• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You Can Increase The Ocean by Taking Water Out and Pouring It On The Ground

This Will Increase the Water in the Ocean?

  • Of Course It Will! Evidence to the contrary doesn't count.

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Total voters
    7
cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,605
Reaction score
39,893
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under the theory that once you remove water from the ocean, it magically no longer counts, and any water that flows back into the ocean has therefore "multiplied" itself.


oh wait, this is a crude and stupid representation of keynesian economic theory?

gosh, what a friggin surprise. wonder why some people are so cowardly they won't answer the question as posed :roll:
 
You could increase the ocean's water by running a garden hose out to the ocean and turning it on. However, that's fresh water that would mess up the salt to water ratio of the ocean. You'd better also add some table salt.
 
cpwill said:
Under the theory that once you remove water from the ocean, it magically no longer counts, and any water that flows back into the ocean has therefore "multiplied" itself.


oh wait, this is a crude and stupid representation of keynesian economic theory?

gosh, what a friggin surprise. wonder why some people are so cowardly they won't answer the question as posed :roll:
Click to expand...

You know I love you CP, and I don't know if you were drunk when you posted this, but you're smart enough to know that this is an absolutely ridiculous analogy :shrug:
 
StillBallin75 said:
You know I love you CP, and I don't know if you were drunk when you posted this, but you're smart enough to know that this is an absolutely ridiculous analogy :shrug:
Click to expand...

that's the point - OC was complaining that people were refusing to argue that "reducing demand in the economy would lead to more jobs", because that is the strawman that he wants people to argue (as it is easier to defeat than the actual argument that government is a less efficient allocator of resources than the private market). this was set up to allow him to defend his position just as stupidly :).
 
cpwill said:
Under the theory that once you remove water from the ocean, it magically no longer counts, and any water that flows back into the ocean has therefore "multiplied" itself.


oh wait, this is a crude and stupid representation of keynesian economic theory?

gosh, what a friggin surprise. wonder why some people are so cowardly they won't answer the question as posed :roll:
Click to expand...
We were just at our advisor on the Ocean. He likes the Ocean having lots of water; and, right now it does, much more than it can use right now. We know about how much and it's stored right now. He and we know the number of swimmers will be fewer in our area; but, on the other side of the ocean there appear to be new swimmers needing more water for the Ocean. So, that’s where we’ve got our water ready to go. Too bad we have fewer swimmers here now, but more sad watchers, but we expect to do great on the other side.
 
DaveFagan said:
Switch to Rare Old Nikka or kerosene. Are you sure it wasn't tainted with Acadama wine?
Click to expand...

I'm in Thailand. if it was tainted, it was probably with GHB. :D
 
cpwill said:
that's the point - OC was complaining that people were refusing to argue that "reducing demand in the economy would lead to more jobs", because that is the strawman that he wants people to argue (as it is easier to defeat than the actual argument that government is a less efficient allocator of resources than the private market). this was set up to allow him to defend his position just as stupidly :).
Click to expand...

Alright, makes more sense. Point conceded.
 
cpwill said:
I'm in Thailand. if it was tainted, it was probably with GHB. :D
Click to expand...
In Thailand, nice. I was in Thailand, USAF, for a year. Spent a lot of time off by myself getting to know it as much as I could. The flooding concerns me.
Your poll was fun, thx.
 
cpwill said:
Under the theory that once you remove water from the ocean, it magically no longer counts, and any water that flows back into the ocean has therefore "multiplied" itself.


oh wait, this is a crude and stupid representation of keynesian economic theory?

gosh, what a friggin surprise. wonder why some people are so cowardly they won't answer the question as posed :roll:
Click to expand...
You know that since Ronald Reagan increased the debt three-fold it could be argued he used Keynesian economic theory in getting the economy going? It wasn't his tax cuts.
 
cpwill said:
Under the theory that once you remove water from the ocean, it magically no longer counts, and any water that flows back into the ocean has therefore "multiplied" itself.
oh wait, this is a crude and stupid representation of keynesian economic theory?
gosh, what a friggin surprise. wonder why some people are so cowardly they won't answer the question as posed :roll:
Click to expand...
As always, argument by analogy is all but entirely worthless.
I am not familiar w/ w/e you're on about, but a big difference between money and matter is that matter can't be created or destroyed only changed and money can be created from nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom