golfgal, first off, I didn’t call you an idiot. I said that what you wrote was idiotic. Which it is, as I’ve explained in very clear terms. You may be a genius for all I know. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are some pretty big holes in your understanding of economics.
Secondly, your previous post is a text book example of what is known as the Straw Man Fallacy. You didn’t address the point of my post directly – that net/net wealth is often destroyed (which in your previous post you suggested was a ridiculous notion). Instead you addressed a straw man argument of your own invention – that wealth isn’t destroyed “1=1” (unit for unit, I assume) – an idea that I NEVER suggested at all in my post. In fact, I made a specific point in my BK mortgage company example of how there would generally be some (positive wealth) offset even when an asset value tanked. So to address your straw man argument directly, yeah, of course wealth destruction events aren’t 1 for 1. That’s offering up a blinding glimpse of the obvious. You’re trying to divert attention away from my response to the point that you DID make by re-characterizing my response into something I DIDN’T say. Again, classic Straw Man response.
I don’t think you need to write disclaimers, golfgal (although I often do for clarity’s sake). I just think you need to write more clearly and, more importantly, just admit when you’re wrong. I don’t have a problem with either. Somehow I manage to write more clearly than you do while at the same time using fewer words. And anyone who’s read a lot of my posts here knows that I’ve often ended posts with the following (or some derivation of it): “But I could be wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time.” Words to live by, in my opinion.
