WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Aside... The Hussman article (IMHO), represents a very strong argument for the concept of "finite wealth"... another subject that tweaks the hot button of some of our RR friends.
--You're right, it does tweak the hot button of some of them,
I don't think it is a matter of it being a "hot button" for anyone, checkerboard. I think it is simply that Itstarted has consistently refused to explain what he means by it. I, for example, have googled it and not come across anything that I could use to evaluate its validity or even get a clear idea of what the term is supposed to mean. I have found references to it meaning that at any given moment in time there is a finite amount of wealth owned by people, and that an increase in one person's wealth is a decrease in another person's wealth (wealth is never defined). That strikes me as absolutely ludicrous -- perhaps because there is no definitional basis provided from which I can evaluate it.:-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos