FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466 FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466 FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466 FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466

This right here? This is the problem. I never asked you to present any argument. I already know your argument. What I was interested in was your idea that there is now tons of mainstream support for your theories. All I asked for were some examples of what you considered mainstream news articles that were supporting the idea of global economic contraction. I got none. Sorry, Popes don't count.
Even their revised forecasts are still positive. And the forecast for 2017 is higher than 2016. I'm not sure why you would mention this in the context of "growth and prosperity are over" when it obviously supports the opposite conclusion.

In the end, you may be right. I hope you're not. Either way, you're very difficult to have a conversation with.

It doesn't appear that you do. You continue to get it wrong when you address me.

You got three links as examples, and a half dozen other reminders of how compromised the markets currently are, all of which contribute to show a global economy stuck in the mud. The "reasonable" pope was merely thrown in there as a topping, which you straw-manned to pretend I must think his opinion is paramount.

To be clear, your causa proxima, non remota spectator strategy is familiar.

Again, you appear to miss the point. Of course they are positive, they have to be. It's what those entities do. The point is they're constantly forced to revise their initial forecasts downward. Quarter after quarter after quarter. Why are they never off in the other direction? The truth is, they're in the business of buoying confidence. Then, the actual numbers come in. Oops.

In any event, when the stimulus and helicopter money finally stops, those numbers are gonna be a little different.

I am right. If I wasn't, central banks would have presented us a solution by now, 10 years in, that doesn't just include printing more money and hoping investment banks lend it out.

Well, no. That's only with posters with a history of addressing me, unsolicited, by being kind of a dick.

You always hear of the fear article written by morns imho on how losing populatin is a bad thing. Almost all wars, wildlife loss, and poverty can be attributed to an increasing population. Australia is one of the richest countries and probably the richest and it has a population of 20 million comparable to the United States in 1860.

Here is a typical article they come a dime a dozen.

http://qz.com/394456/the-numbers-beh...hic-nightmare/

The saddest part is they claim they need to increase population to maintain an overpopulated status that gave rise to WWI and WWII. Machines are so efficient now one man can provide almost all the food in 1/2 a year than he will need in 2 lifetimes. Thank corporate profits for that.

The only thing keeping people down are government, liberals and liberalism. People like Bernie Sanders. Whenever a dictator takes over look at the votes., they are all workers parties, communists parties, or some type of socialst parties. Look at when the country seems rich and growing the leaders are all the businessmen, capitalists, corporals, and engineers.

Germany and United States needs to end immigration and send our emigants around the world so we can be rich again. Only when we lose 1/2 our population will the streams fill with salmon and forests return and the riches and gold returns to the streets. Life expectancy will increase and maybe we can live to 150 with $1 million annual average incomes if the population drops more.

We should be retiring at 18.

So you literally just linked Germany and the United States as needing to get rid of those undesirables so that "WE" can be rich again. Got it.

Holy ****, dude.

No they don't need to get rid on undesirables as you claim. They just don't need to say yes to immigration. There are many losers in this country that believe we need immigration to run our farms and give baby boomers good retirements. I say to the slave-owner farmer, farm your own fields or go on welfare. Read the article below.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/jus...g-baby-boomers

So the article claims we need immigration to make up for lost workers, insanity!

So you're a tea-party Ayn Rand disciple advocating welfare for farmers who can't. Got it.