Re: Why the peak oil debate is through

[sartesian <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have no problem with that.  My objection was to the invisible critic's
remarks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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
>