Jay Hanson wrote:
>I meant that your comments are totally irrelevant Do you suppose anyone
cares what you think about me?
I would be more interested in hearing your solution for our ecological
crisis? Do you recommend more economic growth?<
Jay:
1. What makes you think that I think anything of you at all? Why should
I care about you, personally? You may be the most splendid person on
earth, or you may be the biggest jerk (and I'm sure you would say the
same about me). Your personality has nothing to do with this.
2. I do care about the nature and persistence of your argumentative
antagonism to the whole tribe of econoomists, labelling them in the most
pejorative fashion, without reservation. That is not justified, and it
does concern me because of (a) the essential argument that Orwell made,
and that was at the heart of most of his writings -- the corruption of
language, of which one form is the use of wild diatribe against those
with whose views we may disagree, prevents us from distinguishing
between truth and lies, fact and falsehood; (b) because hate mongering,
against any group, holus bolus, is different from criticism, and a world
in which hate mongering is tolerated (even when directed against
economics and economists) puts all of us at risk; and (c) because the
wholesale rejecting of economists and economics may beguile some other
individuals who otherwise would dispassionately consider whether there
are elements of economic reasoning and policy that *might* be used to
attain worthwhile objectives (e.g. -- to pick one element at random --
using selective ecological taxes to condition behavior so as to limit or
direct production and reduce environmental impacts).
3. Your question about ecology is simply a red herring. Just because
you are passionately advocating environmental concern, and just because
you may be right that some aspects of economics and some arguments made
by some economists, some or all of the time, encourage unlimited
economic growth and production at all times, in all circumstances, and
without heed to real costs -- something that should, indeed, concern us
all -- doesn't justify you in your wholesale, apparently ignorant and
heedless condemnaation of all econoomists, and all econoomics, at all
times. Again, this, rather than you, is all I am concerned about, and I
can only understand the fervor of this behavior by characterizing it as
obsessive behavior, or, rather, obsessive argumentation.
4. A minor matter re. your environomental conclusion. You are, of
course, blindly making unwarranted assumptions that anybody who oppposes
your arguments, or thinks that you have gone way too far in your
arguments against economics and economists, must therefore be an
advocate of unlimited economic growth. Not that it matters, but in my
case, I am on record, since the 1970's and continuiing through the
1980's (I am retired now) as working, and writing, on behalf of
environmental efforts. amd supporting and trying to popularize and embed
in policy (with what degree of success or failure, I cannot judge)
environmental concerns, in Canada and overseas. For example, in
1970-1971, I was co-director of a report on urban problems and
technologies for the Science Council of Canada that was the first, or
one of the first, studies that proposed and elaborated on the need for
urban recycling programs as a means of cutting down on waste, while
generally putting forward (in a public report) the signs that our
society was wasteful in its use of resources (not as widely recognized
then as it is now). In 1972 or 1973, I did a series of papers for the
National Design Council, which advised the Minister of Industry,
pointing out the economic, environmental and social costs of our system
of "externalities" and suggesting that the tax system be used, together
with other methods, to make industries re-internalize these costs as a
disincentive to their environmentallly-disruptive behavior, and, in
addition, that selective consumption taxes be studied insofar as these
might be targeted in ways that would discourage wasteful consumption
patterns. Admittedly, this was probably a wasted effort, and certainly
one that did not earn me any brownie points, but it had to be made, and
I was gratified that at least I convinced some of the colleagues and
Council members on the Council. In the mid-1970's, I worked on the
Fourth Quarter Century Trends review document of the Department of
Environment (a public document which also went to the Canadian cabinet)
and later on a follow-up internal document involving interviews of key
decision-makers who had paarticpated in review of the document which
had, in part, identified a number of problem areas that were emerging in
economic and environmental areas (prepared by a team of DOE analysts and
outside consultants). I could go on with many more examples, some more
important, some less, all of which -- given the magnitude of what we
faced then, and what we are now facing, did not achieve as much as we
had hoped for, but which at least represented efforts to deal with these
problems and motivate others to take them seriously and deal with them
-- i.e., efforts made in good faith, and to the best of our ability. I
am not, as I said, an economist, but at all stages in my career, I found
econoomists, among others, who were as concerned with these issues as
any other environmentally-aware person, and who made their best efforts
and used whatever elements of their discipline (as well as other aspects
of their knowledge) to try to do the work that was needed, and will be
needed, to save the earth and humankind.
None of the above is particularly important and I would not have cited
my own work, which was part of this endeavor, except that it is perhaps
a good example with which to refute the tendency, by Hanson, to make
blind accusations without always knowing what he is talking about.
There is no reason, Mr. Hanson, to know anything about me, or my work or
anything else that is specific to me. But the fact that, in the
compulsive and obsessive pursuit of your particular argument against
econmics and economists, you are willling to stick your neck out and
obviously form a stereotyped image of any individual just because he
gives your argument a hard time is the best evidence of what kind of a
shmucky and muddleheaded polemicist you appear to be. By all means,
please continue to be an advocate of attention to the damage we are
doing to the environment -- it is a good cause, and one should be glad
for any one who is speaking out for it. But please serve that cause
better, by curbing your wilder impulses and focusing on core issues. As
I said before, and I say again, the argument is what I feel is
repulsive, and the wholesale savaging of a whole group of people,
because you can label them and their discipline as you see fit.
Saul Silverman
PS -- Many of the specific comments that you append to your note are
usefully brought to our attention, and are a constructive contribution.
Why don't you stick to this kind of stuff, which one can agree with
(most of the time) or disagree with (some of the time), without feeling
that one is dealing with an endless rant?
