Once Julio defined his version of efficiency, I dropped out of the
discussion. Since, for Julio, efficiency is defined as the 'survival of
the fittest' -- i.e. 19th C Spencerian social survival doctrine -- I
realized that there was no basis for dialogue. We just don't have the
same criteria of efficiency nor do I accept his definition as morally
nor intellectually acceptable as a social science criteria. Given that
we obviously can't communicate on a mutually acceptable level, there is
no point in my continuing this discussion. However, I think that the
discussion of the regulation of the commons remains vital to the
continuation of the human race (i.e. the preservation of the ocean
species), so I would not want to necessarily cut off this part of the
discussion.
Paul P
Michael Perelman wrote:
Sure. Two other people were becoming a bit feisty -- out of character for
both. I
thought that your post yesterday represented a good summary of the discussion.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:41:11PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
how about my point about "efficiency" (Kaldor-Hicks, Pareto), i.e.,
that before we talk about it, it should be defined.
On 6/26/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is getting too nasty to continue. You are talking past one another. Let's
drop it.
--
Jim Devine / "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
--
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
