"charlesb" wrote:

Amazing that you can interpret all that from my post,
which I had thought to be fairly straightforward and
easy to understand. (snip)


There is no other possible way to interpret your comments. You're arguing
against what you call "economic manipulation," which means you want no
change from what exists now.


Let's try again: The kind of economic manipulation that
you are advocating has been tried many, many times,
with consistently poor results. It is not "new" and further
manipulations of this kind would not be a "change", as it
has been tried extensively already. - Again; With
consistently poor results. (snip)


It's easy to make rash statements when you offer nothing to support them.
Where have the changes I've advocated been tried many times and in what way
have the results been poor? The key words there "the changes I've
advocated," not your fanciful interpretation of what I've advocated.


This may point out where some of our economic woes
may originate.... Are all people who advocate
manipulation of the economy by well-meaning fools
functionally illiterate? Perhaps that is what keeps them
from learning the simple lessons of history, tempting
them to advocate old, bad ideas that are conspicuous
for thier repeated failure?


I don't have the time to exchange insults with someone who clearly has no
intent to engage in a discussion, Charles. Get back with me when you have
something worthwhile to add.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/