Natural resources and the natural environment add to productive capacity, and less thereof detracts from it, so calling it capital seems reasonable to me. This enables one to augment the national income accounts and reflect exhaustion of such capital, something relevant to sustainability. The Bureau of Economic Analysis does this currently in experimental 'satellite accounts.'
Social capital is important in principle but way too flaky to measure, much more so than anything else, IMO. Re: human capital, same argument as for natural capital. (Estimated by OMB, by the way.) Don't ask me how this works in re: the Cambridge capital controversy. I wouldn't know. Maybe it just doesn't, but it wasn't clear that was Father Devine's principal objection. In any case I would say this stuff is worth measuring, somehow. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Devine > Sent: 12:03 pm > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] "natural capital" > > Robert Scott Gassler wrote: > > I think the whole idea of calling something capital just to make it > sound > > cool is silly. > > alas, the otherwise excellent textbook MICROECONOMICS IN CONTEXT (by > Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, and Weisskopf) refers not only to "natural > capital" but to "social capital" and "human capital." When I use that > book, I instead refer to "natural resources," "social resources," and > labor-power. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
