That's a very valid observation, Ludwig.

>>What’s the point in trying to educate me on the basics of economic growth?<<

It is a thankless task, I agree.

But surely you would agree that it is sometimes better to learn about a topic before making confident assertions on its qualities? If you don't, you run an extreme risk of making a complete idiot of yourself.

And to imagine that somehow your thinking processes are superior to that founded upon centuries of careful research and painstaking theorising is just the teensiest bit arrogant, don't you think?

>>Without reading ‘The Wealth of Nations’, I can surmise that its great flaw is directly equal to the criticisms that I have leveled against the simplistic view of economic growth and the GDP concept on this long thread.<<

As I said, you don't have to read all five volumes. Just start with the preamble, think it through, and then make up your mind whether you would like to learn more.

And if there is a single sentence that you have the slightest problem with, publish it here and we can discuss it.

Can't say fairer than that.

As I predicted Pericles, you have skipped straight past my abovementioned ‘elephants’ and refused to be drawn out of your very narrow conventional economic paradigm.

<< But surely you would agree that it is sometimes better to learn about a topic before making confident assertions on its qualities? If you don't, you run an extreme risk of making a complete idiot of yourself. >>

Says he who asserts such extraordinary things as: more is better, less is worse.

I’ll make a deal with you: I’ll look at the preamble of ‘The Wealth of Nations’ and comment on it accordingly, if you give me a considered response to my ‘elephants’ in relation to what GDP indicates.

My points are directly relevant to this discussion whereas I would think you are clutching at straws with this archaeic Adam Smith reference.

But, I’ll have a look…. if that is what it takes to get you to properly consider the significance of the points that I mentioned as elephants in the living room, and thus to start considering the real link (or lack thereof) between GDP and prosperity… and sustainability.

Can't say it fairer than that.

Just let me know if you agree to my offer or not. Thanks.

I look forward to discussing both the preamble and the elephants.

ALAN CHOLAS GRAPH TONIGHT
it was very interesting spike[89/?straight down
but the next run up/looked just like the 89.s spike
whatever that graph was satying//means to all a goodnight[as in bad 80's..twice the fall..to get to the twice lowest-base level

bottum spikes

night mare/fall\twice the rise of 89]
i should go get it/but too busyreading pericules last book

four volumes

this is going t0 take all night
a bit dated/possably obsolete\does it mention the dutch tulip boom?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+wealth+of+nations+pdF
5 VOLUMES MY BUTT/WHICH VERSION?

PS/if we are reading how aboUT YU READING/
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+creature+JECKLE-ISLAND&

NAW ONLY KIDDEN

Enough is enough, Ludwig.

>>My points are directly relevant to this discussion whereas I would think you are clutching at straws with this archaeic Adam Smith reference.<<

If you are not prepared to make even the slightest effort to learn even the most basic fundamentals on the topic, it is hardly likely that you will ever be able to understand where you are going so wrong.

Adam Smith's work is seminal, and as relevant today as it was ground-breaking then.

Your "elephants" are in fact illusions. They bear absolutely no relation to the discussion at hand, being irrelevant to any examination of the nature and utility of GDP statistics. They exist in the same part of your brain as your infatuation - obsession, even - with immigration. Until you are able to logically differentiate between the two - population and GDP statistics - this discussion can make no further progress.

Unfortunately, only by reading Adam Smith will you be able to understand why this last paragraph of mine is accurate.

Chicken, meet egg.

its like a cross between a tRainwreck.AND A TENNIS MATCH

LUDWIG SEEMS TO BE..serving for the first set
per ridicules has layed down the hard test of a 5 page intro
[that really just outlines im not needing to read the 5 books

mercyfully 5 pages.
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf

and its game set and match/ludwig
per ridicules will ignore the elephants and run..sadly for everyone
but the old boy is on the run..but its been fun

can i unsubscribe now?