Race Condition

cactus flower wrote:

Dirty business is more profitable than clean business - perhaps you remember that UK study Ibis, Look at your own graphs, and compare the impact trends with the foreign investment graph.

Dirty business is more profitable because pollution is an improperly priced externality.

cactus flower wrote:

You don't deal with what capitalism is and how it works. It requires growth to function at all.

Which, as I keep pointing out, can't be the case, otherwise it would simply collapse in recessions. Japan had a decade of recession and deflation after the collapse of a huge property bubble...but yet they remained a capitalist market economy. If capitalism "requires growth to function at all" how is that possible?

All that is required for capitalism is capitalists able to make a return by lending money. In a contracting or stable economy, they will be making money at the expense of less successful capitalists.

So I ask again - can you actually demonstrate that capitalism requires growth to function at all, or is it simply an article of faith?

I don't think growth is at the root of capitalism. At least not in the way that it's being looked at here.

What we are seeing presently is a weeding out process. We shall see currencies devalued. We should remember however, that value is relative.

The middle classes are being squeezed and the poor are being stripped of what little they have. The rich, who pretend to lament the devaluation of their silver know full well of the relativity of value. Since the losers have already been identified and marked, we also know who the winners will be.

At least that's the plan, or rather the intent, as it would not, in all sincerity, be fair to point to our current situation as being the result of some elaborate scheme. Contingency plans exist though and it's the intention that the sacrifices accept their fate like the sheep they've been conditioned to be.

Unfortunately for our alleged masters, they've gotten the maths wrong, or maybe they haven't recognised the proper mathematics to begin with. There are more than three bodies at play and interacting here, and Newton's recognition of the three body rule comes into effect.

Chaos.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Quote :

Your last paragraph suggests every economic system has the same effect on people, and the same outcomes. You've completely ignored the paragraph I quoted above from ( http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html )
Different economic institutions have different outcomes and different ways of estimating pollution limits. Practically everything in capitalism stops the victim of pollution from having a say, despite whether they want to or not, while profit seeking institutions and imperatives work against accurate estimates. The exact opposite is the case in a decentrally planned anarchistic economy such as Parecon. And yet you say there's no difference?

There's nothing whatsoever in Parecon (or functional socialism) that makes it a better system for accepting environmental limits - except the fact that in order for Parecon to work at all, people already have to be quite different from what they are. Since that's essentially make-believe, you are of course entitled to make any claim you like about it.

Unfortunately, it remains the case that if the political will of the people were sufficient to institute a parecon economy, we would already be somewhere quite far above the level of political will required to institute proper environmental limits.

Nonsense. There is a positive incentive in Capitalism to reject environmental limits - profit motive. If you remove that, you remove one of the key pressures.

Again, no - that's like claiming hunger makes you eat bad food. Profit is money, and money is the value society sets on things. The profit motive is the motivation to add more value to society, by taking what they value less and turning it into what they value more (or taking things from where people value them little to where they value them a lot). Society doesn't properly value the environment, so turning environmental goods into furniture and swimming pools yields a profit, but if society values environmental goods properly, it doesn't. Valuing the environment properly - since it's a common good - requires a government, and regulation. Still, that's all that's required - the rest of the stuff people are proposing isn't part of the solution.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Quote :

Your last paragraph suggests every economic system has the same effect on people, and the same outcomes. You've completely ignored the paragraph I quoted above from ( http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html )
Different economic institutions have different outcomes and different ways of estimating pollution limits. Practically everything in capitalism stops the victim of pollution from having a say, despite whether they want to or not, while profit seeking institutions and imperatives work against accurate estimates. The exact opposite is the case in a decentrally planned anarchistic economy such as Parecon. And yet you say there's no difference?

There's nothing whatsoever in Parecon (or functional socialism) that makes it a better system for accepting environmental limits - except the fact that in order for Parecon to work at all, people already have to be quite different from what they are. Since that's essentially make-believe, you are of course entitled to make any claim you like about it.

Unfortunately, it remains the case that if the political will of the people were sufficient to institute a parecon economy, we would already be somewhere quite far above the level of political will required to institute proper environmental limits.

Nonsense. There is a positive incentive in Capitalism to reject environmental limits - profit motive. If you remove that, you remove one of the key pressures.

Again, no - that's like claiming hunger makes you eat bad food. Profit is money, and money is the value society sets on things. The profit motive is the motivation to add more value to society, by taking what they value less and turning it into what they value more (or taking things from where people value them little to where they value them a lot). Society doesn't properly value the environment, so turning environmental goods into furniture and swimming pools yields a profit, but if society values environmental goods properly, it doesn't. Valuing the environment properly - since it's a common good - requires a government, and regulation. Still, that's all that's required - the rest of the stuff people are proposing isn't part of the solution.

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free. The profit motive is not a motivation to add value for society, but to accumulate capital, to "make money" for the individual capitalist.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Quote :

Your last paragraph suggests every economic system has the same effect on people, and the same outcomes. You've completely ignored the paragraph I quoted above from ( http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html )
Different economic institutions have different outcomes and different ways of estimating pollution limits. Practically everything in capitalism stops the victim of pollution from having a say, despite whether they want to or not, while profit seeking institutions and imperatives work against accurate estimates. The exact opposite is the case in a decentrally planned anarchistic economy such as Parecon. And yet you say there's no difference?

There's nothing whatsoever in Parecon (or functional socialism) that makes it a better system for accepting environmental limits - except the fact that in order for Parecon to work at all, people already have to be quite different from what they are. Since that's essentially make-believe, you are of course entitled to make any claim you like about it.

Unfortunately, it remains the case that if the political will of the people were sufficient to institute a parecon economy, we would already be somewhere quite far above the level of political will required to institute proper environmental limits.

Nonsense. There is a positive incentive in Capitalism to reject environmental limits - profit motive. If you remove that, you remove one of the key pressures.

Again, no - that's like claiming hunger makes you eat bad food. Profit is money, and money is the value society sets on things. The profit motive is the motivation to add more value to society, by taking what they value less and turning it into what they value more (or taking things from where people value them little to where they value them a lot). Society doesn't properly value the environment, so turning environmental goods into furniture and swimming pools yields a profit, but if society values environmental goods properly, it doesn't. Valuing the environment properly - since it's a common good - requires a government, and regulation. Still, that's all that's required - the rest of the stuff people are proposing isn't part of the solution.

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free. The profit motive is not a motivation to add value for society, but to accumulate capital, to "make money" for the individual capitalist.

From that perspective you need to line that motivation up with a desirable outcome by putting a proper value on what the capitalist's enterprises use. Let me put it in pictures:



That's the pure "free-market" situation. The environment is treated as a free good. Here's the regulated version, with the "environmental goods" costed:



Now, in the first case, the more profitable option is the more polluting - 10 tonnes of waste - because waste doesn't cost you anything, and neither does water.

In the second case, the more profitable option is the less polluting, because polluting costs money, as does using water.

In the first case we have given our capitalist the incentive to pollute. In the second we have given our capitalist the incentive not to.

It is true, of course, that the capitalist has the incentive to argue that costing externals is a bad idea. Hence the need for political will.

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

**ibis post above

It's interesting on the growth side of things and it'd be interesting if it was teased out a bit more .. Growth and economic expansion is definitely something which puts pressure on the environment but is it something without which Capitalism cannot survive ?

I don't think so but that depends on what you mean by growth. Bigger cars sold to more people is an example but on the other hand we tend to value smaller computers which use less energy. Is there a connection between our own perception of our own objects as others see them and the objects that we possess privately ? Or is there a fashion element to the whole thing stimulated by marketing and advertising ?

Rarely is negative 'growth' seen as a good thing but it tends to be so for waste or energy consumption. Cars are heading that way too. Which is what we need - a quantum leap in perceptions in terms of growth in quality rather than quantity, volume and size. There is also a good market for people who want stuff that doesn't hurt the planet but still there will always be hoarders, compulsive shoppers who possess a hundred pairs of shoes, 1000s of CDs and other stuff accumulated around them. Sounds like a neurosis solved by addressing other components of the person's psyche unrelated to their material needs.

Most of us have materially more than enough and there are things of high value to us that we don't trade using money. Isn't it also a point that capitalism could undo itself by developing better technology and machinery while trying to gain a competitive edge - thus the means of production can be disseminated wider and wider tending towards anarchy as a limit. Or at least personal independence. This could be a huge driver for goods of a particular quality if the bug caught on at all - low energy, high durability goods requiring good understanding (boats) or ease of use (new OSes) or energy independence (electric vehicles, micro solar power).

Auditor #9 wrote:

**ibis post above

It's interesting on the growth side of things and it'd be interesting if it was teased out a bit more .. Growth and economic expansion is definitely something which puts pressure on the environment but is it something without which Capitalism cannot survive ?

I don't think so but that depends on what you mean by growth. Bigger cars sold to more people is an example but on the other hand we tend to value smaller computers which use less energy. Is there a connection between our own perception of our own objects as others see them and the objects that we possess privately ? Or is there a fashion element to the whole thing stimulated by marketing and advertising ?

