Tavis Barr wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote: > > > I do not have a precise definition of competitiveness. I do have an > > understanding about what it means. Most industries have low marginal > > and high fixed costs. Under competitive conditions, they would lose > > money. Profits, in effect, are a sign of weak competition. > > > > Is that the sort of answer that you wanted? > > I guess so. It just begs a lot of questions. Essentially it defines > low-profit periods as high-competition periods and vice versa. Okay, > but what has created this competition? Is it because capitals are > finding that new markets don't exist so they go after existing ones? I believe that >competition [low profit periods] will "naturally" [within the unnatural context of >capitalism] will naturally happen unless collusion or the state prevent it from >happening, although serendipitious events [a new gold discovery, new technology, >etc.] can temporarily stave off the inevitable. I regard Keynesian type demand management as a method of limiting competition. I can amplify on that notion if you want. Is > it, conversely, because firms are expanding their horizons to different > countries? Is it because accumulation, and the need to invest > accumulated assets, has made new firms willing to enter at a lower profit > rate? And, given any of these explanations, what is one to make of the > current profit boom? And is any of these hypotheses in contradiction to > a pattern of increasing concentration? Enquiring minds wanna know. > > May the last bureaucrat be hung by the entrails of the last capitalist, > Tavis -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
