: Read a far more intelligent response to my post here to observe how not to duck and dive...
I'm glad SDF had the time and energy to entertain you for a while during your endless lunch break.
I trust he got his money's worth.
: I thought you were going to be capable of discussing the subject properly - it appears sadly that you have instead merely engaged in a facade of arrogent disdain, something to hide behind.
I'm not a baby-sitter, Gee.
Just to offer one example of your painfully evident unfamiliarity with Capital, you said in this post:
Your examples of Nike etc prompted me to think that when an economy in which there are many 'useful things' being traded for many 'useful things' (like America) meets an ecnonomy whose cycle of exchange is 'lower' (in purely perceived use-values ofcourse) you get the situation where said workman, wood and tools in the poor country is of very low relative use-value in that country (as compared tio the same in the US), whilst the end product is of relatively use-value [??] according to the American consumer (because he has so much more the trade for it) [is that finally the end of that sentence?]
: In the end a global economy would act to create a global market the same as exists in 'national' markets like the US - the same range of rich and poor and in betweens. This is why i dont think 3rd world countries are automatically doomed to be forever poor - unless they are aided and abetted by various 'initiatives' by the IMF, their own government and other governments and so forth contriving to keep them that way.
See my response to Chuck---who I know read all of Capital>I---on the subject of international trade. Your assumption is erroneous---and the fact you are unfamiliar with Marx's work is TRANSPARENT.
If I didn't have the time to explain the theory of relativity to you, would that disqualify it?