Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In economics the concept of "real" has a very clear meaning. Depending on the context it often refers to what the net result is. This is often very different from generic statistical measures of something.
|
In economics, the use of the word
real usually relates to whether something is inflation-adjusted or not, such as the difference between real and nominal GDP or interest rates.
The context in which you have consistently used the word
real has invariably been metaphysical. I should know; I spent a great proportion of the time earning my liberal arts degree studying postmodernism.
However, before that, I studied business administration and marketing. I hadn't come across the term
real wealth until I read it in your posts. (Well, unless you include the bombastic headlines on the cover of consumer investing magazines.)
We can talk about
real wealth if you want—and we have to a degree. However, bear in mind that you haven't adequately defined it in practical terms, and so it remains largely an abstract and conceptual idea—much like prosperity, peace, and love, and I would really enjoy real prosperity, real peace, and real love as much as the next guy. Trust me.
Quote:
|
As with the above and in other things, you have demonstrated that your views are formed on a superficial basis. We are clearly on different plains. Sorry, for interrupting your cliche driven point of view.
|
This is laughable. I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm now beginning to think that you're trolling. I don't want to think that. I really don't. So I suppose I will just go along with thinking that you're confused. I will accept some of the blame for that, but most of the onus is on you. If you still don't understand something I've posted, please feel free to ask for clarifications.
I see that you've cleverly left out all references to my comments derived from textbook knowledge of economics, which have made up a majority of what I've posted here, and have decided to passive-aggressively attack its integrity by suggesting that it's somehow derived from my own bias. Should I apologize for inconveniencing you with knowledge?
We're not on the same plain because I prefer to discuss this topic in practical terms based on real-life information, while you like to work things out in your rigid and extreme ideological worldview.
I suppose we could have gone your way and contemplated what-ifs and otherwise speculated on matters in a concptual way, but you have been consistent in your refusal (or failure) to define in practical and understandable terms what your concept
real wealth actually means.
Until then, I guess this means that your position can't be wrong; it's merely incoherent.
Regardless, it may help others understand why you take such a erroneous/off-the-mark view of what I've posted thus far.
---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am not going to connect the dots for you or anyone else but the comparison below is very relevant to this thread - A pride of lions only survives or thrives because the structure of the prides hierarchy allows the strong to create benefits for the weak. If the natural hierarchy is disrupted or if the strong is unduly taxed, the pride will die - all of them!
|
Woah! It's a good thing we're not lions!
