It's been a very long time since I read James Becker, so I'll ignore him. On 8/12/07, Jon Baranov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The basic mechanism behind unequal exchange is clear - prices must deviate > from values to make for equal rates of return.
right. Usually, the price/value deviation results from technical differences between industries. To Emmanuel, this is "normal" unequal exchange, which has no impact on the theory of uneven development. However, it the Center has higher organic compositions (OCC) of capital than the Periphery does, that means that the Center has to be paid more dollars per unit of value (labor-time) -- a higher price/value ratio -- than the Periphery gets in order to compensate the Center for the fact that its high OCC implies a low value rate of profit. This might be seen as rewarding the Center disproportionately. The Center is able to get more "claims on value" (money) than the value it contributes to the global pool of value. Or think dynamically. Assuming that there is no change in the OCC in the Periphery, this unequal exchange may be seen as meaning that the presumed fall in the value rate of profit over time in the Center is counteracted by "value transfers" (i.e., increasing payment of money per unit of value to the Center). This says that the Center would be benefiting from rising price/value ratios: it's getting more and more claims on value relative to what it contributes to the global pool of value. > But I want to understand how > that translates into unequal exchange between expensive and cheap labor. > Of course firms that hire skilled labor will have higher Constant/Variable > capital ratios because it takes a lot of capital to impart skills and > therefore will charge higher prices for their products to ensure an average > rate of return. Is that all there is to unequal exchange between different > grades of labor or did I miss something? the idea of "unequal exchange" (of Emmanuel, Amin, _et al_) is not about skill differences among workers. It's about different wages for (assumed) equivalent workers; it's about an abstract story involving abstract labor. It's more appropriate to think about differences in the rate of surplus value (which reflects the ratio of labor productivity to the real wage). Usually, it's presumed that the rate of surplus-value (RSV) is higher in the Periphery than in the Center (though that may not be true, since productivity is (or was) so high in the Center). Ignoring any differences in the OCC between Center and Periphery, the higher RSV in the Periphery implies again that the Center has a lower value rate of profit. Thus, its money price per value ratio has to be higher than the Periphery's to compensate the Center for its low value rate of profit. Again, the Center has more claims on the world pool of surplus-value than it contributes. Of course, these exercises are almost (if not completely) tautological. What's important is the political economy behind the determination of the OCCs and the RSVs. I hope this helps. If there are any value experts in the house (Fred Moseley?) I'd like to see your comments on the above. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
