This is what drives me nuts about your collapse discussions. You try to make economic arguements without any sound economic basis. It's like the WT arguing against science!
Db, you and i clearly see things in a similar way (httr, btw), but i have one small area of disagreement with the above. Slim does have a basis. His back side, which is clearly where he pulls these things from đđ
No one is saying that can't collapse nor is anyone here saying that they are doing great. But, you take such leaps in logic that now they are collapsing. No, last year they grew. Not by much, but growth is not collapse. Will they die one day? Sure, everything does. Is it by the end of the year? I'll wage my life savings the answer is no.
And thats where the slim one gets his wiggle room. Try to nail him down WHEN they will collapse. He will literally, in one thread, argue that they have already collapsed and then acknowledge that they will still be around in 100 years. Slim wants it all ways with no real measuring stick as to what he means. The irony is, slim really seems to mean nothing more than what most of us readily agree with: the org has changed and is changing. Membership, means of support, doctrine being forced to evolve etc etc. nobody debates any of that, but slim wants to hang sensational words like âcollapseâ on it and then duck and weave like ali when you try to pin him down what that means.