From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 11:28:07 EDT
In [7636] Fred wrote: > However, this is not what I mean by scarce. Instead, I mean that > capitalists cannot increase production of a natural resource unless the > owners of that natural resource - the landlords - allow it. And in > general, landlords will not allow an increase of production unless they > receive a rent, even on the least productive land or mines. This rent > paid to landlords on the least productive land or mines is absolute > rent. It is not historically contingent. Rather, it is inherent in the > capitalist mode of production, or at least inherent in capitalist > production with private ownership of natural resources. There is an interesting issue here that concerns struggles among capitalists and struggles among capitalists and lardlords. You write what landlords will not "allow". Certainly, they will resist any attempts to break up their monopoly but it is in the nature of monopoly that others will attempt to by-pass the monopoly through various means. Of relevance here is the capacity of technological change to make possible alternatives. E.g. diamonds have long (for several decades) been manufactured. This represents a (potential) threat to the diamond monopoly. Similarly, there have been methods developed to extract gold from water. For this and other reasons monopolies tend to be historically contingent and unstable. There have been other cases where an alternative technology is developed that breaks the strength of the monopoly and/or creates another (alternative) monopoly. Consider energy generation (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind) and home heating alternatives. Moreover, monopoly power in terms of ownership of natural resources often takes the form of cartels rather than just a 'pure monopoly'. In this circumstance, while there are incentives for cartel members to come to an agreement and stick to it, there are also short-run incentives for individual cartel members to break an agreement (e.g. by selling more or by selling at lower prices). Once this happens, then the solidarity required for the cartel to function effectively tends to erode and the cartel begins to unravel. At an more concrete level of investigation, it should also be noted that ownership of these resources is often _not_ private but "public", i.e. there is frequently state ownership of natural resources. (It should even be noted that historically there have been 'extra-legal' examples of successful efforts at monopoly breaking: e.g. the theft of pineapples for replanting in Hawaii). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 11 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT