Re: RE: [OPE] Power

Date: Sat Feb 16 2008 - 11:27:59 EST

> How do you suggest the transport
> system is going to work, how are you going to generate all of
> the extra electricity that is going to be needed?

Hi Paul C:

I don't think there is one thing that is needed, but many.
Here's one, though:

There needs to be a shift - especially in urban areas - towards public transportation and away from the auto. This would require 
a massive expenditure on public transport infrastructure but would  ultimately be less costly for working-class families and the poor, far more energy-efficient, and far better for the environment.

> Think Marxist indeed, but think what this implies for the overall
> reproduction process. It represents a general rise in the value
> of energy since the lower labour means of producing it -- oil,
> is ruled out. Classical theory tells us that this will lead to a
> fall in relative surplus value, but there are also the arguments
> of Machover, backed up by a lot of empirical observation, that
> over the long term the rate of surplus value tends to be in the
> order of 100%, so this implies that a rise in the value of energy
>  will imply a fall in general living standards -- since not all
>  the hit will be taken by profits.

An extension of public transport systems implies an increase in
living standards for workers and the poor living in those areas since a portion of their income which previously had to be allocated for private forms of transport is now "freed up" for spending on other goods. The health of those same people, especially in urban areas, could be expected to improve. Who
loses? The "losers" of such a change would be all those vested corporate interests associated with the auto and related

In solidarity, Jerry
ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST