From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 16:46:54 EST
Rakesh has been talking a lot about rent (and recently about Cyrus' work on this). It reminded me that I'm still in the dark about some theoretical questions in relation to rent. On 22 April, I responded to Cyrus as follows but didn't get an answer (he may have missed the question). Maybe, though, Rakesh could respond./michael >I appreciate very much Cyrus' comments and estimates. Let me display my >ignorance of rent questions, though. Cyrus dismisses the question of >absolute rent in the following way: > > >> 2.. Q: Why don't I speak of 'absolute rent' in the oil industry? >> >> >>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. > > I'm in Caracas right now and away from Vol. III (and it's a long >time since I looked at the discussion of absolute rent there), and I >haven't read any of the sources that Cyrus cites. 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? 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? --------------------- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EST