[DEBATE] : Link to papers - 'The Value of Money in Contemporary Capitalism' 12-13 September 2008,
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 01:44:09 BST 2008
IDEAs Conference on
'The Value of Money in Contemporary Capitalism' 12-13 September 2008,
World Wildlife Fund Auditorium, 172 B Lodi Road, New Delhi, India
International Development Economics Associates (IDEAS) organised a two
day conference on 'The Value of Money in Contemporary Capitalism' in New
Delhi on 12th and 13th of September.
The conference was meant to address issues around the role of money in
contemporary capitalism, in both national and international contexts.
The starting point was a new book by Prof. Prabhat Patnaik (Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi), a renowned Marxist macroeconomist,
entitled "The Value of Money" (Tulika Books and Columbia University
Press 2008) which was released around the same time. This book provides
a logical critique of monetarism, which has become the dominant stream
of contemporary macroeconomics. However, it is a critique along lines
very different from what is generally advanced. As against the
monetarist view that the value of money vis-à-vis commodities is
determined by demand and supply of money, it argues that the value of
money is given from outside the realm of demand and supply.
The first part of the conference focused on a consideration and
assessment of the arguments made in the book, at both theoretical and
empirical levels. The second part of the conference was devoted to
analyses of recent tendencies in money, finance and real economies in
particular countries and in the world economy.
About 170 participants from India and around the world took part in the
conference. The group included academicians, policymakers and students.
Many members of the civil society were also present. Apart from the
formal discussion, informal exchanges among the large number of
participants during the course of these two days were passionate and
DAY 1, 12th September 2008
The two-day long conference begun with opening remarks from the Chair,
Pasuk Phongpaichit, Chairperson, IDEAs and Professor, Department of
Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. She opened the
discussion saying a few words about the network IDEAS and its growing
reach among heterogeneous economists from all over the world. Talking
about the conference Pasuk Phongpaichit said that the conference is
about scrutinising the role and determinants of money and capitalism
with USA as a hegemonic power.
Jayat Ghosh, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU,
New Delhi and Executive Secretary, IDEAs, introduced Prabhat Patnaik's
book 'The Value of Money' by listing out the various challenges posed by
the book to existing mainstream economics. Jayati Ghosh pointed out that
the central theme of the book is to analyse the determinants of money
and then it goes on to critique the exogeneity aspect of the
determinants. The book challenges the different concepts of money,
specifically the monetarist view on money and discusses 'money' in the
Prabhat Patnaik, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
JNU, India, outlined the main themes developed in this book. Prof.
Patnaik highlighted the difference between monetarist and 'propertyist'
traditions on the question of the determinants of value of money. In the
monetarist tradition, Prof. Patnaik argued, money is viewed as a medium
of circulation and its value is determined by its excess demand. In the
propertyist tradition, that includes the views of both Marx and Keynes,
money is also viewed as a form of property or a form of holding wealth.
Prof. Patnaik argued that the medium of circulation role of money cannot
be separated from its role as a form of holding wealth. Money cannot act
as a medium of circulation if it is also not a form of holding wealth.
However, once the role of money as a form in which wealth is held is
recognised, the possibility of realisation or effective demand problem
also has to be acknowledged.
Prof. Patnaik further argued that the propertyist tradition is
incomplete because it does not explain why, in spite of its inherent
tendency towards the realisation problem, capitalism has operated in a
viable and stable manner over long stretches of time. Patnaik contended
that it is the existence of a pre-capitalist sector, which provides both
cheap inputs and markets to the capitalist core that provides stability
to the system. He argued that the pre capitalist sector provides cheap
inputs to ensure stability of the value of the currency used
internationally, namely dollars. This theory of the value of money in
capitalism therefore logically leads to a theory of imperialism. This
leads Patnaik to a discussion of the international monetary system. He
argues that even while the world economy may appear to have done away
with commodity money by de-linking the US dollar from gold, in fact it
can never actually do so. The value of money, even paper/credit money,
arises because of its link to commodities. Stability in the
international monetary system requires the persistence of the confidence
of the capitalist world's wealth-holders in the leading economy's
currency as a stable medium for holding wealth, and this depends on the
continued perception of global hegemony of the leading economy. Patnaik
refers to the current international monetary regime as the oil-dollar
standard, and provides an explanation for the Iraq war in terms of the
need to stabilise the oil-dollar standard. This explains the present
drive by the US to establish control over oil. The control over oil by
US instils confidence among international investors over the value of
Session 2: Responses 1
Chair: Utsa Patnaik, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and
Planning, JNU, New Delhi, India
Speakers: Jan Kregel, Anjan Mukherjee, Robert Pollin
Opening remarks on his book by Prabhat Patnaik were followed by
responses from Jan Kregel, Anjan Mukherjee and Robert Pollin.
Jan Kregel, Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College,
USA, in his note: "The Value of Money in Contemporary Capitalism: Draft
of Remarks" argued that while Patnaik's book is presented as a book on
monetary theory, it is a book about economic policy as well. In this
regard, he highlighted the role of Employer of Last Resort (ELR)
programmes. He argued that such programmes, by offering employment to
anyone who is willing and able to work at a given wage, not only solve
the problem of unemployment but by fixing a base for the wage also set
the base for the price system. Prof. Kregel, however differed with Prof.
Patnaik on the latter's assertion that at the international level we are
still employing a commodity money standard or what Patnaik called the
oil-dollar standard. Prof. Kregel argued that the recent increase in oil
prices has been due to increased financial speculation and not due to
increase in demand caused by greater industrialisation in parts of Asia.
This, according to Kregel, suggested that US financial interests, who
should have a clear interest in supporting the value of the US dollars
and international currency, did not recognize that their actions would
eventually undermine their position according to Prof. Patnaik's
Anjan Mukherjee, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
JNU, India, in his comments on the book, argued that Prof. Patnaik's
book is an attack on the Monetarists, mainstream economics and Walras.
However, in a three sector general equilibrium model consisting of a
produced good, labour and money, he argued that the value of money can
be shown to remain incompatible, even with a lower number of
assumptions. He argued that some of Prof. Patnaik's conclusions are thus
compatible with the Walrasian logic.
In his paper "Considerations on Interest Rate Exogeneity", Robert
Pollin, Co-director, Department of Economics and Political Economy
Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said
that he agreed with most of the conclusions reached by Prabhat Patnaik.
However, he also had some points on which he differed with Patnaik.
First, he pointed out that the book ignores the role of central banks
and financial innovation in driving the money supply process. Second, he
argued that the role of the pre-capitalist sector in Prof. Patnaik's
book is perhaps exaggerated. Processes internal to capitalism, such as
the maintenance of the reserve army of labour can keep prices stable. He
also argued that aggregate demand can be boosted through government
expenditure, bourgeoisie's consumption etc. Hence, pre-capitalist sector
is not a logical requirement for capitalism to ensure stability and
growth. Finally, he stressed the importance of overcoming the
realisation crisis through clean energy investments, in the context of
threats posed by climate change.
Session 3: Responses 2
Chair: Jan Kregel, Distinguished Research Professor, Centre for Full
Employment & Price Stability, University of Missouri, Kansas City, USA
and Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, USA
Amiya Bagchi, Director, Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata,
India, in his paper "Money under Capitalism: Domestic, Universal",
argued that much of the theorizing of money under capitalism relates to
a developed economy. Thus, he argued that there is no history of finance
and money from the point of view of the poor. Even in systems where
there is more than one type of commodity money, the one used by the poor
is the one which has the least amount of acceptability. However that
money cannot work beyond the domestic sphere. One can have domestic
money entirely based on trust but cannot have a similar form of
international money because an international money requires an
acceptance beyond the domestic circuits of trust. Therefore throughout
the period of development of capitalism, the competing capitalist states
have sought to control the form of money which has the largest degree of
acceptability in the arena of international exchange. The power seeking
hegemony has always sought to make its domestically acceptable currency
the hegemonic currency in the world. Therefore the money used by the
weaker economies has also been made the weaker currencies.
S. L. Shetty, Director, EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai, India, in his
response to the theme put across the point that finance capital is one
of the important ways of establishing strategic infringement of
imperialism. In the context of India his paper "India's Economic
Structure and Financial Architecture: A Growing Mismatch" makes the
point that over time the financial infrastructure of the economy has not
moved in consonance with the changing economic structure of the economy.
A comparative analysis of pre-reform and post-reform periods in India
shows that changing public policies themselves have been the main source
of stress in the financial system.
In the discussion on his paper, "The Value of Money and the Theory of
Imperialism", Dr. Prasenjit Bose, Convenor, Research Unit, CPI (M), New
Delhi, India, said that the book by Prof. Patnaik opens up new vistas
for understanding the nature of development of capitalism. At the same
time, he felt, the two main problem of Prof. Patnaik's analysis was
that, first, the role of the state has been analyzed solely in terms of
demand management and second, military expenditure as an important
expenditure of the state has been glossed over in the book. Also, the
theory of imperialism, as proposed by Prof. Patnaik in the book, should
be put to the test of praxis. For that, Dr. Bose said, it is essential
to explore the nature of the relationship between different exploited
Session 4: Panel Discussion
Chair: Anil Bhatti, Professor, Centre of German Studies, School of
Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Speakers: Abhijit Sen, Charles Abugre, Chris Baker, Patan Khasnabis
Opening the discussion Abhijit Sen, Member, Central Planning Commission,
India and Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU, New
Delhi raised three main issues. The first is a discomfort with the idea
that there cannot be a closed capitalist system, a discomfort that has
been borne out of the fact that we have been subjected to models of
closed systems. A great deal of money is used to finance wars, aid, etc.
which is actually state spending, signifying some kind of fiscal policy.
As long as we can allow the state to do these, there is no need for
pre-capitalist economies. Therefore the capitalist state can take care
of its own crisis while working as a closed system without any
intervention from outside.
Second, seen in terms of the world economy today, the idea of money as
commodity money, specifically as oil money, though attractive, seems to
be somewhat inconsequential to the current behaviour of the world
economy. The approach taken by Prof. Patnaik therefore does not help in
demystifying things for the following three reasons:
(i) After the neoliberal takeover, a huge rise of finance capital
happened through successive bubbles in various assets. The relationship
between money and these asset markets need to be spelt out.
(ii) The present capitalist leader is in debt, predominantly to
countries that sell goods to it. It allows other countries to run
current account surpluses. In this context, it is important to consider
the question of the undervalued exchange rate of its trading partners,
especially China, which refuses to let its currency to appreciate.
(iii) The immediate past has seen a huge commodity boom, with finance
moving from one set of assets to another. The past 18 months' events
cannot be termed as any long term tendency. Even as the oil-dollar
pedestal is the building block of Prof. Patnaik's ideas, the US does not
think of oil as that important except on the supply side.
Third, he made some remarks about the Indian case:
The Raghuram Rajan Committee report on financial reforms talks about
"growth and inclusiveness". Too many people are excluded from the
financial system. How do we bring them into the financial system? For
the Indian capitalist class, this could be thought of as necessary. But
that's not it. The discourse within peripheral capitalism does not seem
to recognize any relationship on which Prof. Patnaik puts so much emphasis.
Is it not the case that governments have moved away from fiscal policy
Moreover, today wages are very sticky. Real wages in the capitalist
sector have hardly increased. BPOs, etc cannot be seen as safety valves
as Patnaik would have it. These merely utilise existing reserve armies.
In this context, how should we blend the idea of imperialism to the idea
of the closed capitalist economy which is what capitalism is all about?
Charles Abugre, Head, Policy and Advocacy, Christian Aid, London, UK,
was of the opinion that Prabhat Patnaik's argument that stability of the
capitalist economy lies in the degradation of the pre-capitalist economy
that resides together with capitalist economic structures was
particularly interesting. But he questioned whether and to what extent
questions it is possible to make a clear demarcation between capitalist
and non-capitalist economy in reality. Abugre pointed out that such a
demarcation may be plausible in case of a country like India, which has
faced a rapid economic transformation. This is, however, not true for
countries in West and East Asia. Those economies stand testimony to
continuous decay and diffusion of new modes. As a result, there arise
intermediate class structures. Secondly, he argued that Patnaik's book
has suggested socialism as the necessary solution to the present problem
but the solution does not emerge as an inevitable outcome of the
theorization of the same.
