Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 11:45:19 EDT

Next message: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Previous message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Maybe in reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I calculated it myself from data published on the web
by Gold Fields and Mineral Services Ltd. They gave aggregate
mining output per each period, I worked out the rest 

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of glevy@PRATT.EDU
Sent: 22 April 2005 16:40
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

> see the accompanying table that gives growth of stock in million
> troy ounces.

Hi Paul C:  What is the source for the table that you attached to
your last message?  / In solidarity, Jerry

Next message: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Previous message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Maybe in reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT