From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 19:33:23 EDT
Michael, exactly... the arguments centre immediately upon the implications for the mass and rate of surplus value. That's economics for me. The recent creation of a minimum wage here in Britain was preceded for years by the 'lament over profits', and the EU attempt to fix a max working week ( the so called 'social model') was opted out of in practice by the same sort of appeal, PLUS arguments over reduction in 'flexibility' of production, infringement of civil liberty ( restricted freedom to sell use of labour power), 'pricing' of small businesses out of business, and a few other obvious points. There seem to me to be no ( fortunately) 'sophisticated' indifference curve approaches to muddy the water... Cheers paul bl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] various > When I said that no economists gave an economic reason, I was thinking of theoretical > reasoning. Just to say that it would cut into profits -- or even eliminate them -- does > not seem to be more than standard business-talk. > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:04:30AM +0100, Paul Bullock wrote: > > Well, Senior of course, as per Vol 1 Capital > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 05 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT