The Economist article is not really very good. It still places Austrian Economics, which tradition goes back to Leibniz, Condillac, Hume, Hutton, De Tracy, Say, Bohm-Bawerk, Fetter, Mises, and Hayek, and today has people like De Soto & Garrison, who’ve done real nice work, with some nonsense bloggers who advocate infinite inflation, as if all opposite claims are on equal footing, and interview, of all people, Yeager, who has never really impressed me for instance.
As usual, Economist is still basically a socialist source.
Huh? How do you get that from my pointing out that you might have a complex?
That’s because you fail to accept the fact that your assumptions are wrong. You seem to think I have ulterior intentions behind everything I’ve posted (including a belief that a Price is Right horn is supposed to intimidate you, and the phrase “that’s too bad” is suppose to change your mind about something).
Once again, I have to say, you’re wrong. I don’t know any other way to put it. You fail to see how what I’ve done is working because you are hellbent on holding incorrect assumptions.
Exactly. And again, as has been established (by more than one user in this thread alone), you may have a complex.
Tony Robbins would be proud!
That’s nice to hear.
K.
Wow is this how you really see things? That’s too bad.
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean. But okay!
what is? K?
Well no, if what you said doesn’t make any sense, it would make even less sense to repeat it, now wouldn’t it?
I don’t see how that pointed out that I might have a “complex”.
I believe my assumptions are correct. You claim they’re incorrect, but without supporting that claim. So I don’t believe you, and I don’t trust your word - at least not when it comes to this.
So you’re now claiming that you weren’t attempting to berate me and make me feel dumb for asking that question? Then what was the point of your response? I can see no other point to it, so please (try to) enlighten me.
Accusing me of having a complex also won’t shut me up.
I still don’t feel dumb for asking that question.
Yeah, that is how I see things as far as this exchange goes. I don’t think you were expecting me to respond the way I did. So what’s followed has been a game of brinkmanship. I really don’t see what kind of entertainment you could get from this, so I figure you’re just using that as another ploy.
Oh come on. You know full what what it’s supposed to mean. It means you failed to make me feel dumb, so you decided to change the goal you wanted to accomplish (assuming your claim about this being all about laughs now is honest - I still have my doubts there).
No, what you responded “K” to.
That presumes, of course, that what I said necessarily doesn’t make any sense. I certainly think it does make sense - otherwise, I wouldn’t have said it.
You apparently see no need to explain yourself, but you also apparently expect me to believe you about everything. As far as I’m concerned, those two things don’t add up. So I don’t think there’s any hope of this ending unless and until you stop expecting me to be a mind-reader and actually explain yourself. If I’m as wrong as you claim, that shouldn’t be too difficult. Simply repeating the assertion that I’m wrong will have no effect on me, as I think should be abundantly clear by this point. And if you’re so certain that I am wrong, then why bother to continue asserting it? It can’t be to convince me, so there must be one or more ulterior motives. Again, since I’m not a mind-reader, I can only guess at what it or they could be. Instead of clarifying yourself, you’ve apparently decided to try to obfuscate things. I don’t think that looks good at all on your part. But if you want to keep acting like an ass, be my guest. I certainly can’t stop you.
… And in case you were wondering, this is not necessarily my last word in this thread.
