So China is on a separate planet than America? Their communist government allows the private sector where Americas buy all that cheap crap they make we buy at Wal Mart. How is that not inner connected? China doesn't buy oil, America does not buy oil? Thanks for correcting me. I forgot open states and closed states are their own separate isolated planets that never effect each other.

(May 20, 2019 at 10:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: So China is on a separate planet than America? Their communist government allows the private sector where Americas buy all that cheap crap they make we buy at Wal Mart. How is that not inner connected? China doesn't buy oil, America does not buy oil? Thanks for correcting me. I forgot open states and closed states are their own separate isolated planets that never effect each other.

I don't recall saying you were wrong about anything in this thread (other than calling the original article an OP/ED).

When did I say these countries don't buy oil, or that global markets are not interconnected?

Boru

(May 20, 2019 at 7:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 20, 2019 at 7:20 am)Brian37 Wrote: IT is refreshing to see a financial magazine of that scale to post an opinion from someone who points out a very real problem.

Passing money around between billionaires worldwide, is simply a competition between the already uber rich. It is short term thinking which is basically gambling between the top, having little to do with providing stability to workers worldwide. You cant rid the world of exchanging resources because every human needs resources. But the planet cannot afford to simply treat markets as toys for billionaires.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...7f8b424f17

I find it more than a little (sneaky?  disingenuous?) of Forbes to mention that Chu is a Nobel laureate, but fail to mention that he's NOT an economist.  He's a physicist and a good one, but does that qualify him to pontificate about the world economy?

Boru

I dunno, this has a familiar ring to it.
If you do not have a deep understanding of sophisticated theology then your point of view regarding religious beliefs should be discarded.

(May 20, 2019 at 10:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 20, 2019 at 10:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: So China is on a separate planet than America? Their communist government allows the private sector where Americas buy all that cheap crap they make we buy at Wal Mart. How is that not inner connected? China doesn't buy oil, America does not buy oil? Thanks for correcting me. I forgot open states and closed states are their own separate isolated planets that never effect each other.

I don't recall saying you were wrong about anything in this thread (other than calling the original article an OP/ED).

When did I say these countries don't buy oil, or that global markets are not interconnected?

Boru

No, you are still insistent on calling economists "experts"..... Well so what, ask one economist one thing they'll say it works, ask another economist the same thing they'll argue it doesn't and their view works. Calling economists "experts" assumes there is only one economic view, and that still ignores that our global economy is still intertwined.

And since we are intertwined oil matters on a global scale and as long as friend and foe fight over that, all  the different economic views worldwide argued by the "experts" are really only arguing for control, and still not taking into account short term gains for one population wont change the long term destruction to our entire planet.

(May 20, 2019 at 11:08 am)Succubus Wrote:

(May 20, 2019 at 7:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I find it more than a little (sneaky?  disingenuous?) of Forbes to mention that Chu is a Nobel laureate, but fail to mention that he's NOT an economist.  He's a physicist and a good one, but does that qualify him to pontificate about the world economy?

Boru

I dunno, this has a familiar ring to it.
If you do not have a deep understanding of sophisticated theology then your point of view regarding religious beliefs should be discarded.

Apples and oranges.  Physics and economics are both quantitative subjects, theology is not.

Boru

(May 20, 2019 at 11:12 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 20, 2019 at 10:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don't recall saying you were wrong about anything in this thread (other than calling the original article an OP/ED).

When did I say these countries don't buy oil, or that global markets are not interconnected?

Boru

No, you are still insistent on calling economists "experts"..... Well so what, ask one economist one thing they'll say it works, ask another economist the same thing they'll argue it doesn't and their view works. Calling economists "experts" assumes there is only one economic view, and that still ignores that our global economy is still intertwined.

And since we are intertwined oil matters on a global scale and as long as friend and foe fight over that, all  the different economic views worldwide argued by the "experts" are really only arguing for control, and still not taking into account short term gains for one population wont change the long term destruction to our entire planet.

In the first place, nowhere in this thread have I referred to any economist, or to economists in general, as 'experts'.  But I think you'll find that a majority of economists agree with you about the interconnectedness of the global economy.

Secondly, I think you may be overstating the case that short-term economic gains are necessarily bad (I don't hold that they are necessarily good, either), but they are sometimes necessary and can be achieved without the gloom and doom of planetary destruction.

Boru

(May 20, 2019 at 11:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 20, 2019 at 11:12 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, you are still insistent on calling economists "experts"..... Well so what, ask one economist one thing they'll say it works, ask another economist the same thing they'll argue it doesn't and their view works. Calling economists "experts" assumes there is only one economic view, and that still ignores that our global economy is still intertwined.

And since we are intertwined oil matters on a global scale and as long as friend and foe fight over that, all  the different economic views worldwide argued by the "experts" are really only arguing for control, and still not taking into account short term gains for one population wont change the long term destruction to our entire planet.

In the first place, nowhere in this thread have I referred to any economist, or to economists in general, as 'experts'.  But I think you'll find that a majority of economists agree with you about the interconnectedness of the global economy.

Secondly, I think you may be overstating the case that short-term economic gains are necessarily bad (I don't hold that they are necessarily good, either), but they are sometimes necessary and can be achieved without the gloom and doom of planetary destruction.

Boru

Wow,

Holy crap. Scientists who say burning fossil fuels do not want the end of the world, they are merely stating a FACT that the world needs to take global warming seriously. If you want delusional gloom and doom, that would be what religion sells. 

Humans are quite innovative and we are better off because of science. But that does not mean the global market is taking everything seriously as it should.

The global fossil fuel industry isn't taking global warming seriously enough, nor the auto industry. If you are a passenger in a car and see the driver is about to run a red light and get t-boned by semi, that is not "doom and gloom", shouting at them to hit the breaks is just the opposite, it is trying to avoid disaster.

(May 20, 2019 at 11:34 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 20, 2019 at 11:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In the first place, nowhere in this thread have I referred to any economist, or to economists in general, as 'experts'.  But I think you'll find that a majority of economists agree with you about the interconnectedness of the global economy.

Secondly, I think you may be overstating the case that short-term economic gains are necessarily bad (I don't hold that they are necessarily good, either), but they are sometimes necessary and can be achieved without the gloom and doom of planetary destruction.

Boru

Wow,

Holy crap. Scientists who say burning fossil fuels do not want the end of the world, they are merely stating a FACT that the world needs to take global warming seriously. If you want delusional gloom and doom, that would be what religion sells. 

Humans are quite innovative and we are better off because of science. But that does not mean the global market is taking everything seriously as it should.

The global fossil fuel industry isn't taking global warming seriously enough, nor the auto industry. If you are a passenger in a car and see the driver is about to run a red light and get t-boned by semi, that is not "doom and gloom", shouting at them to hit the breaks is just the opposite, it is trying to avoid disaster.

Again, I think you're overstating the case, but that's ok.  I think we make have been talking at cross purposes regarding what is meant by 'short term gains.'

Are you going to apologize for lying about me?

Boru