bogbrush Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Dealing with the only part of your post that actually remotely addresses the question...righto....Obviously, I concede defeat in the face of such an overwhelming intellectual force of argument... As for the rest of your post, I see you favour engagement in the same obfuscatory rhetoric as injin when faced with a point of substance you find difficult to address Predictable OK Steve, the rest of the World has to change the definition of "free market" to match that of "perfect market" (which as everyone knows is an imagimary construct of economists) rendering one of the expressions redundant? You do realise how stupid you're coming over, don't you? Please God tell me you don't teach economics. Even if you do, tell me it's something else. It's just that you sound soooo like my old economics teacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) nothing of the sort Steve. He debunks the perfect market (a construct of economists), not the free market (a construct of people going around doing stuff). Not the same thing.Just because he used the word "market" doesn't mean you should always switch your "angry man of the left" head on. I hope you don't teach your kids to be so slack in their reading. This coming from the man who initially rejected the article after a few sentences. Edited July 27, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 This coming from the man who initially rejected the article a few sentences. Well, it was a load of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 This coming from the man who initially rejected the article a few sentences. Well he did equate free market with government subsidy..... Still, when he rubbished patents and exposed the stifling effect of state intervention on research he showed promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well he did equate free market with government subsidy..... Still, when he rubbished patents and exposed the stifling effect of state intervention on research he showed promise. So you dismiss anything that disagrees with your point of view as rubbish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 So you dismiss anything that disagrees with your point of view as rubbish? No, only if it's absurd like saying an industry that depends on subsidies has anything to do with a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.