I don't understand this. Oxygen is not air. Oxygen is a " (re)producible
commodity" isn't it? And is not the cost of oxygen -in those pressure
cannisters and used for welding and in health care- determined by its cost
of "(re) production"? Perhaps I fail to understand what is going on. If so
perha
>
> If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
> make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one would say that
> the cost of air is determined by its cost of reproduction...
>
> Brad DeLong
===
So math has no value?
Ian
Of course, the cost of reproduction must be the least cost option. Oxygen
is a by product of growing plants. The technology Brad proposes is not
very cost-efficient.
>
> If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
> make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one wo
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
>"Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost
>nothing, no
>matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components
>of capital,
>but as a free gifts of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature's
>productive power to labo
No, you are thinking about the passage at the start of the Critique of the Gotha
Program where Marx attacks the idea that labor creates all wealth, not value. For
MArx, value is by definition embodied labor. --jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 2:57:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwo
"Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost nothing, no
matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components of capital,
but as a free gifts of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature's
productive power to labour." Vol. 3, p. 745 (International
>Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
>value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
>enterprise.
>
>Doug
I stand corrected. However, I was referring to billionaire entrepreneurs
who after the revolution really need to be exiled to Catalina or some
Fabian Balardini wrote:
>
> I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the
>debate on value theory at OPE-L and studying the TSS propositions for almost two
>years I have reached the conclusion that TSS opponents are irrational and dishonest?
yes, but the abov
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:40:03 Michael Perelman wrote:
>Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
>raise passions. I thought that Jim's response to him was measured.
I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the debate
on val
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:11:03 Jim Devine wrote:
>BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
>conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
>Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
>an e-mail discussion
I wrote that instead of the TSS being rejected because (d) its opponents
don't understand it or (e) its opponents were ideological, as Fabian
asserted, > the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models that
don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components of
capi
>At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, Jim Devine wrote:
>alternatively, the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models
>that don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components
>of capitalist reality. I, for one, don't know enough about the TSS to
>conclude that all of its
12 matches
Mail list logo
