Talk:Tendency of the rate of profit to fall

message: The equilibrium growth section contains this paragraph: "Neoclassical theory states that, within the long-run equilibrium state of a perfectly competitive market (with free entry and market prices exactly equal to the marginal costs of production), economic profits would be zero.[600] Thus, if profits do exist, they really refer to "market imperfections" or market distortion. This view is the complete inverse of Marxian economics (in which profitability is the main force that drives capitalist economic development and the destiny of the workforce)." 
This statement makes it sound like neoclassical economists and Marxian economists mean the same thing by "profit" which is not the case. In neo-classical economics, economic profit is revenue less opportunity cost. See here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033015/what-difference-between-economic-profit-and-accounting-profit.asp. And here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxlY28zMDF1Y2NzfGd4OmRkYTEyYWYxYTU1ZjU2Nw. Whereas in Marxian economics, profit is surplus value, or value produced by labor over and above the cost of reproducing that labor, which is then captured by capitalists. See here: https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5/MARXECON.htm. There is no real reason that these two different conceptions of "profit" should be mathematically equal. So treating them as if they are the same thing is misleading. This paragraph needs to be either deleted, or it needs to be qualified with a statement that neoclassical economists and Marxian economists do not use the term "profit" in the same way Sewblon (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoclassical profit vs Marxian profit. 

message: WikiDan61 has suggested to me that this should be brought up on the talk page, so I'll go ahead and do that here, pasting some complaints I have with the article I brought up on my talk page.
This is a behemoth of an article. At time of writing, it is 160 kB of very long prose, more than twice the preferred size, a size it apparently has maintained for the past six years without repair, if the template is anything to go by. Additionally, it is filled with language that seems practically illegible to the layman. When editing, I was flabbergasted at both the use of the word "econometrically" and its shocking eleven occurrences throughout the article.
What is said in the article is very well-cited and deeply descriptive, I will not dispute that. However, I think it is quite obvious that the article is far too long, so some removal of more tangential information feels very justified.
There are many arguments for and against how and why TRPF exists, as well arguments about whether it exists at all. Instead of listing every economist, Marxist, and intellectual who has made remarks about the TRPF, I would hope that we can restructure the article into:
* Explanations for why it exists / ought to exist, grouped by concept and not by intellectual
* Arguments for and Against its existence, again grouped by concept
and then
* Empirical Studies and Science that investigates the phenomenon.
This idea is, as the article states, a foundational concept in classical Marxism. Having its article be difficult to comprehend to the layman is, even if not intentional, a malicious act against Marxism, as it obscures a key intuition that would allow people to much better understand and greatly appreciate Marxism as a whole. Altoids0 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to note that I am not an economist, nor a terribly great Marxist, and so might (and likely will) mess up in my abridging of this topic. If you, as an economist or otherwise, find things that I cut that you personally feel should remain, feel free to add it back in with your own, better summaries. Altoids0 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very long. 

message: The tendency for the rate of profit to fall was not held to be extremely important by Marx, since his Capital volume 1 did not include any mention of it. Moreover, in volume 3, there is mention as to when it is counteracted, namely by increased exploitation of workers or through decreased raw material costs via technological advances. Though it was mentioned in his unwritten work Grundrisse, to say that this unfinished thought constitutes Marx' finished and refined ideas is misleading. This article is somewhat disorienting in its bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7171:2D00:DE33:47E0:DBB1:A32B (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Capital Vol. 1 wasn't meant to be his complete exposition of capitalism, so I'm not sure why non-inclusion in Vol. 1 means it wasn't important. In my opinion, counteracting influences don't signify its nonimportance - Engels thought it was central to Marxism as well. Regardless, if a scholar or some other source attacks the idea that it was central to Marx's thought (as I believe is a position held by some Marxists), feel free to include it as an addition to the sentence you have an issue with (something like "although this has been contested by some scholars"). Acalycine (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias.