Of course there is, but the lecturing is uncalled for nonetheless. Also, it is arguable how many males and females in Asia are waiting to adopt Western lifestyles (do we really have any idea what the 100s of millions of villagers in India are adopting, unless by Western lifestyle you mean mobile phones and motorcycles). But more interestingly, it is even more contentious that these people want to emulate a white guy in terms of lifestyle. :-)
> Re: "I do not see why the burden falls on one side to demonstrate
> “pursuing public investment policies that will ruin private investors”
> will “make the society as a whole better off”.
>
> [WS:] I was not clear enough. I did not suggest simple redistribution
> of wealth. I suggested public investment policies along the lines
> pursued by the Soviets after the revolution, anything from
> transportation infrastructure, renewable energy, public health,
> housing etc. The only thing that holds such policies back is the
> property owning class, because they realize that public investment
> would wipe out profits on their previous investments. This is is an
> institutional obstacle rather than economic one (i.e. lack of
> resources.) However, the common perception is that putting private
> investors out of business would have dire consequences for the
> economy, hence an argument is needed to show that it will not.
Yes, indeed, but I have always assumed that the argument is needed for debates with the larger US public, not between you and me!
> One more thing - I do not understand your technophobia. There is
> technology and there is technology. Disposable gizmos, SUVs military
> gear etc is technology, but so is wind turbines, vaccines, trains,
> energy efficient heating etc. Nobody here advocated the former, but
> what is wrong with the later?
I am not sure I can be accused of technophobia - I suspect I have more bleeding edge technological commitments than almost any other list member! But honesty demands that I admit that most of these are a waste of time. I do not need an iPhone or Twitter or desmodromic valve induction. What I have techno-utopia-phobia. Note that the original poster’s belief was that technological *progress* is what would, mainly, offer relief to the human condition. Once again, I stress and underline the word “progress” in that term. Even if nobody advocated iPhones or Twitter or desmodromic valve induction, that’s what technological progress is (as well as a few other things).
Cheers,
—ravi
P.S: I hope it is clear that I am being intentionally combative for effect, not out of animosity! I don’t want to piss off any more people on LBO :-) but I can’t resist my inborn snarkiness.