Ok here goes what? I don't think so. Back up a little bit and recall that you were the one making a blanket statement about consumption in saying that it doesn't matter how capital is spent, that investing in one's business vs investing in hookers is of equal value. Also note there is a clear difference between creating value and simply transferring capital from one agent to another.
I was the one saying that it makes a difference how capital is spent- I was the one saying that the variables matter, that consumption sometimes creates value and sometimes not depending on what choices are made. So for you to now ask "what" and "who" is hypocritical, as you were the one offering the original blanket perspective rather than recognizing the many variables in the equation.
The "according to who" question is an out of place appeal to authority that doesn't really make sense- if this matter can only be settled by appealing to some certified economics bigwig then there's really no point in us joe blow traders discussing it, hey? Do you want to cite sources of nobel prize winners or do you want to share views here?
The current debt cycle is destructive for the economy as a whole- there will always be those in position to benefit from greater misfortune. But in this case bankers will come to regret the debt cycle also when all is said and done. Greed and short sightedness leading to downfall is woven through the thread of human history. There is a difference between good and bad debt of course, depending on the amount incurred and to what purpose- but hey, now we're back at the importance of smart choices here aren't we, what a surprise.
Friendly disagreement is all good- but for you to say my perception is that of the "old" and that you have an "entire picture" view, implying a myopic view on my part, is insulting.
I think your criticism of what I said in regards to consumption is as unfounded as your larouche comparison, which I am glad to see you backed down on. I am still waiting for a clear argument to back up what's left of what you said.
My point stands that in a system of economic free agents, where benefit is derived from the choices of those economic agents, choices matter. Are you really trying to dispute that?
And I'm still waiting to hear the basic economic theory that I'm lacking. If you want to call off the debate and bury the hatchet I'm willing, but not if you want to continue suggesting that I am missing the "bigger picture" or putting forth antiquated views.
I'm surprised to have touched a nerve here, but if you want to end this you can. If you want it to keep going let's dispense with rhetoric and veiled insults and get down to thrashing out our points of disagreement.
