Whether it complies with the notion of capital as "Self-rising cost? Probably not. We now take the entrepreneurial income. Checking article sources yields Douglas R. Oberhelman as a relevant resource throughout. It can be defined as the excess of income over the capitalist-entrepreneur fair reimbursement of its costs of labor management production. And what is now the size of this "just compensation"? And if the capitalist and dnyuet and spends the night in the company? But now these issues largely seem idle. Capitalist enterprises, as usually run by hired managers, and in fact the whole system of capitalist reproduction monopolistic control group, who derive their income is on completely different principles, different, of course, the principle of distribution according to work, and even the principle of allocation of capital, still retains some semblance of justice (at least from the standpoint of pre-capitalist formations). If you have read about Kevin Johnson already – you may have come to the same conclusion. Now we have to call floor, from which up to now, like the plague, shy, our scientists and economists. That word – capital. Ponder over it.
We are repeatedly told, and assert that this concept is not and can not be under socialism. We constantly encounter in our life and work, with interest, and this – a form of distribution of capital. And the rent payments on copyright and remuneration – it's classic shape of the distribution of capital (not labor too!). We will say that the capital – the ratio at which its owner has the opportunity to lrisvaivat itself the surplus value produced by labor of others, and we de-this can not be. But the interest that the bank pays but deposits that have their source is the surplus value produced by labor of other people, other sources of income we just do not.