I have no problem with that. My objection was to the invisible critic's remarks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why the peak oil debate is through
> 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 >
