There's a grain of truth in even facetious reductio ad absurdum. So what? I hold out for slightly more than a grain and am not disappointed.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > So most of the human species lives under conditions as bad as or worse > than the current population of Bangladesh? Say 10% live in protected > enclaves, air-conditioned, and with immense dikes around London, New York, > a handful of other such sites. The remaining 90%, no matter how miserable, > should be able to produce enough for bare survival for themselves plus the > needed luxury for the remaining 10%. The economy is working then; the > market is surviving. > > What's wrong with this? > > Coal will last a few centuries, though the pollution and heat will > increase rapidly. So what? TINA, the 10% will say -- and the 90% may not be > able to get together at the same time and place. > > All is well. After a few centuries more the Ten Percent can go out with a > glorious bang. All is well. > > Carrol > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Eubulides > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:06 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Links to Dean Baker & Krugman on Secular Stagnation > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I should have put these links in my earlier post so you could follow > what I was > > addressing. > > > > Krugman opened the discussion with this, about the weirdness of the > present economy: > > > > > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/bubbles-regulation-and-secular-stagnation/ > > > > Dean Baker responded with this: > > > http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/krugman-on-bubbles-and-secular-stagnation > > > > And Krugman responded with this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com > > > > And I wanted to scream. > > > > Gene > > ====================== > > Happy screaming: > > > http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/the-cost-of-climate-change/ > > How much will climate change cost? > > Later this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will > issue its fourth report, aggregating what the latest science tells us > about how man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are warming the > environment. > > It is likely to present a dire picture. “The scientific evidence for > anthropogenic climate change has strengthened year by year,” said Qin > Dahe, a climatologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is > co-chairman of the working group preparing the panel’s report. The > accumulating evidence, he said, leaves “fewer uncertainties about the > serious consequences of inaction.” > > Nonetheless, the report will probably do little to address the most > fundamental question: how much should we spend on prevention? The best > answer, still, is that nobody has any idea. What’s more, science and > economics may have no better answer to provide. > > Consider my recent column about the Obama administration’s estimates > of how much we should pay to slow global warming. It ran into a storm > of criticism. > > The column focused mostly on different assumptions of how much current > spending was needed to pay for environmental damage in the distant > future. The critique, however, zeroed in on the estimates of such > future costs. > > Such estimates, my critics said, were meaningless. > > [snip] > > > How useful were the clergy after the plague? > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
