Good lord man, can you at least understand what you write. Here's you in post 299:
Decades is all it takes for a society to die after they quit innovating. Look at us between the 50s and the 70s. We were going downhill in a hurry until Reagan.
Clearly you are saying that we did not innovate in the period from 1950 to 1980. Clearly that would be utter hogwash. you weren't comparing the 50s to the 60s, you weren't talking about productivity, you weren't talking about economic policy. You said there was no innovation in that 30 year time frame.
that's it. No more wasting my time on you. You can't even understand what you said 5 minutes ago. You're a lost cause. Goodbye, good lck, maybe I'll give you a buck when I see you begging on the street corner.
Good lord man, can you at least understand what you write. Here's you in post 299: Decades is all it takes for a society to die after they quit innovating. Look at us between the 50s and the 70s. We were going downhill in a hurry until Reagan. Clearly you are saying that we did not innovate in the period from 1950 to 1980.Nope I said there was a change between the 50s and 70s that put us on the path of noninnovation. What was different between the 50s and 70s? Liberalism increased to the point of strangling our economy and therefore the pace of innovation.
Clearly that would be utter hogwash. you weren't comparing the 50s to the 60s, you weren't talking about productivity, you weren't talking about economic policy. You said there was no innovation in that 30 year time frame.
Now I see why you have no ability to understand economics. You brain isn't wired right if that's what you get out of that simple-to-understand statement I made.
that's it. No more wasting my time on you. You can't even understand what you said 5 minutes ago. You're a lost cause. Goodbye, good lck, maybe I'll give you a buck when I see you begging on the street corner.
Don't hold your breath. LOL By the way, is that something Robinson Crusoe would say? I think not! ROFL