In a message dated 5/18/2006 8:58:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cristobal S Ruiz wrote:
> this is typical of the apologists of neo-lib > policies in the third world and > this rather objective comment This is it? You have the nerve to snip and chop up what others write and call your sanctimony objective? Amazing! Then you continue with fabrications such as: "Ad-hominem fallacy: If Ulhas thinks that cell phone use is a better measure of economic development than life expectancy, then his motivations or character are flawed" ><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><>< Your statement is what is completely fallacious since no one said that Mr. Ulhas character is flawed. This is an outright lie on your part. In any event, the reference was to the Reuters piece not Ulhas' since he mostly posts Reuters articles and it is actually hard to know what he personally thinks. Then you add gems such as: "Appeal-to-majority fallacy: Most of us think that "neo-liberalism" is bad. Therefore, it is bad. Corollary: whatever measures "neo-liberals" use to quantify economic development are invalid. QED" <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><> Neither Luis Proyect nor I said any of this. This is the product of your own twisted ill-intentioned reasoning. QED. Who is this "most of us " by the way? Amazing! What I did say was that under conditions of an unlimited supply of labor and high concentration of income and therefore high inequality in LDC's, any development strategy designed on the production of luxury goods such as cell phones, flat TVs, micro ovens, etc is doomed to failure because : 1- these industries technology is not labor intensive and it is very high capital intensive instead 2-Given the highly skewed income distribution, its markets quickly hit a wall as demand is limited to a small urban sector 3-Consequently, there is no real growth as the gains from this kind of technological development remain concentrated at the top as they can not filter down in terms of higher income and employment to allow for further expansion . There is a vast empirical literature compiled on this subject, especially from ECLA economists , the UNDP and the Cambridge U task force on development. If you are seriously interested I can forward you extensive citations, starting with the great Chilean economist Anibal Pinto's piece titled: "The Concentration of Technical Progress and Its Gains in Latin American Development".QED Finally you claim that: "I'm tired of the self-righteous ad-hominem crap on the list." and "treat others as you'd like others to treat your mother." ><><><><><><<><><><><><><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I agree on this one. Ill temper and ill manners do not reflect too good on any one. But then you should jump on the opportunity and set an example yourself. Your sanctimony would make the Vatican tremble and as a logician you are a very good musician. QED Next time you feel the need to engage in gratuitous personal attacks please do so via private e mail. or better chose some else. Cristobal Senior de Ruiz
