I wrote:
> > Rather, as part of the price-wage spiral that characterizes inflationary
> > persistence in the face of low demand, I'd say that it's the _lack of_
> > price competition (i.e., price-setting power) that represents capital's
> > contribution to the dynamic.
and
> > Industry-level Phill
Jim Devine wrote:
> Rather, as part of the price-wage spiral that characterizes inflationary
> persistence in the face of low demand, I'd say that it's the _lack of_
> price competition (i.e., price-setting power) that represents capital's
> contribution to the dynamic.
. . .
> Industry-level
I wrote:
> > I would say instead that price competition plays a significantly
> > _larger_ role than it did 30 years ago.
and that
> > Further, I think that one of the reasons why inflation has been rather
> > restrained during the last few years in the face of relatively low
> > unemployment is t
Jim Devine wrote,
> I would say instead that price competition plays a significantly
> _larger_ role than it did 30 years ago.
- snip -
> Further, I think that one of the reasons why inflation has been rather
> restrained during the last few years in the
At 10:12 PM 6/4/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
> >the Nike issue is about high prices rather than rising prices
> >(inflation).
>
>No. The Nike issue is about whether prices relate to labour costs.
that's what I said.
> >Nike is able to charge a high price (relative to costs) at this
Jim Devine wrote:
>the Nike issue is about high prices rather than rising prices
>(inflation).
No. The Nike issue is about whether prices relate to labour costs.
>Nike is able to charge a high price (relative to costs) at this point of
>history because it has monopoly power.
Not exactly. There
At 06:25 AM 06/04/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm not sure how much weight to give any story about prices,
>though, in a world (this one) where competition doesn't necessarily mean
>price competition. Rising labor costs surely don't underlie the high price
>of Nike running shoes.
the Nike issue is ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/4/00 12:06:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> << why should shoplifting cause a rise in prices? That would
> imply that before the rise in shoplifting the store was not charging
> as high a price as it could have. I' >>
In a message dated 6/4/00 12:06:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< why should shoplifting cause a rise in prices? That would
imply that before the rise in shoplifting the store was not charging
as high a price as it could have. I' >>
If there was significant loss due to
Timework Web wrote:
> Gene Coyle asked,
>
> I'm not sure how much weight to give any story about prices,
> though, in a world (this one) where competition doesn't necessarily mean
> price competition. Rising labor costs surely don't underlie the high price
> of Nike running shoes.
I would lik
Gene Coyle asked,
>My question is this: If "international competition conditions allow" them
>to raise prices, why don't they? I. e. why wait for the excuse and/or the
>pressure to raise prices? What businesses live for is raising prices --
>they don't hang back. I've never understood this "r
>{Eugene] pulled two sentences out of Jim's long post, but you can also
>find them in context below.
>Jim wrote:
>>
>>If conditions of
>>international competition and the like allow it, then the bosses try to
>>compensate for rising unit labor costs (nominal wage & benefits
>> divided b
Jim Devine wrote:
[snip]
>I agree (if I understand correctly).
It looks like we're singing from the same hymn book (or at least we're
singing the same hymn from different books). A toast to the screen with
my glass of single malt. Now who's going to tell big Al the bad news?
Tom Walker
I've pulled two sentences out of Jim's long post, but you can also find
them in context below.
Jim wrote:
If conditions of
international competition and the like allow it, then the bosses try to
compensate for rising unit labor costs (nominal wage & benefits divided by
average labor
Tom wrote:
>... My one hesitation (as usual) is the phillips curve assumption, which I
>would qualify as one possibility among several. Perhaps the phillips curve
>represents a view of the macro-economy as an aggregation of
>micro-economics units.
(1) Nothing I said says that the Phillips Curv
Jim Devine wrote:
> Yes, accelerating inflation in the face of recession is quite possible. (1)
> We've already seen a little bit and it may have gained momentum; while (2)
> if the US dollar falls in value, as it should eventually due to the
> current-account deficit, that unleashes the Phillips
I wrote:
> > what Alan G. and the Feds want. They hope, of course, that the US
> economy will attain the Holy Grail of monetary policy, "the soft landing"
> (a slower, but not negative, GDP growth rate). I don't know if they're
> conscious of the possibilities for a "hard landing" or worse res
Jim Devine wrote:
> what Alan G. and the Feds want. They hope, of course, that the US economy
> will attain the Holy Grail of monetary policy, "the soft landing" (a
> slower, but not negative, GDP growth rate). I don't know if they're
> conscious of the possibilities for a "hard landing" or worse
18 matches
Mail list logo
