From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 16:32:15 EST
Re Alejandro's [7917]: > I agree with Paul: in general unequal exchange is a misleading discussion. Amin and Emannuel did several mistakes. By example, Emannuel ignored the tendency to sell products at similar prices in world markets despite huge differences in productivitys. Yet, Ernest Mandel's perspective on unequal exchange didn't ignore that tendency, did it? > I agree with Paul that this is not unequal exchange or more precisely that it does not imply impoverishment by international trade. However, the relationship between impoverishment and international trade is a very important issue. On that topic Mandel wrote provocatively that: "*From the Marxist point of view, i.e. from the standpoint of a consistent labour theory of value, underdevelopment is ultimately always underemployment, both quantitatively (mass unemployment) and qualitatively (low productivity of labour)*" (_Late Capitalism_, NLB, 1975, pp. 60-61, emphasis in original). Do you agree or disagree? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EST