some opec economist argue that there may be a Hicksian income hypotheis holding in oil and that is oil producers are monetasing their resources. others argue that it would still have to be taken out and thereforethe law of value should apply. i can think of how production kicks in when prices
soula avramidis wrote:
in other words aren't we
too general by simply stating that the law of value holds? or should
we be saying that it holds because when prices rose the high cost
tarsands of northern canada came into production.
It depends on whether you see the law of value as
My apology, this fragment was sent to wrong list and outside the bounds of Pen-l current discussion. Meant for the A-List.
Melvin P.
Carrol Cox wrote:
It depends on whether you see the law of value as primarily a theorem in
economics or primarily a theory about how under given historical
conditions human activity is regulated and organized. Perhaps it's both,
but it is _certainly_ the second, and the second is what is
ne.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-From: soula avramidis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, January 28,
2003 12:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
[PEN-L:34173] Re: the oil thing/overproduction
some opec economist argue that there may be a Hicksian income
hypothe
I first would like to thank Melvin for the mistake. i hope it happens again. i also agree with with devine's intervention. as to Ms Cox your comment is correct but too analytical it sounded to me like a two truths approach or dualistic that human activity should not feed into economics and that
Over the past 30 days I have followed the entirety of the debate on Marxline held under the title "Oil and Overproduction." Off and on I have written several fragments - not published, as this discussion heated up and much of these fragments will probably be left to the criticism of the mice, as
