From: "Ebola 3" <andylists-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: economies of scale Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:19:04 +0000 It depends what we call efficiency. Is efficiency producing the most shit possible given the (manipulated) demands of the public and the given subsistence needs of the worker? Is this still effecient when we are dumping food into the ocean? Neo-liberal economists would say so. ebola >From: Ali Kazmi <thekazmis2001-AT-yahoo.com> >Reply-To: Ali Kazmi <thekazmis2001-AT-yahoo.com> >To: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>, >anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Re: economies of scale >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT) > >Capitalist efficiency exists only at the micro >economic scale. Capitalism is very very inefficient on >the macro scale. > >Ali > > >--- Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk> wrote: > > I'll say this, economies of scale within a specific > > workplace may be marginal and reached at relatively > > small sizes of capital. > > > > However, in terms of market power "economies of > > scale" > > can operate outside the workplace and ensure that > > under > > a capitalist market big is better. > > > > Which was Kropotkin's key insight. Big is bigger is > > not > > appliable (often) technically, but it applies for > > dominating > > the market. > > > > And as a non-capitalist economy will have different > > definitions > > of "efficiency" then the capitalist/Marxist dogma > > that big is > > better does not hold at all. it also shows the > > capitalist basis > > of standard marxism. > > > > Iain > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! >http://sbc.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005