From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 11:41:18 EST
Allin wrote: >On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >>What Samuelson and Steedman emphasize is that the quantitative >>allocation of social labor time is determined by the techniques >>of production... But once we have the techniques of production >>in terms of which the allocation of social labor time is >>ultimately determined, it could be argued, prices and profits >>can be determined without any reference to values. > >(I know you're not agreeing with this point of view.) My point of >criticism of this argument is that "technical conditions" suffice >to determine prices _only on the counterfactual assumption of an >equal rate of profit_. A robust labour theory of value does not >depend on that assumption. I certainly agree with this assumption. I am wondering also whether certain branches of production enjoy monopoly profits--that is, the rate of profit does not equalize across branches. Thinking here of James Galbraith's ideas about technologically advanced capital goods production (microprocessors, medical equipment, machines for wafer fabs, key parts of aircraft production, etc). His idea seemed to be that some of the extra profit does not appear as such but trickles down to the employees in much higher than average compensation. If this is a feature of an advanced capitalism, then we shouldn't be saddled with the counterfactual assumption of an equal rate of profit? Rakesh >Allin Cottrell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 02 2006 - 00:00:04 EST