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

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 11:37:00 EDT

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Philip Dunn: "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 ]

> Suppose we have an all agricultural economy and there are bad
> harvests, so bad  that the physical net product is all negative.  This
> is not rationally  predictable, so there is no reason not to engage in
> production.  The following year the harvests could be good and the
> economy could recover.

Phil:  The same circumstance could result in a harvest where the
total  (as distinct from net) product equaled zero.  If that were the case,
then there would be no seed to plant  next year and your all
agricultural economy would be non-reproducible and non-viable.

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Philip Dunn: "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