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 compelled to buy them, that
>markups represents a subtraction from the real income of the purchasers.
Which means less available to spend on other items (e.g., commodity
goods). Maybe my much-doubted Marxism is showing, but I don't see how
this could explain the movements in the aggregate profit rate, which
would be governed by the state of K-L relations.
Doug
