yeah, I know. But there have been some efforts. For example, Baumol once said that "normal" profits were set by the interest rate, since the alternative to being engaged in real production was to buy bonds. The problem, of course, is that there's no NC reason -- except hand-waving -- for the real interest rate to be positive.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, michael perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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