Chris Baker, Independent Researcher and Writer, Bangkok, Thailand, made
the point that it is not possible to talk about the global economy
without talking about practice. He raised the question whether it is
realistic to make a stark division between capitalist and pre-capitalist
economy in today's world. Patnaik's theory, Dr. Baker opined, does not
incorporate the diffusion of capitalism. Capitalism degrades the
precapitalist economies, but not till the point until the whole system
fails. If we look at the examples of economies in Latin America, Africa
and Asia, both degradation and diffusion have been going on in parallel.
Patnaik produces socialism out of the hat, as essential but not
inevitable. Does this ambitious re-casting of the ideas about world
capitalism give us any idea about the political organization required to
put this into practice?
Ratan Khasnabis, Professor, Department of Economics, and Dean, School of
Business and Management Studies, University of Kolkata, West Bengal,
India, began by saying that he agrees with Patnaik's critique of
neoliberal economic theory. Patnaik's world is the world of sticky
prices of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki. To Khasnabis, the Marxian stand is
more convincing, as it does not bind the model to the short term. It can
be used to build a model keeping in mind long term consequences.
Maintenance of a minimum rate of profit is required for the sustenance
of capitalism. For the viability of the system, pre-capitalist sectors
are needed to provide stimulus to investment and as a repository of
But the stimulus to investment might come from within. The Schumpeterian
innovation 'creative destruction' fits well with the Marxian model of
capitalism. Marx had argued that competition among capitalists leads to
concentration and centralization of capital. The process is facilitated
by innovation. Innovators eliminate the competitors, which is achieved
by reducing the cost of production. Hence profitable lines of production
can be maintained to an extent.
Lenin had pointed out that underconsumption is a reality, and that it
could be the cause of crisis. The motive of capitalists is to increase
the organic composition of capital. A way out of crisis is to take up
investment in Department II, though it may lead to dis-proportionality
crisis. There is a big differential between wages of workers in
capitalist economies and the third world. Within a capitalist economy
itself, there are low-valued products (with low organic composition of
capital, for instance, agricultural products) and high-valued products
(with high organic composition of capital, such as infotech), which
explains the wage differentials within the capitalist system.
The welfare loss of the above-mentioned strategy will be high. But
interventions from the other side, namely labour, reset the agenda. The
system inflicts tremendous welfare loss on society. Socialism as such
does not come naturally from within.
DAY 2, 13th September 2008
Session 1: Money and Monetary Policies in Capitalist Economies
Chair: S K Thorat, Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India.
Speakers: Erinc Yeldan, Sunanda Sen and Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya
Erinc Yeldan, Professor, Department of Economics, Bilkent University,
Ankara, Turkey, in his paper titled, "Beyond Inflation Targeting:
Accessing the Impacts and Policy Alternatives for Employment Creation
and Economic Development", highlighted the effects of the orthodoxy's
obsession with inflation targeting at the cost of macroeconomic
variables such as employment. The economics behind inflation targeting
which explicitly commits itself to attain price stability is in fact
nothing but the management of expectations, where the market
participants are like Roman gods and goddesses who need to be kept happy
at all times.
The obsession with maintaining price stability in the absence of nominal
anchors has compelled the Central Bank to concern itself solely with
inflation targeting under the pretext that the latter cannot influence
the real side hence it would be best to return to monetary economics.
Even while the ILO statistics suggest that more than 186 million people
across the world are unemployed, 22 percent of the developing world's
workers earn less than a dollar a day and 90 percent of the labour
employed in merchandise trade suffer from informalisation, the
mainstream's dogma of inflation targeting has replaced employment
creation on the direct agenda of almost all countries.
The role of financial globalization which merely redistributes
investible funds rather than accelerate accumulation as a source of
instability cannot be ignored and merely targeting price stability will
be insufficient. He argued that what we really need is macroeconomic
Yeldan pointed out that although inflation needs to be controlled we
need to focus on income redistribution. The focus on inflation targeting
which is primarily situated in a world where inflation is solely
attributed to wage push fails to take note of the phenomenon of imported
inflation and takes away powers from the powers of the Central Bank.
When control over other instruments such as exchange rates is taken
away, targets then become difficult to achieve.
Yeldan suggested alternatives such as the use of the Pasinetti Rule
which implies setting the interest rate to the rate of growth of labour
productivity. Taking from a study by Pollin and Zhu which found out that
higher inflation rates are associated with moderate gains in GDP growth
upto a roughly 10 to 15 percent inflation threshold, he stresses the
need to have case specific thresholds for different kinds of inflations.
In her paper titled "On Trade-Off and the Impossibility", Sundanda Sen,
Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, Jamia Millia Islamia and
Professor (retired), Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU,
India, stated that in a globalized world, where there is capital account
convertibility and exchange rates are subject to market forces, monetary
policy which is subject to the changes in capital inflow and exchange
rates becomes an inffective instrument in the hands of the Central Bank.
To spell out the course of action, with CAC, the import of capital leads
to capital appreciation. Where the exchange rate is not allowed to
appreciate too much, there is some capital absorption which leads to a
rise in prices and increase in interest rates. As interest obligations
have to be met and fiscal deficit increases are not acceptable, the axe
falls on the primary deficit or in other words expenditure cuts are
enforced. CAC is an integral part of deregulated finance where the Bank
of International Settlement Rules makes it compulsory to comply with
Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) and CRPR which reduces lending to sectors
like agriculture and small sectors. Where financial securities are
considered more profitable than industrial securities in a world where a
range of assets are available and corporates prefer to invest in
financial assets due to the presence of ESOPs and the need to show
better balance sheets, inflation targeting is resorted to only to
protect the interests of finance capital.
Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya, Assistant Professor, IIM, Kozhikode, in his
paper on "Oil Shocks: How Destabilising are they for a contemporary
Capitalist Economy?" begun by arguing that reaction of the world economy
to oil shocks has changed significantly in the last two decades. He
pointed out that inflation due to oil shocks in the seventies was higher
and even led to stagflation as compared to the nineties where the impact
on inflation has been more muted. Neo classical models do a very bad job
of explaining this differential response of inflation to oil shocks in
the two different decades.
At a time when money is not fiat and is linked to oil in what is called
the Oil-Dollar Price and it has been argued that oil price increases
have been mainly due to speculation, the relatively reduced impact of
oil shocks in the 90s on inflation in the developed world has been due
to the availability of cheap imports from China and the access to the
cheap labour reserves of the developing world. Notwithstanding the fact
that imperialist powers have a need to control oil to ensure price
stability, Bhattacharya establishes that price stability due to
fluctuations in oil may not be as crisis causing as before.
Session 2: Finance and the Real Economy
Chair: Robert Pollin, Co-director, Political Economy Research Institute
at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
Speakers: Esteban Perez Caldentey, Nirmal Chandra
Esteban Perez Caldentey, Economic Affairs Officer at ECLAC, Santiago,
Chile, began the presentation of his paper "Trade Openness, Financial
Liberalisation and Volatility" by discussing the limitations of
neoclassical economics in dealing with money. The neo-classical theory
cannot function with money as a medium of exchange. But it is difficult
to conceive the functioning of an economy of exchange with a great
number of goods and of private property owners, without an efficient
exchange system. An exchange economy presupposes 'something' to record
and settle transactions with. Intertemporal models made 'that implicit
something to settle transactions' an explicit component of their models
by introducing money as a medium of exchange from 'outside'. This was
achieved by appending a quantity theory equation to the 'real equations'
of general equilibrium. While people starting with Patinkin (1956),
Clower (1965, 1967) and Wallace (1980) did this, introducing money as a
means of exchange negates the very purpose of intertemporal equilibrium.
