Saying "I like hostility to such limits" at least acknowledges the limits, and signals a message of hope (not certainty) that somehow these limits can be ignored. The fact that it is hope rather than certainty in his case makes me somewhat optimistic that something is finally percolating.
Because the inevitable conclusion of acknowledging the limits is that the whole "free markets will let the non-zero games play out in the most efficient way" is completely false. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
When I think of the dangers of conflict, I don't like the limits either. But that's where the current model of growth is taking us. Wolf frames the issue as if the "socialists" who believe in "birth-pangs" or whatever (strawman) are somehow responsible for running mankind into danger. And he appears to be declaring sympathy with climate change or peak oil deniers. Finally, he bases his entire case on the rising tide argument re economic growth.
What he needs to decide is what he really has to say about global warming and finite resources. But maybe the financial system will give him a big prod before he makes up his mind.
For if there are limits to emissions, there may also be limits to growth. But if there are indeed limits to growth, the political underpinnings of our world fall apart.
Still, I never thought I'd read these words--even an admission of possibility-- from him. Of course he bases his arguments on "revealed truth"-- he always has. But he's not a fool, and such insights have happened before. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
