Jim Devine wrote:
>the Nike issue is about high prices rather than rising prices
>(inflation).
No. The Nike issue is about whether prices relate to labour costs.
>Nike is able to charge a high price (relative to costs) at this point of
>history because it has monopoly power.
Not exactly. There are lots of other running shoes on the market. True,
Nike has a monopoly on *Nike* running shoes. . .
>US capitalists are extremely competitive these days -- and struggling to
>re-attain secure positions.)
Being extremely competitive is not the same thing as PRICE competition. US
capitalists also compete through product innovation, differentiation and
advertising. If you have any data that suggests US capitalists
*overwhelmingly* compete through price, I'd love to see it. Anecdotally,
the stories tend to run in the other direction. Why are these smart people
spending so many billions of dollars on advertising when all they've got
to do is lop a few pennies off their price tags?
Tom Walker
