From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 15:18:05 EST
Hi Jerry
Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:
<SNIP>
>
> II. On sunspots and nature:
>
> I had asked: what commodity prices are caused to change by sunspots?
>
> Your reply "Probably most prices are affected but since sunspots
> affect weather agricultural prices would be most affected" is a
> reasonable proposition. Even so -- despite your later reference to
> a study on wheat prices in the US in the XX century -- I am not
> convinced. But, I have an open mind on this question so I am
> willing to be convinced.
>
> But, I don't think either one of us really want to discuss the
> economic influence of sunspots. However, I'm glad you raised the
> issue because it returns us to what seemed to be the point that
> Red Kronstandt was driving at in the message I amended to my
> 2/9 post (the one where RK was replying to Matt Forstater)
> which concerns the "material substratum ... which is furnished
> by Nature without the help of man." What RK seems to be
> getting at is the assertion that the LOV and orthodox theory
> both "ignore the contribution of Nature."
>
RK says:
Now, as in the previous posting, we had posited that the very same
labor simultaneously produces both ribs and rib tips, it seems that
Nature in its construction of the pig has endowed the porcine in a
manner such that in the pig the value of the
ribs = 4x that of rib tips
endquote
Anatomy is destiny? RK conjecture certainly is different but I can see no need
for it.
Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 00:00:02 EST