Rarely is negative 'growth' seen as a good thing but it tends to be so for waste or energy consumption. Cars are heading that way too. Which is what we need - a quantum leap in perceptions in terms of growth in quality rather than quantity, volume and size. There is also a good market for people who want stuff that doesn't hurt the planet but still there will always be hoarders, compulsive shoppers who possess a hundred pairs of shoes, 1000s of CDs and other stuff accumulated around them. Sounds like a neurosis solved by addressing other components of the person's psyche unrelated to their material needs.

Most of us have materially more than enough and there are things of high value to us that we don't trade using money. Isn't it also a point that capitalism could undo itself by developing better technology and machinery while trying to gain a competitive edge - thus the means of production can be disseminated wider and wider tending towards anarchy as a limit. Or at least personal independence. This could be a huge driver for goods of a particular quality if the bug caught on at all - low energy, high durability goods requiring good understanding (boats) or ease of use (new OSes) or energy independence (electric vehicles, micro solar power).

Good points - particularly the point that quite often better means smaller, lighter, smarter, and better is where the profit is.

ibis wrote:

That is not sustainable.

New Scientist

What do you think the relationship is between the exponential foreign investment graph and the impact graphs, Ibis?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

That is not sustainable.

New Scientist

What do you think the relationship is between the exponential foreign investment graph and the impact graphs, Ibis?

Perverse incentives, cf.

Auditor #9 wrote:

**ibis post above

It's interesting on the growth side of things and it'd be interesting if it was teased out a bit more .. Growth and economic expansion is definitely something which puts pressure on the environment but is it something without which Capitalism cannot survive ?

I don't think so but that depends on what you mean by growth. Bigger cars sold to more people is an example but on the other hand we tend to value smaller computers which use less energy. Is there a connection between our own perception of our own objects as others see them and the objects that we possess privately ? Or is there a fashion element to the whole thing stimulated by marketing and advertising ?

Rarely is negative 'growth' seen as a good thing but it tends to be so for waste or energy consumption. Cars are heading that way too. Which is what we need - a quantum leap in perceptions in terms of growth in quality rather than quantity, volume and size. There is also a good market for people who want stuff that doesn't hurt the planet but still there will always be hoarders, compulsive shoppers who possess a hundred pairs of shoes, 1000s of CDs and other stuff accumulated around them. Sounds like a neurosis solved by addressing other components of the person's psyche unrelated to their material needs.

Most of us have materially more than enough and there are things of high value to us that we don't trade using money. Isn't it also a point that capitalism could undo itself by developing better technology and machinery while trying to gain a competitive edge - thus the means of production can be disseminated wider and wider tending towards anarchy as a limit. Or at least personal independence. This could be a huge driver for goods of a particular quality if the bug caught on at all - low energy, high durability goods requiring good understanding (boats) or ease of use (new OSes) or energy independence (electric vehicles, micro solar power).

Under capitalism, production takes place in order to make a profit and surplus capital is then invested. No one, unless the system is in crisis, puts their money under the mattress. It is invested in further production to make more profit and so on - it aims at a constant process of accumulation and expansion. As this process goes on it gets harder to make a profit because of competition, investment of fixed capital (machinery, technology) and pressure for higher wages. As the rate of profit goes down capitalists turn to "economies of scale" - increased production, to maintain their profits. When production runs ahead of demand, as it has in the Irish housing market, there is a collapse. Overall, until this point, capital has expanded mainly as it has been able to move into new territories.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

Things have a functional value - food and water keep us alive for example - and they have a market value, which is a different thing.

post above

ibis - Regulation is great and I agree with your points on taxing or pricing the externalities but doesn't that mean that - if I understand how it works - that economically in the likes of the case of ireland either our corpo tax would rise or we'd introduce stealth or Green/carbon tax or an economic bloc as a whole, if not the planet collectively would have to put a price on certain things like water usage in industry and carbon emissions thereby countries with a competitive tax advantage could keep that advantage, the world would gain and the wriggle room or growth prospects would be in human ingenuity in the areas of technology or in life activities like personal development and tourism etc. among others I suppose.

Regulation is good but there's no rival for a good cultural groundswell either - the most lasting and potentially extensive force. I hear older people remarking on the weather a lot now and how it's different and changing; if the connection could be made with CO2 then you'd probably be able to sell a carbon budget no hassle but I think older generations equate it more with profligacy and disposables and waste culture which is the same thing.

I wonder do governments also have the responsibility to promote moderation over excess?

cactus flower wrote:

Under capitalism, production takes place in order to make a profit and surplus capital is then invested. No one, unless the system is crisis, puts their money under the mattress. It is invested in further production to make more profit and so on - it aims at a constant process of accumulation and expansion. As this process goes on it gets harder to make a profit because of competition, investment of fixed capital (machinery, technology) and pressure for higher wages. As the rate of profit goes down capitalists turn to "economies of scale" - increased production, to maintain their profits. When production runs ahead of demand, as it has in the Irish housing market, there is a collapse. Overall, until this point, capital has expanded mainly as it has been able to move into new territories.

Generally there is a limit on what people can be sold I think so there should be some saturation point with capitalism and what it can sell although it's a remarkable scam where people upgrade their car every two years or so isn't it?

There is an element of quality creeping in though and this will be the future I'd say. For example in health foods and stuff with a quality label - don't you think this isn't increasing production as such but is creating a luxury and quality goods market that may sometimes seem culturally perverse but doesn't cost the earth ? Like designer bottles of water for €35



suckers

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

Things have a functional value - food and water keep us alive for example - and they have a market value, which is a different thing.

We need food and water, yes, but that does not give them an "intrinsic value" in money. Given the choice between any amount of money and the food you need not to starve, you will give all the money, even if it's billions. You won't pay that for a bun on the way to work though, so the idea that the functional value of food is related to its price is rather obviously false.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

Things have a functional value - food and water keep us alive for example - and they have a market value, which is a different thing.

We need food and water, yes, but that does not give them an "intrinsic value" in money. Given the choice between any amount of money and the food you need not to starve, you will give all the money, even if it's billions. You won't pay that for a bun on the way to work though, so the idea that the functional value of food is related to its price is rather obviously false.

I very clearly said that functional value does not determine price. I take it that you're agreeing?

Auditor #9 wrote:

post above

ibis - Regulation is great and I agree with your points on taxing or pricing the externalities but doesn't that mean that - if I understand how it works - that economically in the likes of the case of ireland either our corpo tax would rise or we'd introduce stealth or Green/carbon tax or an economic bloc as a whole, if not the planet collectively would have to put a price on certain things like water usage in industry and carbon emissions thereby countries with a competitive tax advantage could keep that advantage, the world would gain and the wriggle room or growth prospects would be in human ingenuity in the areas of technology or in life activities like personal development and tourism etc. among others I suppose.

Certainly the best solution is a worldwide agreement. It would be tolerable if a few lawless states didn't implement the agreement, much as per the CFC ban.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Regulation is good but there's no rival for a good cultural groundswell either - the most lasting and potentially extensive force. I hear older people remarking on the weather a lot now and how it's different and changing; if the connection could be made with CO2 then you'd probably be able to sell a carbon budget no hassle but I think older generations equate it more with profligacy and disposables and waste culture which is the same thing.

The cultural groundswell is absolutely necessary. Elected politicians are very cowardly.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I wonder do governments also have the responsibility to promote moderation over excess?

Absolutely. There's no excuse for a government not to act on the problem. It's the kind of thing we elect them for - to go and find out the scale of the problem, and propose solutions.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Under capitalism, production takes place in order to make a profit and surplus capital is then invested. No one, unless the system is crisis, puts their money under the mattress. It is invested in further production to make more profit and so on - it aims at a constant process of accumulation and expansion. As this process goes on it gets harder to make a profit because of competition, investment of fixed capital (machinery, technology) and pressure for higher wages. As the rate of profit goes down capitalists turn to "economies of scale" - increased production, to maintain their profits. When production runs ahead of demand, as it has in the Irish housing market, there is a collapse. Overall, until this point, capital has expanded mainly as it has been able to move into new territories.

Generally there is a limit on what people can be sold I think so there should be some saturation point with capitalism and what it can sell although it's a remarkable scam where people upgrade their car every two years or so isn't it?

CF is generally correct, as are you. The way mass capitalism works (where you don't need to save as much for your pension because your savings are "invested" on your behalf) relies on an expanding economy to invest in. That's because mass capitalism is statistical - it relies on the idea that investment isn't a zero-sum game at the level of the whole economy, because the amounts of money and investors involved are so large.

That is not, however, a necessary feature of capitalism, but quite recent (post-war, and only really taking off since the start of the 80's) - it's retail capitalism rather than merchant capitalism, if you like. Now nobody 'keeps their money under the mattress' - everybody 'puts their money to work for them', as the bank ads put it. The result has been a huge excess of liquidity, with everybody's money sloshing around madly looking for somewhere to go to work. In turn, that's produced asset bubbles of all kinds, including financial products - in a string sense, the current crisis is the bursting of a derivatives bubble and a sudden contraction of liquidity as people are frightened off mass capitalism.

