Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 16:09:42 EST
Hi Phil: Oh, I agree that RK's explanation (or, better yet, hints towards an explanation) leaves much to be desired. But, in fairness, he does leave him- or herself a bit of wiggle room by repeatedly writing "seems" rather making a more declarative statement. He ends his post in the following way: > This 'natural' value must be part of sound economic calculation > and must figure in the equations of any Law. As I suggested previously, one way of answering this is by distinguishing between wealth and value. If there is merit in answering RK it is largely because his is a "Green" (and anarchist or anarcho-communist?) conception of value that is popular in many circles. Even though his is a confused perspective (exemplified by the point you pick up on below), it should still be subject to critique. Thanks for offering your answers. In solidarity, Jerry ----- Original Message ----- RK says: Now, as in the previous posting, we had posited that the very same labor simultaneously produces both ribs and rib tips, it seems that Nature in its construction of the pig has endowed the porcine in a manner such that in the pig the value of the ribs = 4x that of rib tips endquote [PD:] Anatomy is destiny? RK conjecture certainly is different but I can see no need for it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 00:00:02 EST