|
Tho, If you like I'll add a bit to the discussion.
You bring up Keynesian economics, so I will point to two factors he failed to address:
1) Many forms of energy are functionally infinite. New "product" is auto-created every day. Solar energy and wind power are but two of those. One can argue that the receiver of the "goods" (land to accumulate said) increases in value from other areas. None the less, Keynes fails to account for this.
2) Intellectual Property is yet another form of input to the system that is not easily accounted for in a Keynesian model. Moreover, the window of opportunity for exploitation and cost of production, is very difficult to forecast or even to apply a fixed-ratio-of-value apon it.
In both cases the Labour component (or even the products themselves) may not have a true marketable value. Cheap, dear, expensive are relative to factors that are much more complex than Keynes's boxed view.
I might also point out that the criticism in my first reply was aimed at your usage of an odd term for Dean. Not your views on economic systems. The title of this reply should give you an idea as to why and what I was saying by selectively quoting you.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(61 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
