If it makes you feel good to believe that, so be it. That is why I said there is no print in arguing with someone who already knows what they want to believe. You have proved my point.So I was right all along. My understanding of what you wrote was spot on and I dismantled it - and your contribution to this worthless thread was itself worthless.
I am glad you are getting some benefit. The only thing I have gotten from terb in the last day or so was learning what Americans mean by “the parliamentarian”. The rest has been a waste.Not really, it's a tag team bout and it's really fun watching a middle weight in a heavy weight fight for a while.
It's not a matter of feeling good or not.If it makes you feel good to believe that, so be it. That is why I said there is no print in arguing with someone who already knows what they want to believe. You have proved my point.
Whatever. You know what you want to believe. I’ll try not to confuse you with anymore facts.It's not a matter of feeling good or not.
You do not have any special insight into the effects of policies. For whatever reason, you believe that you do. Apart from that, this thread doesn't deal exclusively with economic policy.
There is no confusion. Let me reiterate the facts for you:Whatever. You know what you want to believe. I’ll try not to confuse you with anymore facts.
Nobody knows all the effects of an economic policy, and this is why economist's predictions are often wrong. No, I'm not talking about just raw numbers, but the social impact of those numbers. At the end of the day, that is what people are concerned about. Human behavior, the environment, and global affairs are the wildcards.
I noticed you didn't ask who was the middleweight. I'm feeling you already knew the answer and didn't disagree.I am glad you are getting some benefit. The only thing I have gotten from terb in the last day or so was learning what Americans mean by “the parliamentarian”. The rest has been a waste.
I should really have learnt by now not to get involved in these things. However, if I had realized that he was the guy that made the original post in the thread, I never would have bothered with my first post.I noticed you didn't ask who was the middleweight. I'm feeling you already knew the answer and didn't disagree.
You knew I was the guy from the start. Your entire argument is that because we do not know all the effects of a policy, we should not discuss it, and any discussion of it is meritless. This is a false assertion. We can quite easily know some effects of policy and therefore predict some of their social outcomes.I should really have learnt by now not to get involved in these things. However, if I had realized that he was the guy that made the original post in the thread, I never would have bothered with my first post.
I don't know whether you have a reading comprehension problem and really believe I wrote this or if you are just making this up. Either way, it reflects poorly on you.You knew I was the guy from the start. Your entire argument is that because we do not know all the effects of a policy, we cannot discuss it, and any discussion of it is meritless. This is a false assertion. We can quite easily know some effects of policy and therefore predict some of their social outcomes.
Previously you claimed I did was not an economist or did you delete that post too.Your background in economics doesn't change this.
Refer to:I don't know whether you have a reading comprehension problem and really believe I wrote this or if you are just making this up.
We can split hairs all day.The statement means that if anyone [doesn't] know what the effects of a policy are, their opinion of that policy is worthless.
I feel the same way about virtually all of your input in this thread.Either way, it reflects poorly on you.
ok, your self-described background in economics doesn't change this. Better?Previously you claimed I did was not an economist or did you delete that post too.
I stand by my statement that if you know nothing about the effects of a policy your opinion on it is worthless. That does not mean that people who do understand the positive aspects of a policy can’t discuss it. Hell, even people like you who know absolutely nothing about the issues are free to make dumb posts. However, they are worthless.Refer to:
You have no greater insight into the positive aspects of a policy than I do or many others. You seem to think that you do.I stand by my statement that if you know nothing about the effects of a policy your opinion on it is worthless. That does not mean that people who do understand the positive aspects of a policy can’t discuss it. Hell, even people like you who know absolutely nothing about the issues are free to make dumb posts. However, they are worthless.
As I said before, believe whatever makes you feel good. I promise not to try to confuse you with anymore facts.You have no greater insight into the positive aspects of a policy than I do or many others. You seem to think that you do.
I've taken you out of your 'economics element' so you're grasping at straws.
You're dismissive because I've completely disarmed you.As I said before, believe whatever makes you feel good. I promise not to try to confuse you with anymore facts.
Ah, come on, Fuji wouldn't quit this easily.You're dismissive because I've completely disarmed you.
Likewise, if your belief makes you feel good, I'll refrain from posting more facts.
Right. You really disarmed me. I'm on the floor. I hope my saying this makes you feel better.You're dismissive because I've completely disarmed you.
Likewise, if your belief makes you feel good, I'll refrain from posting more facts.
Save your $60 and spend it on a bottle of Swish. The buzz lasts longer.I'm going to get laid in 1 hour. I'll get back to this "tag team" bout of two "heavyweights" against a "middleweight" (have they no concept of a fair fight?) when I get back. I might bask in the sun for a few. Be good.
