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

From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 00:55:49 EDT

I thought you might be on to something but this example makes me
wonder. Clearly, a good deal of labour and other resources go into
the production of racing horses - just ask the trainers. Production
of race horse stock also requires much labour and resources - just
ask the breeders. In these circumstances, why would the rate of
profit in the industry be set by the natural reproduction rate of
horses? If this is a good example, then surely pedigree domestic pets
would be another. Would the rate of profit of domestic rabbits
necessarily be different from the rate of profit of domestic dogs?
(or cats?)

>On 9/22/05, Ian Wright <<>> wrote:
>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?
>For precision, I should have said "yes", except the race-horse
>"sector" produces at a rate *lower* than what can be achieved in the
>basic sector.

Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Dept  of Philosophy, School of Humanities,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Flinders University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT