Dennis, you are exactly on target. Rambus has the advantage of IP
protection. Since it will be incorporated by Intel into its design, the
sort of commodification that occurred with RAM probably will not repeat
itself. I suspect that the fear of Rambus explains the hesitancy to
produce more RAM
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Michael Perelman wrote:
> DRAM is not protected by IP. It is regarded as a commodity, like wheat or
> soybeans. A processor chip is protected.
This may be changing, though -- new and more complex types of DRAM, like
Rambus' RDRAM, are indeed protected by IP agreements. Tos
G'day all,
Sed Doug:
>> Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the
>> profit rate,
To which Carrol responded:
>>I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from
>>having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it
>>increase the whole pro
Brad De Long wrote:
>>And Nike doesn't earn an extraordinary profit.
>>Doug
>
>It doesn't?
NKE:
Income Statements
Sales (ttm) $8.90B
EBITDA (ttm)$1.13B
Income available to common (ttm)$547.5M
Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm) 6.1%
Operating Margin (ttm) 9.9%
MSFT:
Income St
Anthony, I suspect that a small fraction of IP is a new way of doing/making
something. It includes copyrights, brand names, patents on ways of doing
business [which is usually not new at all]
Anthony D'Costa wrote:
> I had in mind IP as "new ways of making/doing things." Specifically,
> manufa
Or the absence of B allows A to rip off an enormous amount.
Anthony D'Costa wrote:
> In the aggregate, Capitalists A and B can increase profits (as a share of
> total costs?) because of IP. It's not A ripping B but both A and B
> ripping everybody else.
>
> x
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > But what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate
> > "knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to
> > technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for
> > more IP. The reason
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>
>> Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized)
>> was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and
>> software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and
>> "technological
The difference between Nike and Morton is that stores will only sport shoe stores
only sell products that are heavily advertised. Go to an athletic shoe store.
Try to find something other than Nike, Reebock, Even New Balance only sells
running shoes.
Last time I hurt my foot on the court,
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized)
> was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and
> software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and
> "technological strength."
A point I raise
Anthony wrote:
> But what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate
> "knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to
> technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for
> more IP. The reason is competition is built on technological strength
Because Capitalist A, facing little or no competition, can earn more than
Capitalists A and B together.
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the
> > profit rate,
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalis
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the
> profit rate,
I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from
having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it
increase the whole profit of Capitalist A + Capitalist B?
C
Anthony D'Costa wrote:
>IP can raise the profit rate, complementing the weakness of labor. But
>what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate
>"knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to
>technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for
>m
First of all, I want to thank everybody who has responded to this. It has been very
useful to me.
There are enormous differences in the rate at which IP information dissipates.
Copyrights now last 70 years. Patents, 20. Patents used to be given for processes
in the production of chemicals, now
IP can raise the profit rate, complementing the weakness of labor. But
what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate
"knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to
technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for
more IP. The reason is compet
Again, IP is not the sole determinant. You might say, if you were to imagine an
IP-only explanation, that it fueled the stock market boom, which allowed wages and
profits to both increase. Again, we don't have the data, but the rising wages
would be consistent with a higher rate of exploitation.
At 03:05 PM 6/15/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Economics is only disguised political theory. Neither rent nor
>intellectual property can exist without the presence of an armed state.
>Hence they are in material reality a gift from the state to particular
>individuals.
can _capitalism_ exist without th
Michael Perelman wrote:
> I thought that I answered this before using the logic that I find
> reading LBO. To the extent that intellectual property protection
> confers the ability to mark up goods, workers must labor more hours to
> buy the same goods, leaving more hours available for surplus
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I have never denied the effect of the weakening of labor. I am
>merely stating that
>IP represents an additional force, which is becoming stronger, just
>as capital may
>have pushed labor down in the US as far as it can go -- the last thought is a
>speculation, not ev
I have never denied the effect of the weakening of labor. I am merely stating that
IP represents an additional force, which is becoming stronger, just as capital may
have pushed labor down in the US as far as it can go -- the last thought is a
speculation, not even a firm belief.
Doug Henwood w
I thought that I answered this before using the logic that I find
reading LBO. To the extent that intellectual property protection
confers the ability to mark up goods, workers must labor more hours to
buy the same goods, leaving more hours available for surplus value.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Bra
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Let me start out by saying that I have no doubt that intellectual property
>increases surplus value, just as if the entire economy consisted of
>a region, such
>as San Francisco, which experienced a rapid increase in rents, surplus value
>increased relative to what goes
Let me start out by saying that I have no doubt that intellectual property
increases surplus value, just as if the entire economy consisted of a region, such
as San Francisco, which experienced a rapid increase in rents, surplus value
increased relative to what goes to labor.
Doug asks for proof.
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I agree with Jim's first point.
>
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. Actually, I'd _agree totally_ with Doug's statement -- unless the rise
>> of IP has changed the ability of capitalists to depress real wages via
>> monopoly pricing (i.e., unless somehow the rise of IP str
Brad De Long wrote:
>IP protections can create value; IP protections can destroy value;
>they can raise the profit rate; they can raise or lower the real
>wage...
How can they raise the overall profit rate? Obviously they can raise
individual profit rates, but by what mechanism do they boost
I agree with Jim's first point.
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> 1. Actually, I'd _agree totally_ with Doug's statement -- unless the rise
> of IP has changed the ability of capitalists to depress real wages via
> monopoly pricing (i.e., unless somehow the rise of IP strengthened the hand
> of capital in i
I wrote: >>>Marx's "law of value" is first and foremost NOT a theory of
prices.<<<
Brad ripostes: >I was responding to Doug Henwood's statement that: >>Any
sense of how representative these sorts of goods are? I'd guess that gains
from IP [intellectual property] are merely redistributions of S
I would argue that it was, since the object was merely a formal algebraic
transformation.
I wrote about my interepretation of value theory recently in the Cambridge J. of Econ.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So the whole transformation problem was a big mistake?
>
> --jks
>
> In a message dated Tu
So the whole transformation problem was a big mistake?
--jks
In a message dated Tue, 13 Jun 2000 4:43:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael
Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Brad, Joan Robinson used to write the same thing. Just forget about
prices. If the goal of value theory were ju
Brad, Joan Robinson used to write the same thing. Just forget about
prices. If the goal of value theory were just to do some sort of
accounting and nothing more, then value would not be a much use at all.
The purpose of value theory is something else. It is to understand,
first and foremost, ho
>
>It's hard to say that Marx's "law of value" is "not true" if one
>doesn't understand it, just as it's hard to say that it's "true" if
>one doesn't understand it. In fact, I think there's a lot of
>questions about what "it" is. One thing is that the "LTV" does _not_
>assert is that "average
Yes, but the expression, labor theory of value, was not used by Marx. It
comes later. The expression itself give a sense of a fairly mechanistic
analysis. It lends itself to just adding up C + V+ S. Marx's theory was not
mechanistic.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> He used _relative surplus value
He used _relative surplus value_ and _absolute surplus value_..
aren't these parts of LTV by definition?
Mine
>Brad, Marx's theory of value is not nearly as mechanistic as you make it
>out to be. In fact, he never used the term, LTV. Meek and Dobb and some
>other interpreters presented the L
No necessity to talk about the factory floor. The product of intellectual labour
(i.e., intellectual property) does have value. But it is the intellectual labour
which creates value not the intellectual property. Changes in intellectual property
enforcement change the incentives of the intellectua
Brad, Marx's theory of value is not nearly as mechanistic as you make it out to
be. In fact, he never used the term, LTV. Meek and Dobb and some other
interpreters presented the LTV as a mere expansion on Ricardo. I suspect that you
already know this, but like to act as a curmudgeon.
> The arg
>Brad, I am too dense to know when you are serious. I don't even know who Will
>Robinson is.
A pop culture reference to "Lost in Space": think of it as the
modern-day equivalent of a gratuitous: "hic rhodus, hic salta!"
>
>I assume that you know that most people here know that "average market
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/13/00 11:45AM >>>
>>Michael Perelman wrote:
>>>Jim also mentioned that wages are falling relative to labor
>>>productivity. I associate this trend with intellectual property as
>>>well. Labor productivity increases with the ability to mark goods up --
>>Michael Perelman wrote:
>>>Jim also mentioned that wages are falling relative to labor
>>>productivity. I associate this trend with intellectual property as
>>>well. Labor productivity increases with the ability to mark goods up --
>>>Nike shoes are an excellent example, but the same holds
. . . I don't undeerstand what you mean about IP creating/not creating
value.
Maybe he means that IP can devalue pre-existing IP
and reduce revenues and, consequently, rents and
measured labor productivity.
Also, when IP becomes sufficiently ubiquitous and
commodified (i.e., "Xerox"), the impli
Brad, I am too dense to know when you are serious. I don't even know who Will
Robinson is.
I assume that you know that most people here know that "average market prices
are *not* labor values" and that that fact does not invalidate what most
people mean by the LTV.
I don't undeerstand what you
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>>Jim also mentioned that wages are falling relative to labor
>>productivity. I associate this trend with intellectual property as
>>well. Labor productivity increases with the ability to mark goods up --
>>Nike shoes are an excellent example, but the same holds for Mi
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/10/00 12:26PM >>>
In a message dated 6/9/00 6:53:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< don't think that I as suggesting that the origin of profit is in
exchange, but
in an economy dominated by monopolies profits will be higher than in a
compet
At 12:25 PM 06/11/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
> in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
> of the
In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
of the waterfall_ but not for society as a whole. On
M. Parelman wrote:
>The forces tending to increase competition in the United States were
>deregulation, as Jim mentioned, and the pressure from imports. The
>forces
>tending to diminish competition were intellectual property, mergers, and
>possibly government contracting. In fact, as Jim seem
><< don't think that I as suggesting that the origin of profit is in
>exchange, but in an economy dominated by monopolies profits will be
>higher than in a competitive economy, ceterus paribus. >>
justin writes:
>But doesn't that mean that the origin of SOME profit is in exchange,a s
>Marx
In a message dated 6/9/00 6:53:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< don't think that I as suggesting that the origin of profit is in
exchange, but
in an economy dominated by monopolies profits will be higher than in a
competitive economy, ceterus paribus. >>
But doesn't
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Doug, I am sorry if I gave the impression I thought that IP was the
>only factor
>at work. I would not deny the importance of any of the factors that you
>mentioned. I would only add that the increasing markup over cost does work to
>lower the real wage.
