On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 16:10:47 (-0400) Julio Huato writes: >Bill Lear wrote: > >>>You think that the word confers on the more efficient society (the >>>society more capable of developing the productive force of labor) some >>>sort of moral badge. It doesn't. >> >> Well, I think it does, and I think >> it's highly misleading to make the >> mistake of most neoclassical >> economists and to ignore the >> obvious externalities. What were >> the costs of the lives and liberties >> of those trampled by the Nazis, or >> the U.S., if references to the uber >> bad guys makes you uncomfortable? >> What is the cost to the rape >> victim? Wouldn't including these >> monumental costs make it immediately >> obvious that those raping and >> pillaging are extraordinarily >> inefficient? > >When are you going to stop raping your mother?
Good retort, schoolboy. As a matter of fact, my mother is dead. Can you not answer a simple question without stooping to ad hominem insults? I guess you don't care what cost it is for a person to be raped. Where is that in your efficiency calculus? If we include the lives lost in the conquest of the Americas, that's, what, 50 million people, 10 million, 100 million? How much do their lives count? If you say these are included in "capitalism as a whole" (your phrase), then shouldn't capitalism as a whole be counted as incredibly inefficient? Why should we accept your twisted accounting that places these costs on the victims? Bill
