| Subject: | [socialcredit] the "new" v. the "old" economics | | Date: | Sunday, November 20, 2005 15:44:40 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
But Per, the reality is there are theoretically no
limits to growth from the human perspective. We as
humans are limited at any point in time only by our
knowledge and state of technology and development.
Just a century ago we were limited in how many people
could occupy any given unit of land, so land was a
precious commodity in that respect. Then the
technology to construct buildings that would rise into
the sky was developed. We could in principle build
200 story buildings filled with dwellings and
factories if it were not for the presence of maniacal
ideologues inclined to hijack airliners to crash into
them. That is to say, the limitation upon us is
primarily social, not physical.
And you speak of "water," but water is the ultimate
"recyclable" resource, for God's sake. Have you not
heard of the hydrologic cycle?
We are told that shortly after the birth of the Earth
prodigious quantities of water were laid down by
comets, available for our use.
Long before the emergence of Man, biologic activity
laid down prodigious quantities of coal, oil and iron,
available for our use.
Why not use them? Is that not our birthright?
Your negative attitude, Per, is premised on a
fundamentally false assertion from classical
economics: that returns are diminishing; whereas, the
fact is, unique to the human condition, they are
actually increasing.
Which is what demarcates the new from the old
economics.
-
--- Per Almgren <info@nordspar.se> wrote:
At 11:28 2005-11-19, you wrote:
Hi Jock:
You said:
"So, do tell, how do you address Ambrose Bierce's
issue with land:"
I can easily rebuke this logic. Food is finite. The
theory that food is subject to private control is the
modern foundation of society. Carried to its logical
conclusion it means that some have the right to
prevent others from eating. If A, B and C have food,
there will be none for D, E, F, and G.
Do you think this logic is faulty?
Obviously Mr. Bierce had never seen high rise
apartments. In pretty much every place on earth there
is a vacancy rate, and all that is seperating the
homeless from a vacant place to live is the money
necessary to rent/buy the place(unless they simply
choose to be homeless, which means you can lead a
horse to water, but you can't force him to drink).
Most of the land on earth is uninhabited. The fact
that land is finite is not the problem. All matter is
finite. And certainly private/exclusive ownership is
not the problem, because the opposite is the road to
tyranny.
Take care,
Jim
The problem is that the useful area to live upon an
especially to grow things upon is limited, and also
the freshwater needed. We are now near the limits of
growth, in almost every direction. So the problem is
real.
Per Almgren
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
|
the "new" v. the "
Reply to this message