Julio: Nitroadict: Julio: Nitroadict: Julio: GilesStratton: Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article?? You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise. Since you have a lot of time.....Could you let every living economist the above statement???? It is very important for us to know that since ECO-201 we have been WRONG. You seem to be unaware of sarcasm :\ I doubt it. Please back up your statement. I would like to, but your slightly fragmented english clouds my abiltiy to respond. I was under the impression you took Giels seriously when he remarked: "You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise." The later part of the above sentence (of Giels) seems to point to sarcasm. But maybe you can read the link (Original) from this post and comment about it. The article has no fragmented English words and your mind will a lot of ability to respond intelligently.
Nitroadict: Julio: Nitroadict: Julio: GilesStratton: Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article?? You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise. Since you have a lot of time.....Could you let every living economist the above statement???? It is very important for us to know that since ECO-201 we have been WRONG. You seem to be unaware of sarcasm :\ I doubt it. Please back up your statement. I would like to, but your slightly fragmented english clouds my abiltiy to respond. I was under the impression you took Giels seriously when he remarked: "You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise." The later part of the above sentence (of Giels) seems to point to sarcasm.
Julio: Nitroadict: Julio: GilesStratton: Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article?? You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise. Since you have a lot of time.....Could you let every living economist the above statement???? It is very important for us to know that since ECO-201 we have been WRONG. You seem to be unaware of sarcasm :\ I doubt it. Please back up your statement.
Nitroadict: Julio: GilesStratton: Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article?? You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise. Since you have a lot of time.....Could you let every living economist the above statement???? It is very important for us to know that since ECO-201 we have been WRONG. You seem to be unaware of sarcasm :\
Julio: GilesStratton: Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article?? You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise. Since you have a lot of time.....Could you let every living economist the above statement???? It is very important for us to know that since ECO-201 we have been WRONG.
GilesStratton: Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article?? You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise.
Julio: But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article??
But this has nothing to do with markets. Did you read the article??
You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise.
Since you have a lot of time.....Could you let every living economist the above statement???? It is very important for us to know that since ECO-201 we have been WRONG.
You seem to be unaware of sarcasm :\
I doubt it. Please back up your statement.
I would like to, but your slightly fragmented english clouds my abiltiy to respond. I was under the impression you took Giels seriously when he remarked: "You're quite correct, scarcity and economics have nothing to do with one another, silly us for thinking otherwise." The later part of the above sentence (of Giels) seems to point to sarcasm.
But maybe you can read the link (Original) from this post and comment about it. The article has no fragmented English words and your mind will a lot of ability to respond intelligently.
Uh I was referring to your posts here in the thread as being fragmented, not the article.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Humbug, bah humbug, and much humbuggery! We would have needed 2 earths in 9,053 BC if we hadn't invented agriculture. Our technological innovation could easily allow our population to keep growing. We just need to pave over more stuff. Keep in mind, plants are just dandy for converting light into biological energy, but they are hardly as efficient as we could be to serve just our own needs. See, any biological organism needs to worry about self-repair, immunity, so on and so forch and suchly and thus, and for its needs, it uses the most general-purpose elements possible (carbon, etc.). Technology need not obey such constraints, it can be much more tailored and focused. It is corporatist regulation and monopoly which constrains technological innovation. Free us from the chains or state and we'll have this little glob of mud paved and ready for upgrades in no time. Yee-hah!
FTA:
Humans have all the tools needed to ease pressure on resources by taking advantage of technological advances, Leape said. The two-thirds of the U.S. footprint that comes from oil, gas and coal usage can be cut with available equipment, he said.
And thats exactly what will happen, as natural energy resources become more scarce and "alternative energy" becomes more cost effective, people will adopt the alternatives. Of course governments will interfere in a number of ways, possibly including war. The global market is not a shrinking pie, or even a static pie. We can increase the quality of life for all humans while still dealing with a reduction of resources like oil.
Possibly. But I do not foresee that inflection point for 2030, instead I see it for much later. And a lot of trouble can happen in between. We are nowhere near substituting oil efficiently as we once thought we would.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Rubén: Possibly. But I do not foresee that inflection point for 2030, instead I see it for much later. And a lot of trouble can happen in between. We are nowhere near substituting oil efficiently as we once thought we would.
But there's currently no need to. And technology progresses faster than you think...
the mature opinion might be that its sad that wars are waged over *anything*.
i myself am yet to declare war on anyone over water, it seems to come out of the tap in exchange for me paying my water bill well enough.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap