Thanks Jim. I would like to continue further though, because I am very confused about this topic. Put differently, I am still unclear about what value is and I know that I am not alone as the history attests.
Let us go back to Mesopotamia of 4000 to 5000 years ago. There was the palace, the temple (temples and palaces, as Michael Hudson says), the agricultural production (ignoring other things) and the land. The palace and the temple were the financiers, agricultural workers were the producers and I am not so sure who owened the land then (most likely the palace and the temple, not the agricultural workers). How does this set up differ from a capitalist economy? Where is the rent and where is the profit (surplus value)? Why was Hammurapi so much worried about the debts becoming unpayable? Does the land add to "value" in any way? Best, Sabi _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
