From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 07:24:55 EDT
Hi David. It's good to hear from you.
> If we interpret "wages in B 50% lower" literally, meaning absolute (real)
> wages, <snip, JL>
> If, however, Jerry meant to say "wage *rate* in B 50% lower, <snip, JL>
I meant the latter.
>then we get this picture:>
> W L Y Y/L W/Y W/L
> A 60 100 100 1 .6 .6
> B 60 150 100 .666 .6 .4>
> Here the rate of exploitation is the same in the two sectors (or regions)
> (or firms). Uniform variation in Y/L and W/L will
> keep W/Y the same.>
> Unless, of course, we get to the heart of the matter and recognize that
> exploitation is social, not individual. If A is the
> prevailing (or "regulating") group of capitals and B is a backward one,
> the unit value of B's output will be governed by A; in > the very minimal
> framework of this example, output in B (in a sense that measures
> realization
> as well as production) would
> be represented as 66 2/3, the wage share would be .9, and the rate of
> exploitation only .1. But this takes us rather far
> beyond Jerry's case, and a fuller model would be needed to explore it
> adequately.
From your perspective, what variables would have to be added and
specified in that fuller model?
A couple of thoughts:
1) In the simple model there was no _transfer of surplus value_ from
B to A. Wouldn't the transfer of s have to be known to calculate the
('realized') rate of exploitation?
2) In addition to wages, the VLP varies temporally and spatially. In this
case, the latter is of importance. Since there is a "customary" and
"moral" (i.e. historical) component of wages and the values of LP that
_varies_ by social formation/country/region, wouldn't the _different values
of LP_ in the societies in which Lb and La produce the commodity
product have to be known to be able to calculate the different rates of
exploitation?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT