Really, dave, are you sure about that? Did the meanings change that much? Come on be honest. It was not my writing, was it. Please I want you to come up with the another nuance that made you so confused as to have no idea what I was talking about given the context of the discussion
“economics pushes growth to support increasing populations.”
“Politicians and many economists push growth to support increasing populations,”
Given that economics and its relationship with growth are the central theme of our discussion, most would find it hard to believe that those two statements are so different in meaning that you could not easily interchange the two In fact, I don’t think any rational person make that claim unless some ulterior motive.[/quote]
Even in the context of our discussion, those are two very different sentences, particularly when you know what the definition of “economics” is (which I do). But I’m going to address this in the post below – since you brought it up twice – so as to avoid redundancy.[/quote]
Of course, how could I not see it. you thought I was talking about some obscure economic branch rather than the context of which was the dominate economic ethos.
So Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, then. you have trouble with context and logical conclusions.
Fine so be it. At least we are in accordance with “politicians and most economists”, don’t want to confuse you with generalities, push growth for the sake of growth.
