That's right there are no limits to growth. I mean we never use
constraints in economics. I mean I didn't spend hours on end learning
constrained optimization techniques, both dynamic and static. Nobody
talks about such limiting factors as information, externalities, etc.
Nope. No neoclassical economist does that.
And when talking about resources that have a finite amount we just pretend
that doesn't exist.
Dang, I wish there was an emoticon for sarcasm.
Steve
--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jim Tantillo writes:
> >I'm leery of any such attempt to generalize about whole classes of
> people
> >without making any distinctions. I worry that such crude sociological
> >categorizations are little better than tendentious stereotypes. For
> >example, if we substituted "rich Jews" for your category, "the
> liquidating
> >class," think of how offensive that would be. Or if instead of
> persecuting
> >the top one percent of personal consumption expenditures, you advocated
> >persecuting the bottom one percentile in personal consumption
> expenditures.
> >I think there are real risks inherent in your generalizations.
>
> I think Jim that you should go to Brians web site at
> www.steadystaters.org
> and read one of the chapters of his book called the "Shoveling Fuel for
> a
> Runaway Train Errant Economists, Shameful Spenders, and a Plan to Stop
> them
> All", Brian Czech, Phd. It is published by the Univ. of California
> press.
> Brian is critiquing neoclassical economics which assumes that there is
> "no
> limits to economic growth" in consumption.
>
> There is one chapter you can read at his website. It is very good, and I
> am
> going to buy a copy. The term "liquidator class" refers to all those
> people
> in the US whom consume natural capital in a wasteful manner. The person
> who
> eats a 16 ounce Porterhouse steak "liquidates" with his stomach, just as
> much as various software excutives "liquate" scare natural resources by
> building their "cathedral" style McMansions - as Brian writes. The term
> "castigate" is used in moral sense, and that term is valid in the way
> that
> Brian is applying it. He is not suggesting that there are in fact a
> class of
> people who should have their assets destroyed in the book because they
> are
> liquadating natural capital at an unsustainable rate, but rather he says
> that the problem of excess consumption [luxury consumption] is more a
> result
> of "ignorance" than immorality. The emphasis to me appears to be in
> education of the liquidating class regarding the unsustainable
> consumption
> habits of Americans, rather than the utilization of force or
> undemocratic
> means. So I don't know how you, Jim, can leap to the conclusion that the
> Brian is suggesting anything like you refer to in your above statement,
> ie.
> demonizing.
>
> Brian is a conservation biologist and I think based on the chapter in
> his
> book that his attitude and knowledge is considerable. He is making a
> plea
> for people to consume far less than they do now on the basis of facts.
> For
> instance, he notes that the average American consumes 4000 barrels of
> oil
> per year. Why? and why does a family of 4 or 5 need a 10,000 square food
> home made of redwood, cedar, and a two car carport with a pool? Why do
> the
> super rich need wall sized video screens, and Ferrari's? What about the
> Grandkids? what will be left for them when all the natural gas is burned
> up
> heating those McMansions, which perhaps there are estimated to be about
> 1
> million in the US?
>
> john foster
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
|