 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Example:
My assumption concerning the term “Remnant” was ill conceived; perhaps.
It was an indirect challenge now addressed with greater precision.
Should I read Frank Chodorov in order to challenge Daniel M. Ryan?
No. I challenge words from the source of words and so far you’re the only person to accept the challenge on this forum despite the 7000 page views to date.
The question then is:
Are you up for a challenge?
I would say: Are you up to continue the challenge; however, apparently, there has been no direct challenge. Words often fail to communicate accurately.
If you are up for a challenge, then, I can offer some starting points to be considered only as suggestions. My intent is to figure out why I think a ‘cabal’ exists and perpetuates within what one might term: The Remnant.
I’ve been seeking this information for many years and to date there has been no current examples of resolutions for obvious contradictions. I add that last sentence merely to suggest that my intolerance for innuendo is a product of experience.
If the challenge is, to be, specific to your recent article:
After noting that both laws are subtractive of utility as demonstrated by exchange, the economist has to pull a demur, leaving any attempt at quantification of their effects to the economic historian, or to the political one. This quantification can be precise or vague.
Are you an economist? If so, then, by what principle do you quantify economy?
Possible examples: Science, Honesty, Equity, Cost, Utility, Value, Falsehood, Violence, Practicality, Necessity, etc.
If the idea is to profess the ability to prescribe an accurate prognosis concerning future economic health, then, it is reasonable to point out that such an ability must be founded upon principle or is the piece simply a wild ass guess?
No offense intended. I can ask these questions openly, honestly, and humorously. Is there a principle involved or not?
Above is one suggestion if the challenge is recognized as a challenge to a specific statement in a specific piece by a specific person using specific words quoted.
I am inclined to get past all that and go for the root:
If you are not an economist, then, perhaps you can find one willing to defend their economic 'theory'.
Meanwhile the prognosis remains uncertain and with a little help: those future events may become a new age of prosperity never before deemed possible by current economists with their current false self-prophesizing and self-fulfilling 'theories' based upon falsehood and not much more.
Fear not. These are words. One can get past the falsehood and see a reasonably possible future prosperity – one that does not require domestic rollback or a mass drop into mass penury first.