Re: [OPE-L] various

[Paul Bullock <paulbullock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,
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...

Cheers

paul bl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
theoretical
> 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 ecst.csuchico.edu
>
>