Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics

From: Ian Wright (iwright@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 22:54:46 EDT

> Would, say, race horses count as an example of self-reproducing
> non-basics? And is the problem that (say) it might be the case that
> the reproduction rate of race horses implies a rate of profit in
> excess of what can be achieved in the basic sector, so that one
> can't have a uniform rate of profit without shenanigans?

Yes. But this has nothing to do with luxury goods consumed only by the rich.
Self-reproducing non-basics could just as well be commodities that are
consumed only by workers. Nor, of course, does it imply the genetic meaning
of "self-reproducing".

Here's a quote from PCMC:
"Consider a commodity which enters to an unusually large extent into the
production of itself. It may be imagined to be come crop such as a species
of beans or of corn the wastage on which is so great that for every 100
units sown no more than 110 are reaped. It is clear that this would not
admit of a rate of profits higher than, or indeed, since other means of
production must be used as well, as high as, 10%.

"If the product in question is a basic one there is no problem; it simply
means that the Maximum rate of profits of the system will have to be less
than 10%.

If however it is a non-basic product, complications arise ..." etc.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 27 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT