[the invisib1e hand]

I would say rather that you interpreted my remarks according very limited, colloquial definitions of the terms.

I believe that half the burden of clear communication belongs to the hearer. Somewhere along the line someone apparently convinced you two that "sound economic principles" were defined by apparent immediate price advantage only (arbitrage), completely devoid of accountability to moral ramifications. And that may be what passes these days for "economics." But it is not a true definition.

[r9etb]

And yet, for all of your large words, you've still failed to say precisely what is wrong with Boeing looking at ways to produce more fuel-efficient, quieter, "greener" airplanes.

As far as your comment that "half the burden of clear communication belongs to the hearer," that presupposes that the speaker is making sense in the first place. Let's put that to the test.

You're attempting to transform your silly original comment (post #7) into a serious-sounding economic argument; however, if you look at the overwhelming positive response that met the introduction of Boeing's more fuel-efficient 787, it would seem that you haven't got any point at all -- there is, in fact, a long-term economic advantage to fuel efficiency.

Your attempt to invoke "accountability to moral ramifications" is meaningless, since you haven't bothered to tell us precisely what the adverse moral impacts of fuel efficiency, quietness, or overall aviation "greenness" really are. One is left to speculate that your criterion is no more complicated than that you simply and unthinkingly hate the idea of "green."