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

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 09:12:49 EDT

• Next message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "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 ]

[Paul C wrote:]
> 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.
[Phil wrote:]
Ex-post value accounting can still be done in these circumstances, whatever
happens to prices. Simultaneous valuation theories, of course, breakdown.

Phil:

All theories which, through the assumption of the conservation of value,
allow no role for the destruction of value, breakdown.

In solidariuty, Jerry

• Next message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "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 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT