tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post6158226576044249665..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Workers Benefiting From Increased Markups In Selected IndustriesRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-73180829603642275592018-03-17T07:20:05.570-04:002018-03-17T07:20:05.570-04:00Yes, I had such a paper in mind. I struggle to und...Yes, I had such a paper in mind. I struggle to understand Sinha. Sinha does incline me to think that Gargenani might be wrong in thinking of prices of production as centers of gravitational attraction. I like to think of them as of interest anyways.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-90197987906022889712018-03-12T16:57:54.808-04:002018-03-12T16:57:54.808-04:00I am not too sure. But I think that what you are r...I am not too sure. But I think that what you are referring to is a paper from Eatwell is something about linking Sraffa to the rate of exploitation. Something like e=1-w/w if I am not wrong. What I am thinking about is something more or less like Sinha. At every moment in the economy there is a rate of profit even if there are particular aspects like capital barriers or so. But for a set of prices we have a unique rate of profit. Like Zambelli is trying to show, we can have infinite possibilities for the non-uniform rate of profits for a set of prices but I would like to focus on the special non-uniform rate of profits that correspond to the multipliers of the standard system. Being it that for each technique we can have a set of prices for a uniform rate of profit if we consider the particular non-uniform rates of profits of each industry as a the r (uniform one) multiplied and weight by the standard system multipliers.Sturainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-31134167400183386202018-03-10T09:36:29.746-05:002018-03-10T09:36:29.746-05:00Yes, but not extensively. In this draft, I talk ab...Yes, but not extensively. In this <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2912181" rel="nofollow">draft</a>, I talk about a need for a normalization condition for markups. I think to preserve Marx's invariants, I also need to adopt the standard commodity as numeraire. You can see something about the standard commodity along these lines in John Eatwell's papers in the 1970s. And some have written on topics along the same lines in examining Sraffa's unpublished notes.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-61297072737293545352018-03-04T17:58:28.394-05:002018-03-04T17:58:28.394-05:00Have you ever thought about markups following the ...Have you ever thought about markups following the trace of the Rejoinder to Napoleoni?<br />http://fuckyeahpierosraffa.tumblr.com/post/49175582409/sraffas-rejoinder-to-napoleoniSturainoreply@blogger.com