, on the hypothetical assumption of a profit established by competition. Under Marxism–Leninism Sraffianism, the "uniform of profits" was as the truth. himself though that a uniform profit rate "general rate", e.g. a 10% net on capital) did not truly exist in the real world, except as a
price of society's new gross ouTput with thE totaL prOduCtIon cApitAl advanced to prODuce It, abstracting from many iNtervEnINg vaRIaBles sUch as caPItAL DepReCiAtiOn ANd TurnoVerS. Marx fuRthermore aSsuMeD, that at the poINt Where a new oUtpUt had been proDucEd, its cOsT-prICe in tHe bOokkeEping (a SUm of moNey-capitaL rEPresenTIng mateRIAlS cosTs, wage costs and opeRAtINg costs) was a givEn, unchAnGEaBLE daTum, And he consiDeRed thAT price-vALuE DIScrEPancies of inpuTs bought werE IrrElevanT tO hiS AnalysIs, sinCe IT waS the value of This New output (And not THe capitAL advancEd) that Was BeiNg reLAtEd To a GeNEraL PrIce LEveL and a genErAl ProfiTabiLITY LeveL in The mArketS where the outpUt wAs soLD.

ThE cost-Price Of thE nEw outPut was Not baSeD on a hypotheticaL "labOr-value" of InpUtS, buT bAsed oN What thE prOduCers actUally paID foR tHE INpUts that were used up tO cREAtE their ouTputs. USInG vARious inpUtS, a nEw ouTPUt was ProdUCeD. This new Output HAd A vAlue, but PrEciselY hOw mUch Of thaT ValuE would Be realizEd as rEVenue, was difficULt to know in advANcE. tHe DIffeRenCe between thE selLIng pRice ANd The COst prIce of ThE NeW Output sold, was the surPlUs valuE realIzed as profit bY the producER OF that outPut, aND tHE argument was, thAt thiS profit wouLD normallY (assuMing ordiNary compeTITion) tend To gRavItaTe tO AN aMount reflectiNG The aVeRage proFit Rate on cApiTal. the QueStIon was aboUt how the PrOfIt VoLumE inclUDed in the ToTal VaLue ProduCT would Be disTribUtEd AMonG the proDUcING entErPrIses.

if bUsInessEs coULd nOt reach A baseline ProFItabIlItY, they woUld be driven ouT oF business sOoNer Or lateR, OR they wouLd be taken over by another bUSiness aNd rEstruCturEd, so that tHey Did becOme SUfficiEntly pRofitAbLe. INVErselY, IF bUsiNeSses overchARGed For thEiR comModitieS to obtain more profiT, FewEr people would Buy Them, AND tHey WOuLD suFfER deCLIne as well. So outpUt could norMaLLy Be sold only WIthIn A fairly Narrow rAnge oF Prices, aCceptable To both buyErS and SELleRs. Marx then Examined What the diVIsion OF tHe totAl nEwly prOdUceD surpLus valUE woUld be, Among pRoDucing EnterPrIses with Varying capital compositiOns, on tHe hypOthEtical assUmpTIon Of a uniforM proFit rate estAblIshEd by fRee COmpetItioN.

unDer mArxisM–LenINism and SrAFfIanISM, tHe "uniform raTE OF prOfits" Was OFten taKen aS the literal truth. MARx himself knew vEry wELL thOugH That A uNiform profit raTe (a "GeNERal profiT rAte", e.g. a 10% net prOfit on alL pROductIon capItal) diD not truLY ExISt in thE reaL woRld, except As a
price of society's new gro ss outputwiththe  to ta l pr oduc tion capital a d vanc ed to produce it, abst racti ng from ma ny in terveni n gv a ria bl es  su ch as  capi tal  deprec iation and  tu rn overs. Marxf ur thermore a ssu med, that at  th e poin twhe r e a n ewoutpu t hadb een pr oduced, i ts cost-p r ice int h ebook keeping (a sum of mo n ey-capital rep resent in g  m a t eri als  costs, wa ge  cost s  and op e ra t i n g c o sts) was a gi ven, unchan g eab le dat um , a n d he c onsid er e d t hat price-v alue  discrepa ncieso f input s  bought  wereirr ele vant to  h isan a lys i s,  si n ceit was t he  v alueof t h i s newout put(andnot the capit aladva n ced ) tha t was  bei ng  rela ted to  a ge ne ral price level  and  a genera l p ro fit ab ility levelinthe  market s where the  o u t p ut  was sold.

The co st - p ri ce of th e newo ut pu t  was not  b ase d on a  hypo thet i ca l "labor -value "  o finputs,  b ut bas ed  on  wh at th e  pro ducers  actuall y pai d  for the input s  that were us e du p  t o  cre ate  their outp uts. Usin g va r io usi nputs , a n ew ou t put was produced. T hi s newoutpu t had a value , but prec i s e ly how m ucho ft hat value woul d berealized a s  revenue , was  difficu lt to kno w in advan ce.  Th e d iff e r en ce between th e sell in g price  an d the c ost  pr ice  of  t he new ou tput sol d,  w as  t hesurpl u s valuere ali ze d a s pro f it bythe p rodu ce ro f t hat out p ut , andth eargu men twas,that thi s profi t would n orm a lly(a ss uming o rdinary compe ti tion) tend  t o g ravita t e  to an a mount reflecting the av e rage pr ofi t rat e on  capital.  Th e ques tio n  was a bout h ow th epro f i t vol u m einc lu ded in the t ota l val ue  pro duct wo uld be distributed amo ng the produc ing  ent e r pr ise s .Ifbu s ine s s es could not re ach a base li n eprofitabil i ty,  t hey wou ld be d riven out ofbusinesssooner or  l ater , orthey would  be take n over by anoth e rbusin ess  and r es tru cture d, sot hat  they  did b ec ome su ffici en tly prof itable. Inversely, if b usines ses o ver charged f ort hei r commodi ties  to obtain  mo reprofi t,f ewerpeop l ewou l d buy  the m , and the y  w oul d su ffer declin e a s w ell.Soo utputcoul d normally be sol d  only within a  fai r l y n arr o w ra ng e of prices, a cce pt a b le to bo th  buyers and  sellers .M arx t hen ex amined  what t h e  d i vision  ofthe  total ne wly  p r oducedsu rp l us val ue w ou ld be,  among prod u c ing enterpriseswithv a rying cap italco mpositi o ns,on the hyp othetical a ssumpt ionof auniform  p rofitrat eestablishe d  by freecompe tition. 
Unde r M arxism –Len i n ism a nd S ra ffi anism, th e "u n if or m  ra te o f pro fi ts"was often taken as  th e  litera ltru t h . Marx hi m s elf knew v ery  well t hough that a un i fo r m pro fit ra te (a"genera l  pr of it rate ",e . g. a 10%net profi t  on  a ll p roductio ncapi ta l)di d not truly exi st in th e real w o r ld, ex cep t  asa 
price of_society's new_gross output with the_total production_capital_advanced to_produce_it, abstracting from_many intervening variables_such as capital depreciation_and turnovers. Marx_furthermore_assumed, that at the point where a new output had been produced, its cost-price_in_the bookkeeping_(a_sum_of money-capital representing materials costs,_wage costs and operating costs)_was a_given, unchangeable datum, and he considered that price-value_discrepancies_of inputs bought_were irrelevant to his analysis, since it was the_value of this new output (and_not the capital_advanced)_that_was being related to_a general price level and a_general profitability level in the markets_where the output was sold.

The cost-price of_the new output was not based_on a hypothetical "labor-value" of_inputs, but_based on what the producers_actually paid for_the inputs_that were used_up to create their outputs. Using_various inputs, a_new output was produced. This new_output_had a value,_but_precisely_how much_of that value_would_be realized_as_revenue, was difficult to know in_advance._The difference between the selling price and_the cost price of_the_new output sold, was_the surplus value realized as_profit by the producer of that_output, and_the argument_was, that this profit would normally (assuming ordinary competition) tend to_gravitate to an amount reflecting the_average profit rate on_capital. The_question_was about how_the_profit volume_included in the total value product would_be distributed_among the producing enterprises.

If businesses could_not reach a baseline_profitability,_they would be driven out of_business sooner or later, or they_would be taken over by_another_business_and restructured, so that they_did become sufficiently profitable. Inversely, if_businesses overcharged for_their commodities to obtain more profit, fewer_people_would buy them, and they would_suffer_decline as well. So output could_normally_be_sold only within a fairly_narrow range of prices, acceptable to_both buyers and sellers. Marx then examined what the_division of the_total newly produced surplus value_would_be,_among producing enterprises with varying capital compositions, on the hypothetical_assumption of_a uniform profit_rate established by free competition.

Under Marxism–Leninism and Sraffianism, the "uniform_rate of profits" was often taken as_the literal truth. Marx himself knew very well though that a_uniform profit rate (a "general profit rate", e.g._a 10% net profit on all production_capital) did not truly_exist_in the real world, except as a