You made your profit point early on in the debate, while it was still useful. Now it is repetitive, which is why it is finished.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:47:27PM -0400, sartesian wrote: > But.... the explosive "but..". > > There were real substative issues raised-- not the least of which, in my > non-humble opinion, is the one I continued to raise and which was never > really taken up-- profit, the role of profit in driving prices up or > down, in inflating or deflating fears of looming shortages. > > Every capitalist can tell you where the bread is, where the butter is, > and just how important getting the butter on the bread is-- and > everthing in capitalism is about the bread and butter of securing profit > and protecting the already congealed profit called private property. > > I would hope progressive economists would ascribe a "value" to the > question of profit in these matters commensurate with the value ascribed > by the capitalist economy itself. > > If we can't trace these gyrations-- ideological, "scientific,"-- back to > their origins in a capitalist economy, then we, economists or not, don't > have a chance of grasping their real social importance. > > That participants in a discussion use sarcasm to a greater or lesser > degree is to be expected when many of the members of this last have > made, not a career of using sarcasm, but sarcasm itself a way of > "italicizing" their points in a discussion. > > Anyway, this from the guy who first asked for exiling this discussion to > the frozen zone until such time as we could get it past the repitition > compulsion stage. Go figure. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:31 PM > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why the peak oil debate is through > > > > I do not want to say much about the person's identity, but that > individual is not a > > deep lurker. > > The problem with the discussion was not that it was insufficiently > academic. If > > that were the case, Lou's response would be right on target. Nor was > the problem > > that I wanted to cut off people's opportunity to participate. Just > the opposite. I > > wanted to encourage more people to participate. Nor was the problem > that certain > > ideas have no business on the list. > > At first, I thought the discussion was healthy. The problem was that > the discussion > > degenerated until it was mostly limited to two people, who were going > back and forth > > in a style that was increasingly becoming personal. My experience is > that people > > tell me that they hesitate to jump into discussions because they do > not want to get > > involved in this kind of exchange. > > I would've appreciated hearing from people outside of North America > bringing their > > perspective into the discussion. > > > > > > > > -- > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > > michaelperelman.wordpress.com > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
