From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 23:49:04 EDT
Aren't there a number of options? (i) go under if the standard non- basic commodity had a rate of profit less than the maximum rate in basic goods; (ii) accept a profit rate less than the maximum rate of profit in basic products; (iii) not treat the wage as a share of the surplus but as a basic good; (iv) organize a wholesale market among themselves where they charge each other the "imputed" price of their part of the self-reproducing non-basic? On 06/10/2005, at 7:17 AM, Paul Cockshott wrote: > The answer surely is to drop the profit rate equalisation assumption. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Wright > Sent: 05 October 2005 19:53 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics > > Hi Ajit > > >> The bean producers do not have to buy the beans in the >> market. They simply use the beans they have produced >> as inputs. So the cost of beans is always based on >> imputed price of beans for the bean producers. In this >> case they impute a price of beans that are different >> from the price of beans they sell it in the market. >> ajit sinha >> > > Arguably that may work for the special case of a single > self-reproducing non-basic. It doesn't work for the general case of > systems of self-reproducing non-basics. > > For example, suppose that beans are not directly required for their > own production. Instead, they are inputs to n other non-basic sectors, > of which m<n of those non-basic sectors are inputs to the bean sector. > In which case, beans are indirectly required for their own production. > > The bean producers buy the m non-basics as inputs in the market. Is it > the "imputed price" or the "market price" of beans that indirectly > appears as a part of the cost of those inputs? > > -Ian. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 07 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT