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

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 06:55:47 EDT


Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>:

> Philip Dunn wrote:
> > Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>:
> >
> >
> >>If there is no physical net product, then no rational capitalists
> >>would engage in production, since they would be better off to
> >>just hold onto stocks and sell them speculatively.
> >>Without a physical net product, the act of 'production'
> >>is an act of destruction.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Philip Dunn
>
> What you have then is a famine, and the reproduction of the
> population is seriously in question. A large part will die off
> in the absence of relief supplies comming in. Prices are
> then driven by speculation rather than costs of production and
> the theory of value ceases to to have any relevance to describing
> what happens.
> 

Ex-post value accounting can still be done in these circumstances, whatever
happens to prices. Simultaneous valuation theories, of course, breakdown.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT