It is false. No economist would make such a statement, since a single transaction is meaningless.
Lol. Keep up with the excuses.
Weasel.
Do you accept Professor John Hoag of Bowling Green State University as a reputable economist?
I have no idea who that is. As I don’t see a link in your post, I’m going to have to say no.
You mean the guy from The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag?
Lol. I’ll give you a step in the right direction
Awww, what the heck. Here’s a link:
http://www.cba.bgsu.edu/econ/bios/hoag.html
Do you accept this guy as a reputable economist?
Everybody knows John Hoag. Why, he’s a regular at my local tavern. He walks in and says “Evenin’ everybody” and they all say “JOHN!” and the bartender sometimes asks “How’s the economy, John?” and Hoag says “Beer is an externality. I’m here to change that,” and we all have a good laugh.
Ok, sure.
Q.E.D., you realize you’re now talking about SUV’s instead of Al Gore’s house, right? Whatever else you might say, brazil84 is supernaturally good at deflecting a lost argument. That, and beginning posts with “lol”.
Here’s a quote from a book he apparently co-authored (Introductory Economics)
(my bolding)
Granted, he starts by discussing a small, simple economic model but I could not find any indication that this statement is limited in any way.
Sorry, weasel, but a quote from an unlinked source for which I have no context and which may, or may not, be accurate, is not acceptable.
Lol. Whatever.
Anyway, if you know anything about basic economic theory, you know that the excerpt I quoted is correct.
Besides, in the context of the debate over Al Gore, my comment was right on the money and your objection makes no sense at all. Because many environmentalists regularly urge people to do stuff which – at an individual level – will have an infinitesimal effect.
For example, I recall reading somewhere that Al Gore urges individuals to reduce their individual energy consumption. If the effect of an individual changing his or her habits is so small, one could ask: what’s the point?
Are you retarded or something? They aren’t asking one, single individual to make a change, they’re asking groups of individuals to make changes. Any idiot knows this.
Hi all, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
Now just to clarify: In using misquote where I did I clearly do not meet the textbook definition, but it should have been obvious and appears to be obvious that I said that you said I said something I did not and in that context I believe misquote was a properly used. Simply leaving out the quote marks does not mean you did not misrepresent me as saying something I did not.
Punintentional, if you read the links I provided I think you will see where Brazil lied or mischaracterize what I said. Now obviously it was not I that cared about this as I had completely forgotten about this minor part of the exchange in that thread from 14 months ago, but Brazil is such and odd bird that he decided to bring this all up 14 months later. **He loves picking at little details to change subjects. That is why I claim he is a dishonest debater. **
Goodnight all and have fun.
Sure of course. But many of the entreaties call for decisions at an individual (or family) level.
Lol. This is the part where he grabs one tiny part of the post to nitpick.
Lol.
ETA: On preview, I see I’m noticing a pattern…
:shrug: And it was obvious that I was responding to what you actually said, as opposed to my paraphrase of what you said.
:shrug: You were the first one to link to the thread 14 months later. I had basically forgotten about it until then.
Seems to me that QED is the one who is nitpicking.
He is (apparently) claiming that the following statement is spreading misinformation because it does not contain a disclaimer like “generally speaking”
You shouldn’t :shrug: while you lol. That’s how people pull a muscle.