Esteban then offered an analysis of the last part of Prabhat Patnaik's
book by incorporating a discussion on the inter-temporal approach to
open economy macroeconomics. Intertemporal approach in essence transfers
the intertemporal utility maximisation of households onto the sphere of
countries. The current account balance is thus 'a facet of the market
for intertemporal trade in goods and services'. The capital account
exists to 'support' the gains from trade in goods and services. The
prediction of this theory is that capital should flow from capital
abundant developed countries to developing countries. However, based on
empirical evidence from the Latin American countries, Esteban Perez
showed that net resource flow is moving from the South to the North. He
argued that this has been happening due to repatriation of profits and
incomes. He concluded by arguing that it is not trade that drives
finance as in intertemporal models rather the causality is in the
Nirmal Chandra, Professor Emeritus, IIM, Kolkata, India, in his paper
"Is Inclusive Growth Feasible in Neoliberal India? Some Preliminary
Notes on Fiscal and Credit Policy", spoke on the changing fiscal
situation In India in recent years. He noted that there has been an
improvement in tax to GDP ratio in recent years. Prof. Chandra argued
that improvement in the tax to GDP ratio cannot be attributed to the
fiscal policy stance adopted by the government but has taken place due
to sudden rise in world oil prices. He also pointed out that there has
been no increase in the ratio of tax to non-agricultural GDP. He argued
that the indirect taxes have fallen due to reduction in import duties.
The corporate income tax has increased moderately, but at the same time
because of a number of tax-exemption provided to the corporate sector,
the effective tax rate in the profit share of the corporate sector has
gone far below the statutory rate. He also drew attention to large
number of tax sops given to the corporate sector. Different tax sops
provided by the Centre and the States not only lead to a loss in
potential tax revenue but also give rise to high economic inequality in
the society. The low tax base of the government and its adherence to
neoliberal FRBM act has greatly reduced the scope of undertaking
developmental expenditure in the economy. The speaker ended his speech
by raising an important aspect of the recent high growth phase in India.
According to him, one of the main driving forces of achieving higher
growth rate is the increase in the luxury consumption by the high income
groups and different tax sops given by government to promote such
consumption which means that while this can work for a short time, there
is a natural limit to this process.
Session 3: Open Forum
Chair: C P Chandrasekhar, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and
Planning, JNU, New Delhi and Member, IDEAs' Executive Committee
In the open forum, Prof. Chandrasekhar summarized some of the issues
that came up for discussion in previous sessions. Prof. Chandrasekhar
argued that the issue that was intensely debated was the logical
necessity of the pre-capitalist sector in closing demand constrained
capitalist system. In this regard, he himself proposes that in recent
times finance may also have provided exogenous stimuli to the system. He
draws attention to the credit financed expenditure booms in stimulating
aggregate demand. He also argued that oil-dollar standard proposed by
Prof. Patnaik was also much debated. He argued that the fact that high
rates of growth are experienced only by few developing countries can be
brought into the analysis in explaining the continuing confidence in
dollar. He argued that China was holding large idle dollar reserves that
it can use to stimulate domestic growth. But it is holding these large
reserves at rates of growth that are already very high.
Next, Prof. J. Kregel explained the Keynesian approach to money.
According to him, anything for which liquidity premium exceeds carrying
cost can serve the role of money. Money, in this approach does not have
a concrete referent; a worthless piece of paper can also serve the role
of money. Therefore, Prof. Kregel differs with Prof. Patnaik who pegs
the value of international money to a commodity viz oil. In explaining
the current US drive for gaining control over world's oil resources,
Prof. Kregel argued that it was mainly driven by the personal interests
of those who run the US administration rather than by the desire to
ensure stability to dollar. He also argued that the recent increase in
oil prices has been on account of financial speculation. It is not clear
why financial speculators in US will undermine the stability of dollar
by raising the price of oil.
Besides Prof Kregel, Prof. Bagchi and Prof. Pollin also made important
interventions. Prof. Bagchi reiterated the role of pre-capitalist
markets in ensuring stability and growth in capitalist world. Prof.
Pollin highlighted the importance of green investments. Such investments
will not only insure the world against threats posed by climate change
but will also boost demand in the economy.
In his response, Prof. Patnaik once again emphasized the role of pre
capitalist sector. He drew attention to the role played by colonies in
fostering growth in capitalism in the nineteenth century. He also argued
that demand supply conditions played an important role in determining
the price of oil. He contended that control over non-renewable resources
is essential for maintaining the value of dollar and in the present
scenario, oil is the most important non-renewable resource.
More information about the Debate-list