Barrister Shemano writes:
... Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and
light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to
perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon
and Garfunkel
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Simon and Garfunkel
Barrister Shemano writes:
... Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special
sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight
and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded
on behalf of sartesian
Sent: Sun 7/4/2004 2:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Simon and Garfunkel
Yeah, but what if a terrorist hijacks Simon and Garfunkel's private jet and
crashes into the stage after it was set up
as possible. That is, if they find someone who's willing to pay $200 to see
Simon Garfunkel, they'll try to figure out how to get him or her to pay that much
(using
price discrimination). The sellers who benefit the most these days are usually
Ticketmaster and ClearChannel rather than
there was
a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work. The Hollywood
Bowl got a leasing fee. The crew was paid. Simon and
Garfunkel either received a very hefty fee or a piece of the
gate shared with the promoter. Now, from a Marxist
perspective, what were the class relations at play? Whose
labor
David B. Shemano wrote:
How would it work in PEN-Ltopia?
Simon Garfunkel would have been sent to the glue factory long ago.
Doug
at an average price of $150, so
there was a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work. The Hollywood Bowl
got a leasing fee. The crew was paid. Simon and Garfunkel either
received a very hefty fee or a piece of the gate shared with the
promoter. Now, from a Marxist perspective, what were
Marx 101. Let's imagine the crew does all their work.
They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel
get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are
refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed
David the troller writes:
Humor me on this. I need some Marx 101. Let's imagine the
crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and
light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a
fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all
ticket are refunded
Please, no personal attacks. If David were a troller, he could have been very
disruptive here. He has not been.
I suspect that the thread has exhausted itself.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:12:22PM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote:
David the troller writes:
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
Michael writes:
Please, no personal attacks. If David were a troller, he
could have been very disruptive here. He has not been.
I honestly did not write David the troller in a negative way.
Honestly! I thought he was just here to be the straw that stirs the
drink that we all prefer.
I think
Kenneth Campbell writes:
Don't be silly. You are supposedly a lawyer.
The refusal to perform negated the contract. But not the contractual
duties owed to those expected to aid in the performance.
The pathetic spat between the actual performers (in your little
hypothetical) does not negate
David the non-trolled writes:
You misunderstand my questions. I am not asking
whether the crew should be paid. I am trying to
understand the labor theory of value/surplus
value/exploitation in context.
I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the
value of the crew.
In a message dated 7/2/2004 5:54:30 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's
imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and
light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and
refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled
from a previous exchange. Therefore, I
insist on narrowing issues to their most basic. As I understand the Marxist view at
its most reductionist, if Simon and Garfunkel hire a electricial and pay him X, the
actual value created by the electrician is more than X. What I am trying to
understand
David wrote:
I am a reductionist, as some of you may
remember from a previous exchange. Therefore, I insist on
narrowing issues to their most basic.
You write: I insist on narrowing issues to their most basic.
I do, too, sir.
Survival. Ability to raise kids. Dignity.
My dad was working class
16 matches
Mail list logo
