Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 10:02:43 EDT

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• In reply to: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Next in thread: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Reply: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

[Phil wrote in reply to Ian]
> But does not the move to a closed system throw out any concept of
> surplus?

Hi Phil:

Why?

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• In reply to: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Next in thread: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Reply: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT