On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but KM thought it enough of a thing to posit all sorts of
mathematical formulae
including its constituent parts (fixed, variable, etc.)
Sure, but all those formulae are denominated in terms of *value*--ie.,
capitalised surplus value expressed as depreciated hours of socially
necessary labor time. "Natural capital" doesn't fit. So how to account
for it?
To start with, GDP includes as positive the "product" of mines, oil
wells, forests, etc. So instead of a plus sign before all those
"values" there should be a minus sign. And the "value" of
environmentally destructive activities should incur a debit representing
the cost of repairing the destruction (that is, of holding "social
capital" constant.) > Shane Mage
Right. As you probably know, there is something like this embodied in
the tax
system through a depletion allowance for the extraction of oil.
Funny thing is, if we were more consistent about this, there would be a
lot less
GDP since provision of labor services is a debit in terms of leisure
time. (Some
people try and claim this as a deduction on their taxes. They don't
succeed.)
Makes me wonder about orthodox income accounting. I'll have to take another
look at those satellite accounts.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
