Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can't not shoot the messenger with you. You're impervious to any point that isn't made with the most rote, linear use of language, and any point that asks one to think in the realm of businessman, as opposed to economist.
You couldn't even notice I was talking about multipliers in aggregate. I can't figure out for sure where you drug the public v. private argument from, but I can only conclude that, in your bizarrely narrowing view, the idea anyone would comment on them in total is just... well, Unpossible! "We must take them apart, sector by sector! Sebby has discussed them separately in the past, so I will use his point of months ago to suggest he's doing the same thing here, and Fucking Cazart! - I will then have an argument against him!"
Never mind that maybe I was asking you to think outside of your self-imposed rigid confines and run the argument to the next level. That I might assume a rational person would, in the absence of a dichotomy, conclude none was assumed! That I might have meant the temporariness of the economic impacts I was referencing addressed ALL economic impacts.
Fuck it.
|
This is bizarre and non-sensical. To give you one simple example, which does not mean that I am unaware of your cosmic approach to all things magically "business" about which you have deep personal insight born of experience, but what's temporary about a bridge or a broadband network? Do you see why "people will be using the bridge for commerce for years" is a direct response to your assertion that this type of stimulus fades? It's not a question of "aggregation." It's question of whether you are dismissing this effect or just ignoring it.
And if you respond that the bridge might need to be replaced in 50 years, or that the broadband network will be obsolete in five I might just have to put you on ignore after all.
Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you don't make sense or could be wrong sometimes?
Threaded Mode