>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/05/00 04:51PM >>>
>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.
((((((((((((((((((
CB: Most people don't even think about what value is. Of those who do, many will agree
with old Karl.
((((((((((((((
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.?
((((((((((((((
CB: "Exchange-value" is one of old Karl's concepts. I don't know of anybody else using
it. If you don't mean the same thing as Marx by "exchange-value" , what do you mean ?
What is an example of a non-scarce natural resource ?
In our world, it looks like non-scarce natural resources have exchange-value too .
What do you mean by scarce ?
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
