Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 11:39:56 EDT

• Next message: Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• In reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Next in thread: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:

> > Suppose we have an all agricultural economy and there are bad
> > harvests, so bad  that the physical net product is all negative.  This
> > is not rationally  predictable, so there is no reason not to engage in
> > production.  The following year the harvests could be good and the
> > economy could recover.
> 
> Phil:  The same circumstance could result in a harvest where the
> total  (as distinct from net) product equaled zero.  If that were the case,
> then there would be no seed to plant  next year and your all
> agricultural economy would be non-reproducible and non-viable.
> 

Not so. There could be emergency stocks of seed. This is not restricted to
circulating capital economies.


Philip Dunn

• Next message: Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• In reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Next in thread: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT