Jim Devine wrote:
Miracle Max mutters:
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.
the Camb Cap Contr, among many other things, says that the value of
"capital" depends on the prices. If some piece of Nature isn't valued
by capitalism, its distribution of income, the tastes it encourages
people to embrace, etc., then it won't count in calculating "natural
capital."
(That's not exactly non-intuitive, so we don't need the Camb Cap Contr
to make the point.)
(Still muttering) But some natural capital assets are marketed and have
prices.
For something less solid, like clean air, there is some cost of
attaining it and
some willingness to pay. Public capital is not marketed and clearly has
value.
What's the problem?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
