at this point, Michael Perelman usually steps in to say that the discussion should end. You can use the word "growth" in any way you want, raghu. But expect to be misunderstood.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:20 AM, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> raghu, now -- >>> I could, but thats not the point. Why not stick with the usage of >>> "growth" that is implicit in the general discourse anyway instead of >>> introducing redefinitions etc? >> >> it really doesn't answer the idea that "there are other meanings to >> the word 'growth'." > > No there aren't. To most economists and certainly to the media and the > general public, the unqualified term "growth" means one thing and one > thing only: GDP growth. To pretend otherwise seems a bit like denial > to me. > > As Carrol says, the word belongs to the enemy. And it is not really > worth fighting over. > -raghu. > > -- > "Really ?? What a coincidence, I'm shallow too!!" > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
