Oil and overproduction 3
dmsch at attglobal.net
Sun Jan 12 14:39:37 MST 2003
Thank you, but there was nothing insulting or low-grade about that analogy.
The reference to cash flow and food was simply to show the discussion is
social, not natural in its origin.
Secondly, I do not agree that the terms of the discussions requires that I
have to dispute questions of reserves and extraction. The issue is much
different than that. I would at least think somebody might want someone to
answer the questions, or refute the analysis, I pose in the discussion of
Thirdly, while I am aware of the positions of several Marxists ecologists, I
do not make a study of them. I didn't think that that would be prerequisite
for a discussion of overproduction. I still don't think it is.
Fourthly, the reference to Mad Max was a specific reference to an
apocalyptic view of the end of civilization due to the absence of oil.
Fifthly, no matter what level of scholarship you think the list maintains,
the first requirement is that we answer the questions that are posed. So
far, I don't believe I've received an answer to the questions I've posed
about oil and overproduction.
And finally, to tell me about my level of scholarship when the initial
response was from Mark was "I don't mean to be insulting, but you don't
know what you're talking about," is almost hilarious.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism