For example, let two enterprises be engaged In production of the same produce. Let the volume of their net produce be 2 and 8 million roubles and the production fund capital Investment 6 and 16 million roubles respectively. Under these conditions the output/capital ratio of the first enterprise wll I be 33 kopecks per one rouble of fixed assets and 50 kopecks for the second enterprise. The sum total output/capital ration In this case will be' equal 45 kopecks. Now let us see what happens to the total output/capital ratio If each enterprise Is oriented towards the Increase of output/capital ratio. Let us assume that there Is a possibility to redistribute the output and capital Investment In a different way bringing the caplta1 Investment of the first enterprise up to 18 mil lion roubles and the output of produce to 7 mill Jon roubles. This wll I bring a reduction of produce ln~rement of the first enter• prise to 3 million roubles and of capital Investment volume to 5 million roubles. The total output of produce of the two enter• prlses will remain unchaged whereas the volume of capital Invest­ ment will Increase by 1 million roubles. Then the output/capital ratio of the first enterprise will cliMb from 33 kopecks to 39 kopecks and from 50 kopecks the.second enterprise. However, the total output/capital ratio of these enterprises will drop by 2 kopecks (Instead of 45 kopecks It will be 43 kopecks). Th.ls "paradox" results f.rom the fact that the Indicator of output/capital ratio does not meet the requirement of subconjuga• tlon of local <self-accounting) alms to general <national economy> Interest of production development as a whole. Among general efficiency Indicators there Is also an Indicator of profitability which Is widely used In economic practice. There Is a question whether this Indicator makes .It 