Doug, you often use the semi-Marxist measure in your popular writing of
estimating how many hours someone would have to work to buy a particular
commodity. Think of the markups in the following way. Suppose each good
experiences an increased markup, while nominal wages remain unchanged. What
workers end up with shrinks and surplus increases. Maybe I'm just missing your
point.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >I do not believe that Nike's strength nearly transfers surplus value from
> >Reebok. In fact, I go back to the old economics of the '50s and '60s that
> >paid some attention to the role of markups in the distribution of income.
> >When Nike mark up its shoes and people feel compelled to buy them, that
> >markups represents a subtraction from the real income of the purchasers.
>
> Which means less available to spend on other items (e.g., commodity
> goods). Maybe my much-doubted Marxism is showing, but I don't see how
> this could explain the movements in the aggregate profit rate, which
> would be governed by the state of K-L relations.
>
> Doug
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
