Because the theory implies that profit should tend toward 0, the existence of profit creates a problem. The solution is to wave your hands and say normal profit -- I am surprised that they do not give it a more scientific term, "natural".
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone know of an article (or book) that argues that "the > neoclassical theory of normal profits explains why they equalize > between markets but not why they are positive"? I know that it's a > common assertion among Marxian political economists (and true), but > has anyone argued for it at length? > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
