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?
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 generally,
Jim wrote:
“This process can be seen on the micro-level in airlines. Back in the "bad
old days" of the 1960s, that industry was organized by a
government-sponsored cartel called the Civil Aeronautics Board (that was
established to create the airline system). It was abolished in the late
1970s
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
For data on comparative pricing out of hubs, see "How to Beat Sky High
Fares," Consumer Reports 62 (6): 21-25, July, 1997, which found
that airports where one or two carriers fly from 75% of their gates
have substantially higher fares than airports in which the gates are more
even distributed.
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, Naomi
Joel Blau wrote:
For data on comparative pricing out of hubs, see "How to Beat Sky
High Fares," Consumer Reports 62 (6): 21-25, July, 1997, which found
that airports where one or two carriers fly from 75% of their gates
have substantially higher fares than airports in which the gates are
All this Krugmania re: rent control has overlooked one point --
this is a very tired subject for a column. Where's the news
hook? There's hardly any. We're getting Paul's Lessons in
Elementary Economics in the guise of a column. What a bore.
mbs
June 7, 2000 / New York TIMES
RECKONINGS /
Max Sawicky wrote:
All this Krugmania re: rent control has overlooked one point --
this is a very tired subject for a column. Where's the news
hook? There's hardly any. We're getting Paul's Lessons in
Elementary Economics in the guise of a column. What a bore.
I think the news hook was that
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
Gordon has worked closely with the airlines for some time. I believe
that he used to work with United.
Doug Henwood wrote:
Joel Blau wrote:
For data on comparative pricing out of hubs, see "How to Beat Sky
High Fares," Consumer Reports 62 (6): 21-25, July, 1997, which found
that airports
The following letter has been sent by Dr. Wendy Shaw (Department of
Near Eastern Languages and Cultures) to OSU President William "Brit"
Kirwan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Provost Ed Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), urging
them to drop the charges pressed against the four guests of a
graduating student
Michael Perelman wrote:
Gordon has worked closely with the airlines for some time. I believe
that he used to work with United.
The Northwest Airlines mag with Gordon's article has a sidebar
profile of him that's a real blow job, as we say in the j'ism trade.
Doug
I would suggest that phenomena like Nike and Microsoft ALSO elude economic
analysis (in terms of "intellectual property" or monopoly) and cry out for
a critical reading as pathological cultural phenomena -- a neurotic
obsessive-compulsive disorder on a mass scale . . . a vast carnival of
Timework Web wrote:
I would suggest that phenomena like Nike and Microsoft ALSO elude economic
analysis (in terms of "intellectual property" or monopoly) and cry out for
a critical reading as pathological cultural phenomena -- a neurotic
obsessive-compulsive disorder on a mass scale . . . a vast
At 12:28 PM 06/10/2000 -0700, you wrote:
All this Krugmania re: rent control has overlooked one point --
this is a very tired subject for a column. Where's the news
hook? There's hardly any. We're getting Paul's Lessons in
Elementary Economics in the guise of a column. What a bore.
part of
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 indeed
Jim Devine wrote:
When I knew him well, he
almost worshiped the NYT.
No nastier remark has ever appeared on pen-l.
:-)
Carrol
Doug Henwood wrote:
She also describes branding as a kind of collective hallucination.
Those who suffer from hallucinations generally know that the hallucination
is one even when they cannot resist having it. Friends who suffer from
"voices" speak fairly casually of attempts to ignore them.
--- Sponsor's Message --
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Apply NOW!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.topica.com/lwbz8SnrbAjwjxa/NextCard2
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20100] As the fetish implodes
Greetings Economists,
Timework (aka Tom Walker) writes,
Walker,
I would suggest that phenomena like Nike and Microsoft ALSO elude economic
analysis (in terms of intellectual property or monopoly) and cry out for
a critical reading as
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 seemed
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20107] Re: As the fetish implodes
I just don't get this stuff, Doyle. To say obsessive-compulsive disorders are bad is not to say that people stricken with it are bad. If I call brand-marketing a cancer in society, I'm hardly criticising people with cancer, am I? And the
23 matches
Mail list logo
