Speaking of which, Australians are hitting their credit cards ever harder, are
paying interest rates that beggar belief, are no doubt partly seduced by
desperate marketing but also obliged by necessity (which consideration never
gets a mention in this connection), and are being further helped to
I referred to:
that eternal
chestnut, the we're running out of oil theory
Mark Jones says:
This 'eternal chestnut' dates back at least to Marx himself, to Liebig,
Jevons and others who first talked about resource limits, including both
fossil energy and soil fertility.
Of course, Ricardo
Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, what does the petrogeological profession as a whole think of
Hubbert? what is the professional consensus on his methods and
conclusions? why should we believe him rather than others? or is he
reputable the way Milton Friedman is?
When Mark started going on about the
Doug is probably correct that the threat of choking on oil is an impending
danger, but the oil is getting harder and harder to get. The low hanging
fruit is gone. The oil that is now being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico is
deep at the bottom of the sea. No one knows what will happen if a
Michael:
Mark may be wrong that oil will be the ultimate constraint. I suspect
water will come first -- although our economy wastes an enormous amount,
which gives us some wiggle room. In other parts of the world, the people
are note so fortunate.
Actually, it probably makes sense not to use a
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:19:57 -0700
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately for Marx, his volume III theory of the rising organic
composition of capital doesn't work very well on either a theoretical or a
practical level. Not only can the capitalists
Michael Perelman wrote:
Doug is probably correct that the threat of choking on oil is an impending
danger, but the oil is getting harder and harder to get. The low hanging
fruit is gone. The oil that is now being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico is
deep at the bottom of the sea. No one knows what
Chris B writes:
I do not know if Jim is saying that Marx explicitly argued in Volume III
that the rising organic composition of capital led to an automatic (and
permanent) break down. A reference would be important if Jim is saying
Marx really did this, as opposed to arguing extensively from
Constraints to Capitalist Expansion:
1) lack of aggregate demand - obviously, low demand means low sales. it
also probably means slow productivity growth, competitive weakness (for
firms, industries, sectors, nations), which feeds cumulatively back to
low demand
2) availability of credit.
Well said. The question then is do these contradictions reinforce each
other or do they cancel each other out?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:57:39PM -0500, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Constraints to Capitalist Expansion:
1) lack of aggregate demand - obviously, low demand means low sales. it
expansion vs. limits
Well said. The question then is do these contradictions reinforce each
other or do they cancel each other out?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:57:39PM -0500, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Constraints to Capitalist Expansion:
1) lack of aggregate demand - obviously, low demand means low
11 matches
Mail list logo
