Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but of course you know perfectly well you've been shown.
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your detachment from reality and georgist nonsense is not proof of anything, other than your ignorance.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Georgism does still have some value, mind you. Its just not in terms of general economic comment. It can hit home if it sticks to environmentalism. Its just that bringiton can't focus on those aspects. Shame really.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know perfectly well I haven't, you know I haven't, and you prove I haven't every time you are unable to identify or quote the post where I was. Which you are, every time, forever.

    Haven't you had enough self-humiliation yet?
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Though Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz named it for Henry George when he proved it, the Henry George Theorem is not Georgist.
    <yawn> Do you know what a "theorem" is??
    BWAHAHHAAA!! As you know, I have PROVED REPEATEDLY that you make objectively false claims, such as your OUTRIGHT, OBJECTIVELY and PROVABLY FALSE claim that public infrastructure projects such as the interstate highway system, dams, water diversion projects, etc. that increase land value are paid for by property taxes. This fact of course proves me objectively correct that landowners are receiving subsidies paid for by others' taxes, and thus also proves your claim that they are not receiving subsidies objectively false. OBJECTIVELY.

    Haven't you had enough self-humiliation yet?
     
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but of course you know perfectly well you've been shown
     
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your detachment from reality and georgist nonsense is not proof of anything, other than your ignorance.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know perfectly well I haven't, you know I haven't, and you prove I haven't every time you are unable to identify or quote the post where I was. Which you are, every time, forever.

    Haven't you had enough self-humiliation yet?
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself.

    I have to say it does give me a certain satisfaction to see the opposition behaving so despicably. It is one more proof that I am right and good, and they are wrong and evil.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You always give the game away when you descend into your "you are evil" script. It demonstrates zero economic insight to offer.
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong again. Economics is inherently normative, as it shows how scarcity relates to injustice.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That normative and positive economics exists is obvious. None of that justifies "you are evil" comment. That cannot be seen as any more as rant and rejection of pluralism.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> Do you know what "normative" means?
    I definitely reject pluralism when it means pretending absurd and disingenuous garbage deserves equal consideration with fact and logic.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. Its in the dictionary you know. I believe that's how you've come across it.

    A monist! You just need to craft a school of thought that makes sense. When will that happen?
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree your comment was bobbins. Good.
    Already done. I've been explaining it to you for years. You just have to reject it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't explain. You rant and call people evil. Its really rather childish!
     

Share This Page