Carrol's view is that...... <Only assholes quibble about the *word* "value" in different contexts. In the sense it is a useful word in understanding history, and thus in understanding ourselves and our condition, it names a social relationship that came into existence with capitalism (though it has some shadowy existence in some pre-capitalist formations). It is a technical term in political economy, not a vague word which means "something good."> Well call me an asshole then. What we are talking about, is the shared desire of marxist and pro-capitalist economic observers to commodify value. When I use the word value, I am talking about the "something good" of characteristics of human life that make it worth living. These cannot all be measured in the 'technical' jargon favored by the economsts and commodity fetishists. Clean air and intact atmosphere, socialization of community life, health of the society, existence of other life forms (plant and animal) intact in the human environment, unfetterred time, and so on.... are all valued elements of human existence that cannot be commodified. Though Lord knows that capitalist society tries. But when it fails in its quest, it has just devalued all non-commodity values to zero measurement. Mark responds to only one part of what I am pointing to. He replies to the most easily commodified part of nature. And concentrates on oil, since it is the most important energy source. But let's just move slightly over to another aspect of this question of value. What is the value of an earth without garbage? Does this seem like a silly question? Why? Because cleanliness has not been assigned a commodity value by economists? Yet let's be real, what is the value of a world without garbage (radioactive, as well as chemical), as compared to one seeping with crud? Mark says that all economics is valueless. I agree, pecisely because they have commodified all value. Leaving out the majority of value, that remains non-commodified at present, in an area often referred to as nature. This is why we know that we are headed for a crash, because the world's population senses that all the non-commodiifed value that has previously been taken for granted, is now being quickly destroyed by capitalism. Mark seems to want to reduce this down to a case of oil stocks being depleted. And this is important, although it is nowhere near the sum total of what is occurring. Even if oil resources were infinite, this destruction of non-commodified value is destroying the life force of the planet, in a myriad of other ways. I would hope that the CrashList would be open to more than just analysis of petro production trends. Mark.... <BUT altho labour is not the source of all material WEALTH it IS the source of all economic VALUE. Monetary value accrues to commodities only because they incorporate some quantity of human labour-time.> WRONG... This is the problem stated briefly, with making the ultmate commodity (money) the measuring rod for economic value. You have measured only part of the economic activity. I'll state it again. Most economic value is produced by nature, contrary to what Mark and Marx believe. To Marx, a fish in the river has no economic value, because it take a human hand to put it in the mouth! But it takes natures hand, to have the fish there available in the first place. Nature too, plays a role in the production of economic value. Marx and Mark just don't want to measure it as economic value. Why not? Both nature and human activity are necessary to get the fish in the mouth. Even before 'man' labored, nature got the food into mouths. Why denigrate it to the non-essential? The value is there. We need to start calculating it. And stop playing word games about defining a difference between material wealth, and economic value. Tony Abdo
> Most value is actually created by chemical processes such as nature > produces, The argument about whether all wealth is produced by human labour or whether nature 'contributes' to wealth-creation is based on wrong premises. Of course, nature produces material wealth. In his 1875 critique of the German social-democrat party's programme, which opened with the statement, 'Labour is the source of all wealth,' Marx commented, 'Labour is *not* the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of...material wealth.' He insisted that 'Labour depends on nature', and said the 'natural conditions of labour [was] the earth as the original instrument of labour, both laboratory and repository of its raw materials'. BUT altho labour is not the source of all material WEALTH it IS the source of all economic VALUE. Monetary value accrues to commodities only because they incorporate some quantity of human labour-time. Completely pointless and idiotic arguments about this matter are the staple diet of economists everywhere. On Pen-L recently (in fact, on Pen-L forever) they debated whether or not 'forces of nature' can add 'value' (eg whether windmills add 'value' to flour, which then accrues to the owner as 'rent'). Ecological economists and fans of 'natural capitalism' like the fanatical gung-ho optimists of the Rocky Mountain Institute waste endless hours debating this non-existent issue. There have even been attempts to resurrect it here on the CrashList (Tony's last post is only the most recent attempt to do so). It is a waste of time. What matters from the point of view of the crisis of capitalism and the dynamics of the Crash, is the interplay of market recessions, booms and slumps, with the availability at any given time of finite resources, eg fossil fuels. For example, if the economy crashes next year, in part because of high oil prices this year, then oil prices might also collapse again; economists will say this proves there is no energy crisis, no shrtage of oil! In fact, this ricocheting of cause and effect like squash balls in a squash court makes the business of prediction difficult, but not impossible, and prediction is what we are here to do. Energy is material wealth. But it only acquires economic value when it is produced, ie when human-labour time is applied to make it available (marketable). Oil is material wealth but only acquires a value when it is pumped out of the ground which, as Shaikh Yamani recently said, does not happen by magic. It requires huge efforts, immense investments of social capital (=stored labour-time) and the live labour of hundreds of thousands of men and women, from geologists to pipeline fabricators to accountants to gas station attendants. It is the cumulative value of all their combined labour-times which gives oil its econonmic value and every time you buy a litre of gas you pay a pro rata fraction of that value. Market prices fluctuate around real values, and are determined by the vagaries of supply and demand. In fact, in constant dollars the real price of oil has been stable at around $15/bbl (1991 dollars) since 1870, when Rockefeller's Standard Oil first imposed 'order' on what was still then a chaotic market. Spikes or slumps do no mroe than register the impact of the chaotic disturbance-patterns which result from the effect on demand of the interaction of many different variables, from the weather, to war, to new technologies etc. As oil becomes more difficult to extract and scarcer, its value increases *because the necessary labour-time required to pump it increases*. Productivity improvements and technological advances can offset this trend by reducing the amount of labour-time required, but the effect of this is only to hasten depletion and thus to bring forward the day when real shortages bite. Even then, shortages may not soon or at all be reflected in higher market prices, because of hidden subsidies (for example, the US 5th and 7th Fleets which control the vital sealanes are paid for out of general taxation, but their purpose is to control the Persian Gulf and keep the oil flowing; this is only one of the ways in which oil is subsidised; equally, the externalities of the oil industry are hidden or not paid at all; pollution has many costs including damage to buildings, health ect, but the costs are not borne by the oil industry). Equally, prices may not rise because of economic slump. It is entirely possible that most of the oil now in the ground will NEVER be pumped at ANY price, because society lacks the social capital to extract it; meanwhile, the market-clearing price may still be around $15/bbl, because the market will have disappeared due to economic collapse. Falling production and falling consumption can indeed go together with falling prices. Shortages do NOT necessarily lead to increased prices. Note that TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS ONLY HASTEN THE CRASH. THEY DO NOT AVERT IT. Since economists do not factor in any of these considerations (or only rarely) almost everything they say and write about energy is worthless rubbish. To substitute for their abysmal ignorance of the real issues, they engage instead in religious hairsplitting debates about 'value' and 'wealth' and the 'contribution' of 'nature'. It is an utter waste of time and I want none of it here. BTW, what is true of energy is also true of all other staples, including food, raw materials of all kinds, textiles etc. It is not just energy economics which is worse than useless, it is ALL economics. Mark _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
