On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > me: > raghu: >> In other words, until the Revolution comes, we must have (GDP) growth! >> I am afraid this argument (apology?) is completely bogus. > > NO!! I explicitly allowed for social democratic management of > capitalism, which does not require a revolution. And I didn't say that > we must have GDP growth: rather, if we don't have it, there will be > costs. This is because almost everyone is dependent on the market to > live. > > Please don't misinterpret what I say.
Jim, Even though I quoted you, my remark above was not directed at you. I should have clarified - sorry. Instead it was directed at what Gene Coyle referred to as the "most people, including many on this list" who don't see runaway growth as a big problem. However I notice that you too make a distinction between combating pollution and growth. I have said before and I say it again: progressives do not talk (and think?) enough about the problem of growth. It is simply not in the discourse to the extent it should be. If it is there, it is there as a footnote, an afterthought. The assumption is that there are other more important, pressing problems than the environment. And re: the environment it is depressing how "carbon emissions" has completely monopolized the discourse. As if there are not other (only indirectly related) problems that need addressing - like water scarcity, food quality, land use etc. -raghu. -- Eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
