From: Alejandro Valle Baeza (valle@servidor.unam.mx)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 09:15:21 EST
I think that the main issue in Amin and others is that trade may cause impoverishment. In my view this argument is correct but the argumentation is incorrect. In orthodox economics international trade is always beneficial hence (unorthodox) Marxian economics should examine critically this assertion. One example is Shaik's work on international trade. Amin is another important contribution on this issue even some of his arguments are wrong.Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>:Re Paul C's [7914], Alejandro's [7917] and my [7919]: I asked Paul previously, in [7903]: "What is required to empirically demonstrate the existence of unequal exchange?". Paul didn't answer that question in [7914] but instead asserted -- without an attempt at explanation -- that the concept of unequal exchange in the works of [listmember] Samir Amin struck him as "complete rubbish".One would have to demonstrate that the same commodity when produced in the metropole sold at a higher price in a 3rd country than when the same commodity was produced in a colony. Thus if Japanese steel sells for a higher price in Brazil than South African steel, then there is unequal exchange occuring.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 08 2002 - 00:00:01 EST