Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take onCompetition
Doug, how about the owners' of genes? What if Amazon's patents hold? It could actually become a profitable company perhaps. As for Nike, it only owns a brand. Brand's are susceptible to the sort of attacks that the anti-sweatshop people have made. I think that that movement cut into their profits. Doug Henwood wrote: And Nike doesn't earn an extraordinary profit. So I'm waiting for more examples besides Microsoft, whose days as monopolist may be numbered. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take onCompetition
Michael P. wrote: how about the owners' of genes? What if Amazon's patents hold? It could actually become a profitable company perhaps. 1) how big are the profits of the companies that hold IP compared to those that don't? 2) how does the pricing power of companies that have IP depress real wages relative to labor productivity and therefore increase the aggregate rate of exploitation (rate or surplus-value)? Are these companies large enough compared to the total market to have this effect? 3) have we reached the stage of the discussion where it's best to agree to disagree? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
