Can anyone recommend a human ecology book or article that tracks the urban-rural relationships as center-periphery over time?

Doesn't treadmill of production theory thus suffer the same problems with respect to the nature of monetary sovereignty?

It has become commonplace to refer to colonialism, or some of its declinations such as post-colonialism or coloniality, as general terms to situate contemporary social exclusion, marginality, and resistance. This conceptual choice has the great advantage of drawing attention to historical continuities between contemporary structures and the centuries-long reproduction of structures of domination. However, is it possible that the conceptual strength of this lumping also hinders our ability to understand the specific modalities of social injustice in various contexts and in different historical moments? Is it possible that this choice leads us to conflate, for example, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, and modernity, as an overly coherent project? Your thoughts will be most welcome!

I headed the diplomatic phase of UNDP's Tunmen River Area Development Programme (a multilateral trade facilitation and infrastructure development project) and have first hand knowledge of the DPRK ports.

Is the relationship conclusively direct? Perhaps there is a fetishization with use-values? And, thus, lack of adequate attention to the nature of value, as a totality - its distribution and production...

The term homesteading has historically meant the granting of land to individuals provided they made improvements on the property. This was widely used in Western United States and Australia in the 19th century to settle the vast frontier.  Currently this concept is being applied to rural areas facing abandonment usually in the form of  tax incentives, subsidies, and loan programs. Homestead rules could be used to stabilize areas that are endanger of losing population and provide economic stabilization to regions. But this term is not so common, especially in Europe. Is there a modern term for this concept? 

I want other peoples opinion on who are the influential ones.

I've been spending a great deal of time studying the topic of capitalist exploitation via increase in intensity and I'm having issues with the mathematics behind it.

Now, in the paper Duration, Intensity and Productivity of Labour and the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Surplus-value by Stavros Mavroudeas there is a formula which defines the how a total working time in a day from all workers is dealt out.

T= V+S

Where T is our total labor hours from all workers that day, V is the value paid out to workers and S is the surplus value gained from that working day.

Now total labor hours T can be broken down to the number of laborors that day and the hours each laborer works. mathematically this is:

T=hl

where h is the number of hours worked by each worker and l is the number of laborers working,it follows our identity is now:

lh=S+V

dividing both sides by lh.

1=(S+V)/lh

this negates what was taught by Dr. Stephen Resnick that capital intensity is:

I=(SV+V)/lh

where there is possibility of varying I, by Mavroudeas formulation of the problem this is impossible.

Based on this simple exercise, does exploitation via "speed up" or increase in labor intensity really exist?

In terms of efficiency / performance.

What significant role does this play in real as opposed to fictitious accumulation of capital?