full of crap over at Classical Values. One bit:
To Marx value was raw material plus work. The means of producing that work (machinery, etc) were just sort of there. And he made no allowance for invention. (Which is why though Marxist revolutions often recruit intellectuals they're the sort of intellectuals who never had an original idea in their life.) Of course in our day and age, invention and original thought are at least as important as machinery in creating product. Also, the raw material fallacy means all the countries who have nothing else to sell feel "exploited" because we're taking their "value" away. Imbuing raw material itself with value means that it's sort of like stealing national treasure. This has given rise to an entire colonialist-exploitation-theory of history which has held more people in misery in developing countries than the most brazen robber baron could manage. And no one, NOT ONE seems to realize that their raw materials mean absolutely nothing if not used. If someone doesn't have an idea to use it. If the finished product is not good for something. In other words, if you're not producing something that someone else finds useful. (I.e. enough to pay for.) If the relationship isn't MUTUALLY beneficial.
I can't remember who is was, the first time I read of the 'stealing the treasure of the indigenous people' garbage, who called bullshit on it in a very plain way; as he pointed out, if someone had not developed technologies that used oil, the mid-East would still be a bunch of camel & goatherds raiding each other to steal wives and raping the livestock because without someone needing it that oil is worthless. Still true, and why the oil ticks live in dread of someone finding a practical substitute for oil.