From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 07:28:01 EDT
Mike L wrote on April 22: (Quoting Cyrus) > >A: Within the framework of value theory absolute rent belongs to the > >rent-producing sector whose 'organic composition of capital' is below > >'average.' Given the fact that oil industry, as a whole, has > >historically been heavily 'capita intensive,' speaking of 'absolute oil > >rent' is irrelevant. Those who allude to 'absolute' rent for the oil > >industry are either confused Marxists or if they mean 'monopoly rent' > >are neoclassical economists, in which case are plain wrong. > Is the argument that the marginal wells (which I suspect are in the US) > are receiving no rent of any kind--- ie., that the revenues they generate > are purely the result of exploitation of oil workers? Presumably, those marginal wells would be receiving some absolute rent or else they would be driven out of the market. > And, if so, are conclusions about the oil > industry in anyway based upon the implicit assumption that the rate of > surplus value in the oil industry is equal to that in industries > elsewhere? Since, as Cyrus says, the oil industry has been 'capital-intensive', one would anticipate that both the organic composition of capital and the rate of surplus value are *higher* than the average occ and s/v. What are the implications of this from your perspective? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT