Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 172617" data-attributes="member: 537">Until such a time as &quot;productive&quot; can be reliably separated from &quot;wealthy&quot;, your point is irrelevant to the real world.I have no idea what on earth you're referring to. Are you talking about 1) the example of trucks; 2) the taxing of science fiction; 3) NASA funding in general; or what? And what is this &quot;system&quot; thingy, and what are you agreeing to?Ponderous language can be used for two purposes: to illuminate, or to obfuscate. Since it's manifestly failed to illuminate, I have to conclude that it's being used to obfuscate.I'm not the one going around making facile statements likeThere may exist reasons to tax SF, and there may also exist reasons not to tax it. These reasons have nothing to do with economics; or at the very least, economics gives little guidance as to which decision is best. Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could conclude that these reasons were therefore &quot;arbitrary&quot;.I'm not sure what your position is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 172617, member: 537"] Until such a time as "productive" can be reliably separated from "wealthy", your point is irrelevant to the real world. [b][/b] I have no idea what on earth you're referring to. Are you talking about 1) the example of trucks; 2) the taxing of science fiction; 3) NASA funding in general; or what? And what is this "system" thingy, and what are you agreeing to? Ponderous language can be used for two purposes: to illuminate, or to obfuscate. Since it's manifestly failed to illuminate, I have to conclude that it's being used to obfuscate. I'm not the one going around making facile statements like There may exist reasons to tax SF, and there may also exist reasons not to tax it. These reasons have nothing to do with economics; or at the very least, economics gives little guidance as to which decision is best. Only someone who had conflated moral worth with material wealth could conclude that these reasons were therefore "arbitrary". I'm not sure what your position is. [/QUOTE]

Verification