The bread example is bad, but it does illuminate an important point: there is a decreasing marginal utility to increased consumption. Getting food on the table is far more important than getting more expensive food on the table. But to jump from describing that economic law to a slavish devotion to economic growth at all costs? It doesn’t make sense.

And RV, please spare us the “pick up a book” nonsense, it’s very clear that you don’t understand anything about what you’ve supposedly read. Your bread example makes absolutely zero sense. It’s actually comical it’s so dumb.

As a progressive, my position is clear: an optimal economic system is not one that simply maximizes growth at the expense of all else. Heck, even Friedman recognized the need for redistribution. I’d much rather support the maintenance of our human and physical infrastructure over the long term health of luxury yacht businesses.

And quit the tired libertarian shibboleth of claiming that the government “steals” from you. Unless, of course, you’re ready to start talking about how you steal from the government.

And if you read a book of an anatomy, that one has a flat style too, since hopefully, this is what you meant – because those things aren’t meaningless since they’re basic economic laws and the examples are based on them. If you want to listen to rhetoric with no substance, listen to Obama. He has style, doesn’t he? :P It’s pretty sad when people don’t understand substance anymore, isn’t it?

And a thing, I’m not Republican. I dislike most Republicans as much as I dislike most Democrats. In practice, they’re the same shit. Just look at Obama aka Bush 2.0. Same policies. Deficit spending, stimulating the economy, policing the world, welfare. Just better rhetoric and more damaging policies for the general public, while beneficial for his favoured groups.