[OPE-L:8100] 'Testing Marx'

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 09:38:33 EST

Andy, responding to Paul  C, in  [8096] wrote:

> Re your 8093.
> > > (1) I would be very interested to know your theoretical explanation
> > > for the correlations that you obtain.
> > This is a very difficult question.
> > At one level I would explain it by saying that labour is
> > overwhelmingly the main non-produced input to capitalist commodities,
> > and as such it will tend to drive the price system. It is the signal
> > that shows through the noise of random market fluctuations.
> Do you mean that wages are more stable than other major costs 
> due to the fact that labour-power is non-produced?

The article by Paul and Allin, "Does Marx Need To Transform?"
(http://www.wfu.edu/~cottrell/vol3.pdf), used input-output data for
the UK economy in 1984  (published in 1988).   It is not surprising that
wages were more 'stable' than the prices of other commodities during
that year.  Remember  Margaret Thatcher? (boo! hiss!)  In the US, also, 
wages were relatively flat do in large part to the 'concessions movement' 
initiated by capital.   Here we had Maggie's evil twin brother Ronald
Reagan (boo! hiss!) as President and Neo-Liberalism was on the 
ascendancy internationally.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 05 2002 - 00:00:00 EST