In No Logo, N
Doug, I am sorry if I gave the impression I thought that IP was the only factor
at work. I would not deny the importance of any of the factors that you
mentioned. I would only add that the increasing markup over cost does work to
lower the real wage.
By the way, I very much appreciated your cri
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Carrol, you are partially correct. Yes, some profits/surplus value will be
>transferred to the owners of the organges. To see the problem that
>I am considering
>go back to Marx's idea of looking at the working class in its
>entirity. As the
>mark-ups increase genera
On Carrol's example ...
>A nationwide frenzy to buy and trash navel oranges develops. Suddenly
>the price of navel oranges shoots up. The profits of the wholesalers who
>currently hold most of the crop certainly shoots up. But no extra value is
>created. So where does that extra profit come from?
Carrol, you are partially correct. Yes, some profits/surplus value will be
transferred to the owners of the organges. To see the problem that I am considering
go back to Marx's idea of looking at the working class in its entirity. As the
mark-ups increase generally, workers give more hours (i.e
Michael Perelman wrote:
> Suppose each good
> experiences an increased markup, while nominal wages remain unchanged. What
> workers end up with shrinks and surplus increases. Maybe I'm just missing your
> point.
The point in dispute concerns the conditions under which only *some* goods
exp
Of course, neither Nike nor MSFT by itself is representative. I seem to
recall that Nike has not been doing nearly as well lately, but I don't
follow the business press.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> >But given the over-all rate of profit (determined largely by the
> >state of cla
These is a dialectical relation, but there was something else going on in
the last thirty years. For instance, in the auto industry. The big three had
a oligopolistic situation in North America. The entrance of the Japanese
firms in the 1970s increased the competition. But now in the world auto
in
Jim Devine wrote:
>But given the over-all rate of profit (determined largely by the
>state of class relations, which determines the profit share of
>output, along with the overall output/capital ratio), the
>above-average profit rates of the old US Steel or the new MS (or
>Nike) correspond to
Michael Perelman wrote:
> I do not believe that Nike's strength nearly transfers surplus value from
> Reebok. In fact, I go back to the old economics of the '50s and '60s that
> paid some attention to the role of markups in the distribution of income.
> When Nike mark up its shoes and people f
Jim shows the an excellent understanding of what I have been imperfectly
attempting to express. I agree that I have no proof that the rise of
intellectual property has been sufficient to increase the average rate of
profit, even though I'm convinced that I'm correct in this respect. Jim's post
Doug wrote:
>Any sense of how representative these sorts of goods are? I'd guess that
>gains from IP are merely redistributions of SV - it can't explain an
>increase in the profit rate in the macroecomy. Nike's gain is some other
>capitalist's loss, no?
As I understand Michael's point, he's hi
I don't think that I as suggesting that the origin of profit is in exchange, but
in an economy dominated by monopolies profits will be higher than in a
competitive economy, ceterus paribus.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> First, doesn't this theorize the origin of profit in exchange rather
> than producti
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Doug, you often use the semi-Marxist measure in your popular writing of
>estimating how many hours someone would have to work to buy a particular
>commodity. Think of the markups in the following way. Suppose each good
>experiences an increased markup, while nominal wag
Doug, you often use the semi-Marxist measure in your popular writing of
estimating how many hours someone would have to work to buy a particular
commodity. Think of the markups in the following way. Suppose each good
experiences an increased markup, while nominal wages remain unchanged. What
wo
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I do not believe that Nike's strength nearly transfers surplus value from
>Reebok. In fact, I go back to the old economics of the '50s and '60s that
>paid some attention to the role of markups in the distribution of income.
>When Nike mark up its shoes and people feel co
Doug, I am not sure how representative those goods are, but I think that
class would include most of the so-called new economy as well as the strong
brands.
I do not believe that Nike's strength nearly transfers surplus value from
Reebok. In fact, I go back to the old economics of the '50s and '
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Jim also mentioned that wages are falling relative to labor
>productivity. I associate this trend with intellectual property as
>well. Labor productivity increases with the ability to mark goods up --
>Nike shoes are an excellent example, but the same holds for Microsof
For the first of all, I want to thank Tom and Gene for starting this
thread. It's been a long time since we had any conversations about the
economy here. I was getting fairly frustrated with the content of this
list.
The forces tending to increase competition in the United States were
deregulat
67 matches
Mail list logo
