Yeah. Most of us are having a hard time agreeing with Al on that E=mc2 notion, too.
Julien Pierrehumbert wrote:
> >CB: Marx doesn't agree with this. He doesn't talk about scarcity making non-
> >human things a source of exchange-value.
>
> Yeah, that's why I thougt that we might me able to agree on this. See, most of us
> will never agree with old Karl on the value issue.
>
> Anyway, doesn't it look as if in our world scarce natural resources had
> exchange-values (or more precisely, as if the right to exploit them had
> exchange-value, because of course in and out of themselves they have no
> exchange-value)? If you don't think so then how do you explain the various
> exchange-values of different kinds of land, the exchange-value of newfound gold
> deposits, etc.?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
--
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
