Re: Abundance (was: Re: Take Back Your Time Day)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tg) wrote in news:9e39ba1.0312011006.629e4ce2
@posting.google.com:

> I see that we probably have irreconcilable differences with regard to
> the interpretation of empirical observation. You believe that
> correlation or association is sufficient to infer causality. Not
> prove, infer. I couldn't disagree more strongly.
> 
> You also seem indifferent to the idea of studying a phenomenon by
> restricting the context and holding variables constant. That said...
> 
> I observe, in the USA, that some people work 100 hrs/wk in order to
> have some version of "the basics", while others work 20. Is your
> definition of abundance that, as long as you can get the basics, no
> matter how difficult it is, there is abundance? If you work 140 hours?

I don't think you're even listening to Gordon. You keep returning to a 
nationalist pissing contest, where Gordon has already stated that some 
basics exist in abundance in the US (food and clothing), while other 
basics are expensive (housing and medicine), and that the latter are 
highly controlled by the state. And yet you continue to speak as if 
Gordon had claimed that all the basics in the US exist in abundance. You 
either did not listen, or you simply did not read.

If somebody has to work 100 hours/week to get "the basics", that's not 
food or clothing; if anything it's housing and medicine. Gordon has 
already split up "the basics" into different groups and talked about them 
separately, and his statements have no nationalist color to them, but you 
insist on engaging in a nationalist pissing contest on the topic of the 
USA. You must be from somewhere else than the US, because only foreigners 
are so obsessed with the topic of the US that they keep tragging the 
discussion back to it.