Jim D. says:
>Michael P. wrote: >>>Jim, don't underestimate the importance of
>fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no
>surplus value; thus, no capitalism.<<<
>
>saith I: >> why?<<
>
>Michael replies: >Because given the limits of technology today,
>without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over
>and above the subsistence needs of workers<
>
>Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the
>effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media
>talk about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was
>25 years ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also
>seems to be some truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per
>gallon of gasoline than they used to...
You must take into account the most scarce resource of all: time. In
the long run, we are all dead, as Keynes reminded economists of his
day. Can capital increase productivity, improve energy efficiency,
and/or invent alternative energy sources (whose production does not
depend upon fossil fuels) _in time_? Here, you must consider the
problem of path dependency, not to mention the question of hegemony,
as well.
Even discounting the finiteness of any physical entity (including
fossil fuels), which is not likely to become a problem in the
foreseeable future, we may still encounter a quite interesting
supply-side crisis, depending upon political developments in
oil-producing regions which have remained as volatile as ever (hence
the imperial insistence upon the expansion of the NATO & focus on
Yugoslavia & Columbia in recent years).
Yoshie
