Carrol, it's not a question of insults. The self-evident fact is that none
of these people are capable of arguing for the positions they take, or
didn't you notice? The last refuge of the neoclassical is boundless blind
faith in technology aka 'human ingenuity', or in the 'magic of the markets'
and in the infinitude of resources (or the infinitude of substitutability).
Doug's testimony is remarkable only for its honesty (I give him credit for
that). But they all actually believe it (the only other honest one is Max).
Of course, they all have their alibis ready and deny everything when
cornered, but just as none of them will ever admit to believing in 'infinite
resources' NONE of them have produced any kind of intelligible or halfway
rational argument in favour of their incomprehensible, crazed optimism about
the (capitalist) future. Cheap jibes, personalising debate and finally,
silence, is what you get. I can't be bothered with any of them. Let Rod Hay,
Brad deLong, Jim Devine, Doug Henwood or any other of the closet
neoclassicals/bourgeois apologists come forward and offer ANY KIND of proof
of the proposition that 'there is plenty of oil'; 'energy is limitless'; or
any other of the crazy n-c ideas which they parrot verbatim from high school
textbooks by Paul Samuelson. Or let them accept that the intellectual
castles in the air they routinely construct are simply without foundation.
Let them put their eyes to the telescope and admit, yes, the moons move; or
let them shut up.
Duke it, or shut it.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
