Voss- Thanks for going through my comment and responding.

Let me begin with a quote - "It has drowned the most heavenly ecstatic of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth in exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. ... it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation".

Sounds sophisticated and convincing? This is a direct quote from Marx and Engel's Communist Manifesto.

My purpose of invoking the Manifesto (earlier and now) is to draw similarities in the language and intellectual predisposition of this article and to another commentator's response. It wasn't meant to kindle memories or thoughts of the bloody aftermath, which I presume has prompted your defense.

However, I do think I should be free to comment and bring to the table all sorts of ideas. Therefore, I don't agree with you asking me to tone down or prodding me to choose an alternate set of words etc.

The discussion of Communist Manifesto and other failed ideas should be part of everyday conversation. And I presume one doesn't feel offended to use words like 'blind', 'schizophrenic', 'bloody' or 'degraded' prefixed to capitalism while discussing free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism is usually the orphan that needs to be defended in any context setting where words are freely thrown around. Especially, anyone who calls 'environmental degradation' or 'global warming' or 'scarce natural resource' usually has the attention and empathy of the crowd. And he wins half the argument already.

The ones who plead for the efficiency of price (as an input resource optimizer, as divider of labor, as an allocator of capital, as a mechanism to auction etc) is branded a 'usurper' or an 'evil'.

My simple point is, all that we are doing today is simply throw around terminologies. There is a need for deeper discussion on an epistemological basis. But any attempt at beginning one amounts to stepping into touchy areas. For instance, comparisons with socialist doctrine is repelling.

Someone says 'neuroeconomics' and 'two sides of the brain' and that person is like a God-sent economist to the earth. And someone professes care for timber or coal and he is welcomed with "Sharpe", " Cape" and what not supporting appendages. These are not evidences. Except, ideas in the mind of a coterie of Nobel prize winners (that prize which shouldn't have been given to Economics in the first place, but that again is obviously for discussion for another day) and it's avowed followers.

Thank you Voss for reading through patiently. I look forward to your articles and opinions.