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

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 11:36:11 EDT

Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
Previous message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
In reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
Next in thread: Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:

> [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
> 

Because the output of consumption goods is the input of the houshold sector?

I guess. Something like that. That's why I posed it as a question originally.  

Philip Dunn

Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
Previous message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
In reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
Next in thread: Paul Cockshott: "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