(OPE-L) Re: Cyrus Bina On Differential Oil Rents

[gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>]

Mike L wrote on April 22:

(Quoting Cyrus)
> >A:  Within the framework of value theory absolute rent belongs to the
> >rent-producing sector whose 'organic composition of capital' is below
> >'average.' Given the fact that oil industry, as a whole, has
> >historically been heavily 'capita intensive,' speaking of 'absolute oil
> >rent' is irrelevant.  Those who allude to 'absolute' rent for the oil
> >industry are either confused Marxists or if they mean 'monopoly rent'
> >are neoclassical economists, in which case are plain wrong.

> Is the argument that the marginal wells (which I suspect are in the US)
> are receiving no rent of any kind--- ie., that the revenues they generate
> are purely the result of  exploitation of oil workers?

Presumably,  those marginal wells would be receiving some absolute rent or
else they would be driven out of the market.

> And, if so, are conclusions about the oil
> industry in anyway based upon the implicit assumption that the rate of
> surplus value in the oil industry is equal to that in industries
> elsewhere?

Since, as Cyrus says, the oil industry has been 'capital-intensive', one
would anticipate that both the organic composition of capital and the
rate of surplus value are *higher* than the average occ and s/v.

What are the implications of this from your perspective?

In solidarity, Jerry