My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall and output prices stay constant, profits rise.
------------------------
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drewk [mailto:Andrew_Kliman@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
>
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> "But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices
> fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of
> profit (likely temporary)."
>
> I don't think so. Greenspan, Brenner, and others tell this story,
> but it is based either on a fallacy of composition (the
> innovator's profit rate rises, therefore the general rate rises)
> or on the Okishio theorem, which is false. If you do not
> retroactively revalue inputs, as the theorem does, then the
> decline in price will tend to offset the increase in physical
> productivity, and it can more than offset it.
>
> The profit rate can't tell "good deflation" from "bad deflation."
> Whatever the cause of falling prices is, the fall itself reduces
> profitability, cet. par.
>
> Andrew Kliman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Devine, James
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:16 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
>
>
> Drewk writes:
> > If
> > increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus,
> > and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris
> paribus
> > (which they do), then ....
> doesn't it matter what comes first? if prices fall (say, due to
> rising international competition due to a high US$ exchange rate),
> that would squeeze profit rates. But if labor productivity rises
> (or wages fall) before prices fall, the first thing to happen
> would be a rise in the rate of profit (likely temporary).
> Jim
>
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, (continued)
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:23 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:16 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:34 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:40 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:42 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Sat 14 Jun 2003, 04:50 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Sat 14 Jun 2003, 13:45 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Sat 14 Jun 2003, 17:06 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Tom Walker Sat 14 Jun 2003, 15:18 GMT