ABSTRACT After mentioning Marx’s explanation of capitalist benefits, Steuart’s distinction between “production benefits” and “profits of alienation” is retaken. If the price system coincides with the value system, these benefits disappear (circulation is neutral), which Marx assumes, and which allows him to concentrate on the essentials of surplus value: that is unpaid work. In the essay the consequences of abandoning this assumption are examined, the “transformation problem” is pointed out, some Sraffa examples and hypotheses are retaken, and through a simple matrix presentation some relevant consequences are analyzed; for example, that aggregate monetary gains differ from total surplus value. It also refers to the profits of financial capital (interest and capital gains) and, in an introductory manner, the importance of the phenomenon is mentioned to explain the prices and monopoly profits, a core feature of contemporary capitalism.

RESUMEN Luego de mencionar la explicación de Marx de los beneficios capitalistas, se retoma la distinción de Steuart entre “beneficios de producción” y “beneficios de circulación” (profits of alienation). Si el sistema de precios coincide con el sistema de valor, estos beneficios desaparecen (la circulación es neutra), supuesto que asume Marx y que le permite concentrar la atención en lo esencial del plusvalor: que es trabajo no pagado. En el ensayo se examinan las consecuencias de abandonar este supuesto, se apunta al “problema de la transformación”, se retoman algunos ejemplos e hipó- tesis de Sraffa y, mediante una presentación matricial sencilla, se examinan algunas consecuencias relevantes; por ejemplo, que las ganancias monetarias agregadas difieren del plusvalor total. Asimismo, se alude a las ganancias del capital financiero (intereses y ganancias de capital) y, de manera introductoria, se menciona la importancia del fenómeno para explicar los precios y las ganancias de monopolio, rasgo medular del capitalismo contemporáneo.

The aim of this article is to do a critical reflection about de use of economical indicators, as PIB per capita and human development index (HDI), in order to make development comparative measurement across countries. The authors propose a new indicator: the Vast Majority Income (VMI), which shares income with inequality by doing an empirical analysis of comparative development among countries. The outcomes got through this last indicator contrast with those coming from Net National Income per capita. They test and find out that measures of average income are not good instruments to study the vast majority income. Finally, there are some political proposals and show some issues that must be undertaken in the future.

Este artículo hace una reflexión crítica sobre la pertinencia de emplear indicadores económicos, como el PIB por habitante y el índice de desarrollo humano, para realizar mediciones comparativas de desarrollo entre países. Los autores proponen un nuevo indicador: el ingreso de la gran mayoría (IGM), que combina ingreso con desigualdad a partir de un ejercicio empírico de análisis de desarrollo comparativo entre países. Los resultados obtenidos a partir de este indicador contrastan con aquellos obtenidos con el ingreso nacional neto por habitante (INNph). Se comprueba que las medidas de ingreso promedio no constituyen buenas aproximaciones de los ingresos de las grandes mayorías. Se formulan asimismo propuestas de política y señalan algunos de los aspectos de este tema que forman parte de la agenda de investigaciones futuras.

ABSTRACT This paper attempts to resituate the theory of effective demand within a dynamic nonequilibrium context. Existing theories of effective demand, which derive from the works of Keynes and Kalecki, are generally posed in state equilibrium terms. That is to say, they serve to define a given level of output which corresponds to the equilibrium point between aggregate demand and supply. We propose to generalize this analysis in three ways. First, we will extend the analysis to encompass a dynamic (i.e. moving) short-run path of output, rather than a merely static level. Second, we will show that his dynamic short-run path need not imply an equilibrium analysis, since it can arise from either stochastically sustained cycles or deterministic limit cycles. And third, we will prove that the preceding generalization of the theory of effective demand will allow us to solve a long-standing problem in growth theory: namely the puzzle surrounding the apparently intractable instability of warranted growth. We will show that the actual path of growth does indeed gravitate around the warranted path in a cyclical sense.

RESUMO Este trabalho pretende situar a teoria da demanda efetiva num contexto de não-equilíbrio dinâmico. As teorias de demanda efetiva derivadas dos trabalhos de Keynes e Kalecki estão geralmente inseridas num equilíbrio estático de oferta e demanda agregada. Propomo-nos generalizar esta análise de três formas. Primeiramente estendendo a análise de maneira a englobar a trajetória dinâmica de curto prazo da produção. Em segundo lugar, mostrando que esta trajetória dinâmica de curto prazo não implica numa análise de equilíbrio, pois pode surgir tanto de ciclos sustentados estocasticamente como de ciclos limite-determinísticos. Em terceiro lugar, mostraremos que a generalização anterior da teoria de demanda efetiva nos permitirá resolver uma antiga questão da teoria do crescimento: as dificuldades em torno da aparente intratabilidade da instabilidade da taxa garantida de crescimento. Mostraremos que a trajetória de crescimento gravita em torno da taxa de crescimento garantido de forma cíclica.