Re: [OPE-L] various

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 19:33:23 EDT

exactly... the arguments centre immediately upon the implications for the
mass and rate of surplus value. That's economics for me.

The recent creation of a minimum wage here in Britain was preceded for years
by the  'lament over profits',
and the EU attempt to fix a max working week ( the so called 'social model')
was opted out of in practice by the same sort of appeal, PLUS arguments over
reduction in 'flexibility' of production,  infringement of civil liberty (
restricted freedom to sell use of labour power), 'pricing' of small
businesses out of business,  and a few other obvious points. There seem to
me to be no ( fortunately) 'sophisticated' indifference curve approaches to
muddy the water...


paul bl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] various

> When I said that no economists gave an economic reason, I was thinking of
> reasoning.  Just to say that it would cut into profits -- or even
eliminate them -- does
> not seem to be more than standard business-talk.
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:04:30AM +0100, Paul Bullock wrote:
> > Well, Senior of course, as per Vol 1 Capital
> >
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 05 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT