>Yes. MS's monopoly is not a source of surplus value; it effects
>a redistribution of sv.
>
Chai-on: Well, if the MS programme contributes to the reduction of the
unproductive cost of the economy, e.g. the bookeeping costs, personnel
management costs, etc. MS's profit does not reduce but increases the
surplus value that is left for the other capitalists. Presuming that the
capitalists and others are reasonable enough to use the programme only when
it contributes to the reduction of the productive and unproductive costs.
Yours,
PS: Sorry to have been away for long time. BTW how is the system so
different? One is from [ope-l], the other is from just another?
Chai-on
>> B. Does Microsoft's monopoly rent mean that there is a redistribution of
>> income derived from surplus value and profit away from other
>> capitalists to Microsoft and Bill Gates because capitalists *as
>> individual consumers* are paying higher prices for computers and
>> related equipment?
>
>I don't know. Does it matter? Do you have a hypothesis?
>
>> C. If workers *as consumers* pay this rent, doesn't this mean that the
>> real wage and standard of living of workers is thereby lowered?
>
>I suspect that purchase of software is a trivial proportion of
>the "wage-bundle". But in general I don't buy the argument
>(Baran and Sweezy made it) that product-market monopoly is a
>means whereby the capitalists can drive down the real wage. It
>ought to be the bargaining power of capitalists vis-a-vis
>workers, not vis-a-vis other capitalists, that matters.
>
>BTW, strike a blow against the MS monopoly anyway! Run Linux!
>
>Allin Cottrell.
>
>
>