Sustainable growth limits

[Arraya]

So you’re saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists”, it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

There are all sorts of branches within and theories of economics, Arraya. Thus, “economics” – alone, in and of itself – doesn’t push anything. Your contention doesn’t even make any sense. So, yes, your inability to write clearly did confuse me.

Although let me say that generally you write with reasonable clarity. The problem is that WHAT you write clearly is often nonsensical, illogical and otherwise not based on any fundamental understanding of the issue. And you get upset when this is clearly revealed to be the case. If you’d like I can post links to some prior threads where I’ve outted you on various issues.

And I see that you’re just not going to address that magical thinking issue… you just keep avoiding it… but it’s not going to go away no matter how many times you try to obfuscate with the ad hominems.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

There are all sorts of branches within and theories of economics, Arraya. Thus, “economics” – alone, in and of itself – doesn’t push anything. Your contention doesn’t even make any sense. So, yes, your inability to write clearly did confuse me.

Although let me say that generally you write with reasonable clarity. The problem is that WHAT you write clearly is often nonsensical, illogical and otherwise not based on any fundamental understanding of the issue. And you get upset when this is clearly revealed to be the case. If you’d like I can post links to some prior threads where I’ve outted you on various issues.

And I see that you’re just not going to address that magical thinking issue… you just keep avoiding it… but it’s not going to go away no matter how many times you try to obfuscate with the ad hominems.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

There are all sorts of branches within and theories of economics, Arraya. Thus, “economics” – alone, in and of itself – doesn’t push anything. Your contention doesn’t even make any sense. So, yes, your inability to write clearly did confuse me.

Although let me say that generally you write with reasonable clarity. The problem is that WHAT you write clearly is often nonsensical, illogical and otherwise not based on any fundamental understanding of the issue. And you get upset when this is clearly revealed to be the case. If you’d like I can post links to some prior threads where I’ve outted you on various issues.

And I see that you’re just not going to address that magical thinking issue… you just keep avoiding it… but it’s not going to go away no matter how many times you try to obfuscate with the ad hominems.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

There are all sorts of branches within and theories of economics, Arraya. Thus, “economics” – alone, in and of itself – doesn’t push anything. Your contention doesn’t even make any sense. So, yes, your inability to write clearly did confuse me.

Although let me say that generally you write with reasonable clarity. The problem is that WHAT you write clearly is often nonsensical, illogical and otherwise not based on any fundamental understanding of the issue. And you get upset when this is clearly revealed to be the case. If you’d like I can post links to some prior threads where I’ve outted you on various issues.

And I see that you’re just not going to address that magical thinking issue… you just keep avoiding it… but it’s not going to go away no matter how many times you try to obfuscate with the ad hominems.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

There are all sorts of branches within and theories of economics, Arraya. Thus, “economics” – alone, in and of itself – doesn’t push anything. Your contention doesn’t even make any sense. So, yes, your inability to write clearly did confuse me.

Although let me say that generally you write with reasonable clarity. The problem is that WHAT you write clearly is often nonsensical, illogical and otherwise not based on any fundamental understanding of the issue. And you get upset when this is clearly revealed to be the case. If you’d like I can post links to some prior threads where I’ve outted you on various issues.

And I see that you’re just not going to address that magical thinking issue… you just keep avoiding it… but it’s not going to go away no matter how many times you try to obfuscate with the ad hominems.

[Arraya]

Dave, you’re like spiderman shooting a web of bullshit in his enemies eyes. Interesting that Bernake does the same thing.

And you’re lying. you knew what I meant by my statement and when I called you on it you tried to dance around it because u, at least subconsciously, know it’s illogical. I assume you are familiar with the school of thought(limits to growth) because its been around since the seventies and you are a well versed guy.

Since you intuitively knew where the conversation was going and the logical conclusion that you can not face, you shoot your web of bullshit to obfuscate and avoid the obvious. you throw out non-growth vehicles, blame my writing and population increases. But still cant avoid the fact that economics pushes growth for the sake of growth and it can’t go on forever, regardless of what population does. In fact, at this stage in the game, population makes things worse under our manmade economic construct. Also, economics happily embraces population increases because of it’s need for growth.

There are steady state as well as natural law economic programs but they have been laughed at by the high priests of the church of growth which you are a proud junior member.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron and only a magical thinking econ-minds think otherwise. And you call me illogical after coming up with a formula for the impossible. Thats rich. I would assume since you are stuck in magical thinking it would make sense that you would think I am illogical.

Last but not least, economic growth is over because energy growth is over and very soon will decline dramatically. Which means economic growth will go into decline because energy is the underpinning of economic growth. Period. Not population, not capital, but energy. Economics can’t get around physics with a formula.

Since economic growth has to decline the mountain of debt has to explode by it’s own design along with the decades of debt based products the wall street shysters have been selling around the world.

Welcome to the debtocalypse, dave, I’m the fucking antichrist

[Arraya]

Dave, you’re like spiderman shooting a web of bullshit in his enemies eyes. Interesting that Bernake does the same thing.

And you’re lying. you knew what I meant by my statement and when I called you on it you tried to dance around it because u, at least subconsciously, know it’s illogical. I assume you are familiar with the school of thought(limits to growth) because its been around since the seventies and you are a well versed guy.

Since you intuitively knew where the conversation was going and the logical conclusion that you can not face, you shoot your web of bullshit to obfuscate and avoid the obvious. you throw out non-growth vehicles, blame my writing and population increases. But still cant avoid the fact that economics pushes growth for the sake of growth and it can’t go on forever, regardless of what population does. In fact, at this stage in the game, population makes things worse under our manmade economic construct. Also, economics happily embraces population increases because of it’s need for growth.

There are steady state as well as natural law economic programs but they have been laughed at by the high priests of the church of growth which you are a proud junior member.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron and only a magical thinking econ-minds think otherwise. And you call me illogical after coming up with a formula for the impossible. Thats rich. I would assume since you are stuck in magical thinking it would make sense that you would think I am illogical.

Last but not least, economic growth is over because energy growth is over and very soon will decline dramatically. Which means economic growth will go into decline because energy is the underpinning of economic growth. Period. Not population, not capital, but energy. Economics can’t get around physics with a formula.

Since economic growth has to decline the mountain of debt has to explode by it’s own design along with the decades of debt based products the wall street shysters have been selling around the world.

Welcome to the debtocalypse, dave, I’m the fucking antichrist

[Arraya]

Dave, you’re like spiderman shooting a web of bullshit in his enemies eyes. Interesting that Bernake does the same thing.

And you’re lying. you knew what I meant by my statement and when I called you on it you tried to dance around it because u, at least subconsciously, know it’s illogical. I assume you are familiar with the school of thought(limits to growth) because its been around since the seventies and you are a well versed guy.

Since you intuitively knew where the conversation was going and the logical conclusion that you can not face, you shoot your web of bullshit to obfuscate and avoid the obvious. you throw out non-growth vehicles, blame my writing and population increases. But still cant avoid the fact that economics pushes growth for the sake of growth and it can’t go on forever, regardless of what population does. In fact, at this stage in the game, population makes things worse under our manmade economic construct. Also, economics happily embraces population increases because of it’s need for growth.

There are steady state as well as natural law economic programs but they have been laughed at by the high priests of the church of growth which you are a proud junior member.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron and only a magical thinking econ-minds think otherwise. And you call me illogical after coming up with a formula for the impossible. Thats rich. I would assume since you are stuck in magical thinking it would make sense that you would think I am illogical.

Last but not least, economic growth is over because energy growth is over and very soon will decline dramatically. Which means economic growth will go into decline because energy is the underpinning of economic growth. Period. Not population, not capital, but energy. Economics can’t get around physics with a formula.

Since economic growth has to decline the mountain of debt has to explode by it’s own design along with the decades of debt based products the wall street shysters have been selling around the world.

Welcome to the debtocalypse, dave, I’m the fucking antichrist

[Arraya]

Dave, you’re like spiderman shooting a web of bullshit in his enemies eyes. Interesting that Bernake does the same thing.

And you’re lying. you knew what I meant by my statement and when I called you on it you tried to dance around it because u, at least subconsciously, know it’s illogical. I assume you are familiar with the school of thought(limits to growth) because its been around since the seventies and you are a well versed guy.

Since you intuitively knew where the conversation was going and the logical conclusion that you can not face, you shoot your web of bullshit to obfuscate and avoid the obvious. you throw out non-growth vehicles, blame my writing and population increases. But still cant avoid the fact that economics pushes growth for the sake of growth and it can’t go on forever, regardless of what population does. In fact, at this stage in the game, population makes things worse under our manmade economic construct. Also, economics happily embraces population increases because of it’s need for growth.

There are steady state as well as natural law economic programs but they have been laughed at by the high priests of the church of growth which you are a proud junior member.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron and only a magical thinking econ-minds think otherwise. And you call me illogical after coming up with a formula for the impossible. Thats rich. I would assume since you are stuck in magical thinking it would make sense that you would think I am illogical.

Last but not least, economic growth is over because energy growth is over and very soon will decline dramatically. Which means economic growth will go into decline because energy is the underpinning of economic growth. Period. Not population, not capital, but energy. Economics can’t get around physics with a formula.

Since economic growth has to decline the mountain of debt has to explode by it’s own design along with the decades of debt based products the wall street shysters have been selling around the world.

Welcome to the debtocalypse, dave, I’m the fucking antichrist

[Arraya]

Dave, you’re like spiderman shooting a web of bullshit in his enemies eyes. Interesting that Bernake does the same thing.

And you’re lying. you knew what I meant by my statement and when I called you on it you tried to dance around it because u, at least subconsciously, know it’s illogical. I assume you are familiar with the school of thought(limits to growth) because its been around since the seventies and you are a well versed guy.

Since you intuitively knew where the conversation was going and the logical conclusion that you can not face, you shoot your web of bullshit to obfuscate and avoid the obvious. you throw out non-growth vehicles, blame my writing and population increases. But still cant avoid the fact that economics pushes growth for the sake of growth and it can’t go on forever, regardless of what population does. In fact, at this stage in the game, population makes things worse under our manmade economic construct. Also, economics happily embraces population increases because of it’s need for growth.

There are steady state as well as natural law economic programs but they have been laughed at by the high priests of the church of growth which you are a proud junior member.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron and only a magical thinking econ-minds think otherwise. And you call me illogical after coming up with a formula for the impossible. Thats rich. I would assume since you are stuck in magical thinking it would make sense that you would think I am illogical.

Last but not least, economic growth is over because energy growth is over and very soon will decline dramatically. Which means economic growth will go into decline because energy is the underpinning of economic growth. Period. Not population, not capital, but energy. Economics can’t get around physics with a formula.

Since economic growth has to decline the mountain of debt has to explode by it’s own design along with the decades of debt based products the wall street shysters have been selling around the world.

Welcome to the debtocalypse, dave, I’m the fucking antichrist

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

So, yes, your inability write clearly did confuse me.

.[/quote]

So, “economics” is so broad a word that I could have been talking about some obscure communist economics and not the prevailing ethos that govern the fist world today. And that is what made you have no idea what I was talking about. Come on, you can do better than that.

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

So, yes, your inability write clearly did confuse me.

.[/quote]

So, “economics” is so broad a word that I could have been talking about some obscure communist economics and not the prevailing ethos that govern the fist world today. And that is what made you have no idea what I was talking about. Come on, you can do better than that.

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

So, yes, your inability write clearly did confuse me.

.[/quote]

So, “economics” is so broad a word that I could have been talking about some obscure communist economics and not the prevailing ethos that govern the fist world today. And that is what made you have no idea what I was talking about. Come on, you can do better than that.

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.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]So your saying because I said “economics” instead of “Politicians and many economists” it confused you?

I don’t think it’s reading comprehension. So, Ill stick with “full of shit”[/quote]

So, yes, your inability write clearly did confuse me.

.[/quote]

So, “economics” is so broad a word that I could have been talking about some obscure communist economics and not the prevailing ethos that govern the fist world today. And that is what made you have no idea what I was talking about. Come on, you can do better than that.

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.

[Author]

Posts