However, merchant capitalism - the traditional capitalism with fat cats in top hats that still feature extensively in left-wing fantasies - can continue through times of stability or contraction, because individual capitalists don't mind it being a zero-sum game overall.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

Things have a functional value - food and water keep us alive for example - and they have a market value, which is a different thing.

We need food and water, yes, but that does not give them an "intrinsic value" in money. Given the choice between any amount of money and the food you need not to starve, you will give all the money, even if it's billions. You won't pay that for a bun on the way to work though, so the idea that the functional value of food is related to its price is rather obviously false.

I very clearly said that functional value does not determine price. I take it that you're agreeing?

I am - and then we're back to my initial point, which is that society determines prices, or rather prices are socially determined, according to the value that people put on things. Are you agreeing with that?

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

Things have a functional value - food and water keep us alive for example - and they have a market value, which is a different thing.

We need food and water, yes, but that does not give them an "intrinsic value" in money. Given the choice between any amount of money and the food you need not to starve, you will give all the money, even if it's billions. You won't pay that for a bun on the way to work though, so the idea that the functional value of food is related to its price is rather obviously false.

I very clearly said that functional value does not determine price. I take it that you're agreeing?

I am - and then we're back to my initial point, which is that society determines prices, or rather prices are socially determined, according to the value that people put on things. Are you agreeing with that?

What exactly does that mean? What do you mean by "the value that people put on things"? How does "society determine prices"?

Does supply and demand come into it at all? Competition? Is there any difference between functional use value, and market price?

On the environment end, I respect your knowledge. On the economics side, this is not up to the level of understanding that someone running a corner shop would have.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

No Ibis, money is not the value society sets on things. There are plenty of things that society values that are free.

Yes, price is the value society at large sets on things. Even money itself only has the value people put on it - the value of things doesn't emerge from anything other than human preferences. Nothing has an intrinsic value.

Things have a functional value - food and water keep us alive for example - and they have a market value, which is a different thing.

We need food and water, yes, but that does not give them an "intrinsic value" in money. Given the choice between any amount of money and the food you need not to starve, you will give all the money, even if it's billions. You won't pay that for a bun on the way to work though, so the idea that the functional value of food is related to its price is rather obviously false.

I very clearly said that functional value does not determine price. I take it that you're agreeing?

I am - and then we're back to my initial point, which is that society determines prices, or rather prices are socially determined, according to the value that people put on things. Are you agreeing with that?

What exactly does that mean? What do you mean by "the value that people put on things"? How does "society determine prices"?

Does supply and demand come into it at all? Competition? Is there any difference between functional use value, and market price?

All of those things. People determine prices by being willing to pay only a certain amount for any item or service - how much exactly that is will depend on how much they want or need it, how much money they have, what the supply is, whether there's competition.

cactus flower wrote:

On the environment end, I respect your knowledge. On the economics side, this is not up to the level of understanding that someone running a corner shop would have.

I hate to say it, but I don't think you're competent to offer an opinion - your own 'understanding' of economics appears to consist entirely of a combination of dogma, half-digested Marxist theory, and personal prejudices.

Meow

johnfás wrote:

Meow

Well, yes, but politely so. I think an awful lot of CF in lots of other ways, but not this one...and that's apparently mutual.

Ye two are always squabbling when ye're squabbling at all over prices - what prices are ye talking about specifically ? Is it worth paying €8 to park next to the Cliffts of Moher to have a look at them while on a nice stroll - what do ye think ? Don't Clare County Council deserve to get plenty of cash from this beautiful world resource ?

As Joni Mitchell says "they took all the trees and put 'em in the Tree Museum, then they charged all the people a dollar and a half just to see them"

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone - They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot

ibis wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Meow

Well, yes, but politely so. I think an awful lot of CF in lots of other ways, but not this one...and that's apparently mutual.

Very sorry for the tetchiness, but its really not possible to get anywhere with a discussion on the interaction of environment and economy without defining terms a bit more clearly than you have so far. Far from relying on dogma, on the basis of very interesting OP you compiled I pointed out an observable relationship between investment, economic growth and environmental impacts. Your answer when I asked you what you thought that relationship is, was a one word tautology. Do you not agree that investment of capital, which drives growth to provide a return on the investment, is a necessary and unavoidable feature of capitalism? Making the point that there are periodic economic recessions doesn't overcome the long trend to growth that is shown in the graph. A person would not have to be a Marxist to acknowledge that.

Unreserved apology, Ibis, for the earlier ad hominem remark.

cactus flower wrote:

Unreserved apology, Ibis, for the earlier ad hominem remark.

Ah no, it's not really an ad hominem. If you think I don't know my arse from my elbow about economics, that's pretty relevant when discussing economics!