To Larc: ON ECONOMIC STUFF

by You Know 64 Replies latest jw friends

larc

You Know,
You have gone for days without responding to my posts, and now you want a quick answer. Yes, I have read your post. Yes, I have read every one of your 14 referenced sites. No, I am not going to respond right now, because I am sleepy and I will put all my thoughts together in the very near future, hopefully before the financial collapse of the world, when I have to eat grass like Nebucanezzar (sp? - too lazy to look it up).
Please e mail me so I can send you a Christmas card, you heathen you.
You Know

You have gone for days without responding to my posts, and now you want a quick answer.
Yeah, but I ain't the one who said: "I have written two threads now, which show very clearly that the ideas that you and LaRouch espouse are simply, and unabashadly wrong. Wrong, I say, wrong. Rather than address the facts, yes, the facts, you choose to redouble your efforts with more reatoric (sp?) You are a dishonest man and a misled man, because you will hang on to a demagogue rather than answer simple questions directed to you. You said that your facts were unassailable, well it appears that mine were, not yours. Go back to my two threads and address the issues.
You had better get some rest man. You are going to need it. LOL / You Know
You Know

I thought I would bring this up top on the ACTIVE board for Mr. Larc again. Hopefully you have gotten your rest and are ready to tackle my post. Ordinarily I wouldn't insist that a poster respond, but since you were so vocal in criticizing me for my not responding to you, and you went to some extreme in deriding me as one not knowing what I was talking about, and aside from the character attacks it is a relatively trivial thing, but... Perhaps the simplest way out of this for you is to just admit that I do know what I'm talking about. Of course, I think most of you would choose death over such an admission, but it would be the right and honorable thing to do, even if it would be considered an extremely distasteful thing to do by the forum. / You Know
dubla

YOU still dont KNOW finance-
I thought I would bring this up top on the ACTIVE board for Mr. Larc again.
i guess this kind of shoots your statement about not keeping track of a thread after it leaves the main page, or maybe thats just when its convenient to you.
Ordinarily I wouldn't insist that a poster respond, but since you were so vocal in criticizing me for my not responding to you, and you went to some extreme in deriding me as one not knowing what I was talking about,
funny, many of us have been vocal in criticizing you for the exact same reasons, yet you never felt compelled to respond (usually the obvious conclusion is that you are unable to respond). larc mustve really gotten under you skin with all the larouche bashing.
i did notice you also ignored the larouche quote from 1997 when he was saying economic collapse was imminent, and wouldnt be any longer than a year away or something along those lines, LOL.....what wonderful credibility that guy has; about as much as you, so its fitting hes your main source of quotes/links.
... Perhaps the simplest way out of this for you is to just admit that I do know what I'm talking about. Of course, I think most of you would choose death over such an admission
more pot-kettle-black talk yk? i think you would choose death over ever admitting you were wrong about anything.
aa
You Know

i guess this kind of shoots your statement about not keeping track of a thread after it leaves the main page, or maybe thats just when its convenient to you.
I wasn't aware of the ACTIVE feature of the board. It changed in the last little while.
funny, many of us have been vocal in criticizing you for the exact same reasons, yet you never felt compelled to respond (usually the obvious conclusion is that you are unable to respond). larc mustve really gotten under you skin with all the larouche bashing.
Yes, apostates like to make a big deal if I don't answer their questions in the way that they demand. Yet, when I do, usually there is no acknowledgement of that fact. Then, they recycle the same lie over again saying that I can't answer their questions. The fact is, I have never backed down from any serious challenge presented by an apostate. Honest readers know that that is the truth. Maybe I don't allways respond to every post, sometimes there are just too many on any given thread, but that's not because I am unable. Actually, I quite enjoy entertaining challenges to my faith and knowledge. It has always been a reaffirming experince for me to keep testing whether I really have the true faith. I have been at this thing off and on for about a half decade now, and so far there hasn't been anything apostates have thrown at me that I haven't handled. Like many apostate dubs though, it seems that you are reality challenged and prefer to make up your own story rather than the truth.
i did notice you also ignored the larouche quote from 1997 when he was saying economic collapse was imminent, and wouldnt be any longer than a year away or something along those lines, LOL.....what wonderful credibility that guy has; about as much as you, so its fitting hes your main source of quotes/links.
I think LaRouche deserves some credit, in that shortly after his prediction the so-called Asian Crisis began to rock the financial system. A few months later, in August of 1998, Russia defaulted on its debt, which was apparently totally unexpected by most people in the business. It blew LTCM out of the water and left a gapping trillion dollar hole in the banking system and forced the FED into an emergency situation to prevent a systemic collapse. They dodged the bullet at the time, and have been able to keep things glued together remarkably well considering the enormity of the debt bubble crushing the economy. So, while LaRouche's forecast of imminent collapse back in 1997 did not materialize, the truth is that 1997 is only a few years ago. In the over all scheme of things, once the system comes to an end it won't really matter whether it was in 1998, or 99, or 2002, or 03. The point is that it is a terminal situation. That's what LaRouche has proven with his simple Triple Curve Collapse graph.
Argentina is a small-scale representation of what the whole system is facing. Everyone knows that Argentina cannot possible repay the billions of dollars that it owes and that at some point they will simply default outrightly. In the meantime there are all these desperation measures being taken that are robbing the people of Argentina blind in order to keep the inevitable at bay a few more days. So it is with the global system: More and more people are coming to the realization that the financial system is doomed; that it is only a matter of time before the dreaded catastrophic collapse occurs. It is like Jesus said though: "No one knows the day or hour."
/ You Know
dubla

yk-
I wasn't aware of the ACTIVE feature of the board. It changed in the last little while.
it was pointed out to you by several posters on a thread awhile back, but you admittedly tune some posts out, or ignore them, so you probably missed it.
Yes, apostates like to make a big deal if I don't answer their questions in the way that they demand.
i dont demand that you answer my questions in any specific "way", this is word twisting on your part. there were specific questions that i asked forever ago, that were not answered in any way, and thats what i was alluding to. i have no "demands", no matter how much youd like to make it seem that way.
Maybe I don't allways respond to every post, sometimes there are just too many on any given thread, but that's not because I am unable.
again, i was speaking of many instances where you deliberately ignored posts......i dont expect you to respond to every one, if you do not wish to, but its common courtesy to say "this does not interest me, i do not wish to discuss it", if youre really able to respond, but choose not to.......especially when they are all comments concerning your topics, generally on threads you start. you must understand that by ignoring specific statements in opposition to yours, this implies the inability to respond.
Like many apostate dubs though, it seems that you are reality challenged and prefer to make up your own story rather than the truth.
i have made up nothing, these were just my personal experiences with you.
So, while LaRouche's forecast of imminent collapse back in 1997 did not materialize, the truth is that 1997 is only a few years ago. In the over all scheme of things, once the system comes to an end it won't really matter whether it was in 1998, or 99, or 2002, or 03.
if it really doesnt matter, and it could be in '02 or '03 in your opinion, then why do you insist on predicting it in "october", and then again at "the turn of the year".....further depleting your already minute if not nonexistant credibility? you say larouche deserves "some credit...etc"......so does this mean if you predict collapse in october of '01, and then the financial world collapses in '06, you too deserve credit for your timely prediction?......just curious if this is how your mind works. you always quote "no one knows the day or the hour", yet you constantly have the arrogance to predict the start of collapse.....even down to the month......is this not contradictory?
btw, i appreciate the relative lack of mindless insult slinging in your last post.......you really seem much more respectable (as someone else recently pointed out) when you can eliminate these unneccesary slams from your statements. (i also realize that you could care less how respectable or childish you seem to others, i just had to say it anyhow).
aa
larc

You Know,
In your first essay on my thread, "Bad news for You Know" your referenced a piece written by LaRouch. It was a long rambling piece covering many subjects. In it he hypothesized that productiivity has decreased 2% per annum for nearly 35 years, which would mean that our productivity would be cut in half by now. In footnote 4 of the article, he lists seven factors that he says are being considered in his measure of productivity. However, he does not provide a reference as to what measures are included in each factor, nor does he demonstrate how much weight is given to each factor in arriving at an overall measure. Since reading the article, I have gone to LaRouch'e web site and I ran a search on productivity. I read about 30 article that appeared. None of these provided an operational definition or delineated an econometric measure of productivity. You know, at the top of this page, you indicated that you didn't feel compelled to provide a detailed analysis with a bibliography. I am not asking for that. I am asking for one reference where LaRouch provides a deatailed analysis. Since he is the theorist in question, he should have such an analysis, unless of course, he is just blowing smoke.
At the top of this page you made reference to my statement, where I said that we have had major improvements not just some improvements as you stated. Your answer to me was, "OK, sure whatever." I take this mean that you think that this is a trivial point. It is not trivial at all. It is the fundemental error in LaRouch's theory. Our productivity has doubled. It has not been cut in half. I pointed facts that support this. Many facts. I used produced items, not money to show this. If you did read all my posts as you assert, then I don't unerstand why you again state that productivity should be measured in things not money. That is exactly what I did, list things. Not only are we making more stuff today, but we are making the right stuff and much better stuff as measured by features, new product functions, and mean time to failure. Also, if you read my posts, you will note that I addressed each of the seven factors listed by LaRouch and commented on our areas of strength and weakness. Although our productivity system has problems, and what system doesn't, we still have made amazing progress in the last 35 years. Even in the last few years the manufacturing sector continues to bring many new innovative products to the consumer.
On a side note, I am not sure what religion has to do with a discussion of economic theory. Therefore, I find your use of the word apostate in this context to be peculiar.
You Know

In it he hypothesized that productiivity has decreased 2% per annum for nearly 35 years, which would mean that our productivity would be cut in half by now.
His measure of productivity is some what unique, in that it is measured in terms of households per square kilometer as a market basket of what each household consumes and produces. That seems to be the most accurate way of measuring the real economy. One of the obvious means by which the halfing of the economy is disguised is that in previous decades one wage earner could support an entire household. That is extremely rare now. Also, people are working longer hours and extra jobs to support their households now. So, while the economy has declined by half over the course of 30 years, households are working twice as long to make up the difference.
I am asking for one reference where LaRouch provides a deatailed analysis. Since he is the theorist in question, he should have such an analysis, unless of course, he is just blowing smoke.
Try this one >>> http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1995/Quacks.html
Your answer to me was, "OK, sure whatever." I take this mean that you think that this is a trivial point. It is not trivial at all. It is the fundemental error in LaRouch's theory.
That's silly. I meant I wasn't going to play word games. I am still not going to.
Even in the last few years the manufacturing sector continues to bring many new innovative products to the consumer
No one is saying that that is not the case. The point is though that the system is operating at less than break even. That can't go on indefintely. There has not been enough new innovation or infrastructure improvements over the course of the last 30 years to sustain a growing population. Besides, it is now well-reported that manufacturing is in a steep decline and has been for many months. >> http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2001-11-01-napm.htm That's because the financial system and the underlying economy are imploding. / You Know
You Know

On a side note, I am not sure what religion has to do with a discussion of economic theory. Therefore, I find your use of the word apostate in this context to be peculiar.
It's hardly a side note, but by way of reminder: Virtually all apostates deny that we are living in the last days. They ridicule the evidence put forward by the Watchtower. So, LaRouche comes along and proves that the Anglo-American financial system is going to collapse in the near term. That is more than relevant. He is not a religious whacko talking about Armageddon, but a respected Presidential candidate and former economics professor at Columbia University. People in general, and apostate Dubs in particular, are in denial. They want to pretentd that no such thing as the end of this system is looming. That's because no one wants to come to terms with the fact that they have been deceived, that they have made a horrendus blunder in leaving the truth, that the system really is in a terminal phase. That's why on a board like this there is this constant level of racket to drown out anyone who poses a threat to the delusion that exists in most minds. / You Know
dubla

That's because no one wants to come to terms with the fact that they have been deceived...........That's why on a board like this there is this constant level of racket to drown out anyone who poses a threat to the delusion that exists in most minds. / You Know
this is a nice way of describing current jws when faced with indisputable facts by "apostates"........most will deny having been decieved by the org; some even deny obvious facts such as the call for armageddon in '75 (just one small example).........and i guarantee that on an all witness board, or chat room, there is a constant enough level of racket to drown out anyone who poses a threat to the delusion of having the absolute "truth" that is so imbedded in their minds. nice summary yk.
aa

To Larc: ON ECONOMIC STUFF

Share this