From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 17:43:40 EDT
Re Gil's [7643]: > Jerry's comments below underscore the importance of distinguishing two > senses of the term "monopoly"--the one used by Marx in describing a > condition of absolute scarcity, and the one used by (e.g.) Adam Smith and > the neoclassicals in describing a situation in which given market actors > enjoy the power to *set* the market price for a good, rather than taking > the market price as *given* (say, by the intersection of supply and > demand). I understand Fred to refer to the condition of "absolute > scarcity" invoking only the former, Marxian sense of "monopoly,"-- a sense > in which notions like "collusion" and "cartel agreements" have no necessary > place --rather than the sense that Jerry describes below. Hi Gil. Can we discuss this some more? Fred, in [7636], wrote about what landlords wouldn't "allow" in relationship to rent. My point was very simple: whether rent is levied and what the size of rent isn't determined (alone; one-sidedly) by what landlords will or will not "allow". It is determined by ... what? My answer to that question is: CLASS STRUGGLE. To only focus on what landlords will allow takes the class struggle out of rent determination. It, in effect, asserts that landlords can simply dictate terms to capitalists. Yet, there are means through which capitalists can attempt to break monopolies. Indeed, my previous point was that the very existence of rent suggests that there will be attempts to develop alternatives to payment by various means (e.g. through technological change). If Fred is not focusing on this issue now, it could be that the subject that Makoto, Fred, Rakesh, and yourself have been discussing relates most directly to Volume 3 of _Capital_ rather than to the subject of Landed Property (Book 2). But, if we are to talk about rent determination outside of the context of the "money commodity and the transformation problem" then we have to leave the realm of equations and numerical illustrations and enter the real world of class conflict. Given your interest in game-theoretic approaches to political economy, this is a point that I think you should appreciate. Where did you get the idea, btw (NB: this is only a btw), that for Marx monopolies necessarily take the market price as given? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 14 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT