Re: [OPE] Reply to critics

The hole is that in the categorisation of insurance as concerned with the allocation of value rather than its production we are assuming what we want to demonstrate.

--- original message ---
From: "GERALD LEVY" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Reply to critics
Date: 5th November 2010
Time: 7:03:22 pm

I don't see any holes, Paul.

________________________________
> From: wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk
> To: gerald_a_levy@msn.com
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:04:52 +0000
> Subject: Re: [OPE] Reply to critics
>
>
> I think you are being hasty here GERRY, I think Paula is playing devils advocate here, She is quite successfully pointing out holes in your justification of the non productivity of insurance. I agree that it is non productive but Paula shows that it is difficult to say exactly why.
>
> --- original message ---
> From: "GERALD LEVY"
> Subject: Re: [OPE] Reply to critics
> Date: 5th November 2010
> Time: 2:26:47 pm
>
>
>
> Hi Paula:
>
> We are simply retreading on ground which has already been covered.
>
> You don't seem to recognize that there's a difference between the
> production of surplus value
> and the redistribution of surplus value. How you make sense out of
> rent is beyond me.
> Nor do you seem to recognize that there is a distinction between the
> production of surplus
> value and actions which simply change the title and legal ownership of
> commodities.
>
> Hence, I think we're at a dead end in this discussion.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
> ________________________________
> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Nov 6 04:55:24 2010