Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Now you are introducing limits on natural resources as equivalent to wealth. The fallacies just pile up here.Here's a little food for thought for those of you who still think there are no limits to growth.
Limits to Growth vindicated World headed towards economic environmental collapse RT News
NEver mind the limits to growth bullshit was thoroughly discredited. People are living longer, living healthier, living with more than they were 40 years ago.
Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Now you are introducing limits on natural resources as equivalent to wealth. The fallacies just pile up here.Here's a little food for thought for those of you who still think there are no limits to growth.
Limits to Growth vindicated World headed towards economic environmental collapse RT News
NEver mind the limits to growth bullshit was thoroughly discredited. People are living longer, living healthier, living with more than they were 40 years ago.
Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Now you are introducing limits on natural resources as equivalent to wealth. The fallacies just pile up here.Here's a little food for thought for those of you who still think there are no limits to growth.
Limits to Growth vindicated World headed towards economic environmental collapse RT News
NEver mind the limits to growth bullshit was thoroughly discredited. People are living longer, living healthier, living with more than they were 40 years ago.
Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Now you are introducing limits on natural resources as equivalent to wealth. The fallacies just pile up here.Here's a little food for thought for those of you who still think there are no limits to growth.
Limits to Growth vindicated World headed towards economic environmental collapse RT News
NEver mind the limits to growth bullshit was thoroughly discredited. People are living longer, living healthier, living with more than they were 40 years ago.
Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Now you are introducing limits on natural resources as equivalent to wealth. The fallacies just pile up here.
NEver mind the limits to growth bullshit was thoroughly discredited. People are living longer, living healthier, living with more than they were 40 years ago.
Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
No, see. You only get money by getting it from someone else: an employer, a customer, or the like. When he pays you, he has less and you have more.If the pie gets bigger every year then it is not finite.Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,
according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!
The pie ALWAYS has ONLY 100%
1945-1980 THE TOP 1% HAD 6%-9% OF all us INCOME, BY 2007, THEY took 23%
Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!
It is only finite in retrospect if you live in one year increments.
And no one is taking money from you or stopping you from increasing your net worth.
I swear they really do think this way.
The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.Limits to Growth was incorrectly dismissed as a new study by the University of Melbourne has shown. The analysis that was conducted around 40 years ago has shown greater correlation with current trends than any other.
As for your bullshit about MY fallacies, the innovation required for a new line of cell phones does indeed indicate increased wealth but will offer little comfort in a world in which agriculture, energy and water depletion are the new norms.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.
Yes! You are right. Money is a zero sum. Thats why every consumer is broke now.No, see. You only get money by getting it from someone else: an employer, a customer, or the like. When he pays you, he has less and you have more.If the pie gets bigger every year then it is not finite.Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,
according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!
The pie ALWAYS has ONLY 100%
1945-1980 THE TOP 1% HAD 6%-9% OF all us INCOME, BY 2007, THEY took 23%
Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!
It is only finite in retrospect if you live in one year increments.
And no one is taking money from you or stopping you from increasing your net worth.
I swear they really do think this way.
If that's not true then why do employers object to raising the minimum wage? According to you, he can pay that without having less.
The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?
How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?
Thats a clown question, bro.The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.It was correctly dismissed and has been proven wrong. One advocacy article with confusing and cherry picked data doesnt really invalidate that.
Energy prices are lower. Ag yields are higher. And there is no water depletion overall.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
And all of that irrelevant anyway to a discussion of wealth. The world is wealthier today than 40 years ago. Especially the poorest areas that adopted more capitalist ideas.
Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?
How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?
It's a good question.The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?
How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?
Good question. Probably some kind of right wing concept that you have to possess an extra chromosome to understand.
Thats a clown question, bro.The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?
How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?
Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.
What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.
Because we've outsourced our industrial base.
What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.
Because we've outsourced our industrial base.
Right?
A response by a low life UNEMPLOYED retard whose credit score is negative 500 who nevertheless hopes to buy a West Palm mansion thanks to the fascisticIn 2008, we unleashed the power of capitalism and it collapsed the economy
In 2008 , you fuckers released welfarism , aka "compassionate conservatism" and militarism aka, the UNNecessary invasion of Iraq and AfPak.
Welfarism + Militarism = Fascism
.
Bullshit, it was WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CREATED CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. One Dubya cheered on in the US and removed regulators from the beat EVEN AFTER BEING WARNED BY THE FBI IN 2004 OF AN EPIDEMIC THAT COULD RIVAL THE S&L CRISIS!!
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Community Reinvestment Act .
Stupid son-of-bitch.
.
Thats a clown question, bro.The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.Trouble defining the issues is the first sign of stupidity.Raw materials are irrelevant to a discussion of wealth? Holy fuck, I don't know how you could be that divorced from physical reality. You must be a stock broker.
Show me what issue I'm having trouble defining.
I thought companies were going to go out of business if they had to raise the minimum wage, or provide health insurance, or otherwise provide their employees more?
How can that be if wealth available to companies is not unlimited?
So we've exhausted all the world's resources at this point? Is that really your claim?What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.
Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.
Because we've outsourced our industrial base.
Right?
I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?
