It seems that Jerry and I agree on the major points discussed, and I think this discussion is an example for the claim that Marx's theory of value both 1) recognizes particular economic realities and 2) achieves a summary view of value (abstract labor encased in commodities) and the economy-wide conservation laws that it reveals. Jerry cites the absence of economic rationality and perfect information as workers spend their wages. In general and from my own experience, I agree that these are hard things to achieve! We can circumscribe a certain economic space for irrational and uninformed spending. On one hand, it takes time and effort to be a rational spender, and so we give in to irrational marketing for lack of time to do otherwise. On the other hand, there is a limit to the deprivations people can stand as a result of wasting money. In a way, such ever-present but limited waste is similar to the circumscribed economic space for the sales effort. On one hand, some capital devoted to marketing brings in revenue. On the other hand, the need to recover marketing costs in the price of the product limits the sales effort, both because, as Jerry has noted, demand curves have elastic and inelastic sections, and also because competing capitals can sell by offering lower prices with less marketing (Ray-O-Vac vs. Energizer batteries, for example). The sales effort as a percentage of all economic activity is positive but below a ceiling. Looking at statistics for the U.S., I estimated the sales effort to be approximately one-fourth of the economy (From Capitalism to Equality, p. 214). Charles Andrews Web site for my book is at http://www.LaborRepublic.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT