Jon Baranov wrote: > > > The basic mechanism behind unequal exchange is clear - prices must deviate > > > from values to make for equal rates of return.
me: > >right. Mike Lebowitz: > Only if rates of exploitation are equal--- but the mechanism for this? for Marx, the mechanism for equalizing rates of exploitation was Smith's "compensating wage differentials." That theory is wrong, but then again, rates of profit never fully equalize either. me: > >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). Mike: > And, if RSV and OCC are correlated (via the technical composition of > capital)? if they are, then there's no unequal exchange. Or the unequal exchange resulting from RSV differences is canceled out by that resulting from OCC differences. Mike: > And assumptions about labour mobility, worker strength, > etc? Truly little else but tautological identities masquerading as theory! that's why I wrote: >>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.<< -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
