raghu wrote: > I agree with Jim partly. But I disagree on one point. Jim uses the > consumption level required to maintain high employment as a reasonable > reference point. > > But there is another much more fundamental and objective baseline we > can use, which is the consumption level that is long-term sustainable > i.e. over a period of several centuries. Under this standard, it is > not only not "non-sense", but quite obviously true that the current > average American consumption levels are excessive.
right. Under- and over-consumption can be defined by more than one reference point. The key point is that the definition needs some sort of reference point. In the media, it sometimes (often?) seems that the US working class engages in "over-consumption" because it consumes more than the elite pundits think it deserves. (The reference point was defined by the elite's moral conceptions.) Doug's point was arguing against this perspective. BTW, it is not "quite obviously true" that the average American consumes too much. No empirical proposition is obviously true. It's only in math and logic that a proposition is obviously true -- and even then it's true only given the validity of its premises. Others might argue that it's "quite obviously true" that people in India of China pollute too much, contributing to global warming, etc. out of proportion to their consumption levels. That's not obviously true either. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
