Message 04165 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 9/27 L8 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] built-in infinitegrowth (was: Re:Meaning ofmarkets, scarcity, abundance)



On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:56:11 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa cbs.dk> wrote:


Dmytri Kleiner wrote:



The element of direct competition (e.g. burning of more blankets etc.)


What about simply generating greater wealth? If an element of competition,
i.e. 
a belief that more is better and that having more surplus reflects on the
status of
the chief, then why would competition appear simply because of the
appearance of blankets?

If you could provide some references that would be very useful, as I have
not
come across this claim that potlatch only became competitive after European
contact
in Mauss, etc.

Simply because it turned obscene does not tell me that it was not
competitive, and thereby
expansion oriented before.



When it comes to the aspect of 'pleading fallacy' - I'm an
anthropologist by trade, and you can either accept that anthropologists
'know shit'


Thanks for the references, the point is not whether or not anthropologist
"know shit." The point is
that when you make fallacious arguments, you do not help the rest of us
know shit.


Cheers.



-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net


_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 9/27 L8 [In index]
Message 04165 [Homepage] [Navigation]