me: > "Howard Sherman's research suggests persistent differences between > profit rates between sectors, while Shaikh, Glick, and others see the > differences as transitory. I think the latter research has been better > (partly because it came later), but it's possible that there was a > period during the 1950s and 1960s when there was a persistent > difference in profit rates between sectors."
nathan tankus wrote: > This seems like a misinterpretation to me. Shaikh et al haven't argued > (to my knowledge) that the profit rates actually equalize: they argue > that there is a tendency to equalization that is constantly blocked by > factors such as technological change, shifts in the social division of > labor, restrictions on capital flows etc. I'm agnostic on whether they > are right or not although I think they are correct that imperfect, > monopolisticly competitive, monopoly capital etc theories are bunk. I think you misinterpreted me and that we agree. By "transitory," I was referring only to the persistent differences that Sherman found. Any profit-rate equality between sectors that's actually attained is _also_ transitory (as far as Shaikh et al are concerned -- and I agree). There's a tendency toward profit-rate equalization but there are also counter-tendencies and blockages. (This differs from the monopoly capital theory, in which the blockages are presumed to persist for the foreseeable future.) I don't think that Shaikh's analysis knocks down the theory of monopolistic competition (i.e., the view that because different firms produce different products, each faces as slightly downward-sloping demand curve for its individual product, i.e., has slight pricing power). Rather, it knocks down the idea that such markets ever see persistent equilibrium (with the firm's demand curve tangent to its average cost curve). Both the demand and cost curves are always shifting. Similarly, oligopolistic rivalry models aren't "bunk" as much as showing mere snap-shots of a dynamic-disequilibrium process. The Monopoly Capital theory of Baran and Sweezy is bunk (IMHO), especially the one presented by Baran in his POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH. It's possible that "monopoly capital" (or rather the "dual economy" with a competitive sector) was an okay _description_ of the dominant market structure in the U.S. from the 1950s to the 1960s. (It's also seen in Institutionalist work such as that of J.K. Galbraith.) The big problem with the theory was that this description was seen as _permanent_. Instead, if it existed, monopoly capitalism was a temporary phenomenon, one undermined by international competition and other events, many of which reflected the normal workings of capitalism. (I know that this point is irrelevant to the current discussion, but I think Sweezy was wrong that the existence of monopoly meant that Marx's law of value didn't apply. Marx's law of value is not a theory of prices.) -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
