From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2007 - 15:48:37 EST
Ajit: This is trivial, isn't it? Who has ever denied that in > most of the cases (sometimes you can find use values > as spontaneous product of nature--as a matter of fact > a great many important use values such as air you > breathe) labor is an element in production process. > All economics, including neoclassical economics assume > 100% of times that labor is an essential element in > the production process. So what are you trying to say > here? > _____________________________ You are distorting my words: I don't say that labour is an element in production process, but the ONLY active element. More precisely: without labour you don't have ANY _process_ at all in the long run. But with labour you always have a production process no matter how difficult it can become. You will need time, of course. But without labour no passing of time will help you to get a production. And I repeat: Even if it is possible to say that other things enter directly OR indirectly in the production of all commodities, the truth is that labour is the ONLY ONE that enters directly--IN ADDITION TO indirectly--in the production of ALL commodities. That means that labour is different from other elements in production because it is the only thing directly present IN ALL production processes of commodities at the same time (including services). Do you want a proof? Please, don't go yet to your kitchen and don't cook: simply tell the physical elements you have in it to produce for you whatever you want, and let me see the results. Please feel free to tell them to use any element that can enter _indirectly_ in whatever you want they cook for you. Cheers, Diego
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT