Even if this extreme assumption was true – the solution would be to establish pricing that took this into account, not to restrict voluntary trade with people who are not “one of us”.

I’m willing to say that his interpretation assumes that “the current generation will completely ignore intergenerational equity, and the only way to “fix it” will be to impose restrictions on the current generation”.

As a result, he finds it unnecessary to open his argument up more transparently.

I realise that economists get a lot of stick, but having an open and tractable framework to put our assumptions inside is useful. If only he had done that I’m sure he would not have come out so harshly.

If this isn’t the case then it does really damage my view of this new version of the Green party …

Its times like this I wish there was a like function on comments …

I was shocked by the undertone of his article – I’m not sure he realised quite how it sounded. I suspect he believes that the current generation will completely ignore intergenerational equity, and the only way to “fix it” will be to impose restrictions on the current generation – if that is the case I wish that this was the discussion, as the extreme nature of his assumptions would be more transparent.

The lingo smells of populism.