American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (67441)	10/21/2013 1:33:53 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) of 71588

<It's defined well enough.> With that I'll assumed you mean defined will enough to "make a judgement about it".... if you could steer us to your definition that you think is good, that would be great. <And using assets, even depleatable assets, its typically positive not negative.> "typically a positive, not a negative" is an interesting phrase... I would say it depends on the long term effects of the growth. Growth has to be sustainable.... yet one could argue that quarter on quarter of year over year "growth" is "typically good" as long as you don't see the cliff coming that those "typically good" quarters are leading to. < If you don't use them you never get the benefit., which is similar to a situation where they never existed in the first place> Well, of course that depends on who's version of "benefit" is used of course. In an intertwined world there are endless side benefits to each resource... further those side benefits can change over time, depending on what else is happening even in other parts of the world. An example would be trees... to say that not using them as measured by typical historical economic models is like they never existed??? OUCH!! Certainly you don't really mean that.... feel free to move on without comment there. As to "overuse" or depletion its not unlike a human body... if you don't understand your own body you may think it's just fine to work way too hard to get those fancy new shoes or car... maximize quarter over quarter income despite the long term consequences. < If you do use them you can create the wealth that enables their successors.> Wealth is also an interesting term... it appears you mean inheritance... but also simple "knowledge" would apply and probably be even more important (much)... which seems to make sense. I'd say most people today leave little if anything... it's mostly spent. In fact I'd say most goods and services today don't fit that category?? Just a guess. Interesting concept... in that even goods that some would say add nothing may actually have been born out of or contributed future products that might be just fantastic. <Besides generally resources don't get used up completely> Generally peoples bodies don't die completely.... many types of cells live for a very long time and even grow (hair, nails, etc) to say nothing of all the microorganisms that make up the human (greater number than actual human cells they say). Or more to the point, not ALL your heart cells die when you get a heart attack... although most people report never feeling the same after one.... So damaging the planet but not killing it doesn't really make much sense... things arent as "black and white" as to be able to say "generally resources don't get used up completely".... that's a pretty meaningless concept. DAK

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next