On Sep 15, 8:06 pm, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:> On Sep 15, 4:43 pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 15, 12:02 pm, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>
>>> How many financial institutions must go under before a broad majority
>>> of monied interests admits I'm correct, that a vibrant market economy
>>> is 100%% dependent on free speech on economic issues?
>
>> Since you have already determined to your satisfaction
>> that China has "free speech on economic issues," can
>> we assume that we know what it is that you want?
>
> Apparently he wants what has happened to the Shanghai Stock Exchange
> Index which - reflecting China's "vibrant market economy - is down
> over 60%% in the last year - from a high of a bit over 6,000 last fall,
> it has fallen to 2,000. That is a drop of over 60%%.
>
>
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=000001.SS
>
> Fred Weiss
Maybe, but what interests me is that Cahill claims
that China has what he wants here, which is free
speech on economic issues. So clearly, he wants
to replace real free speech with something else, that
ephemeral free speech on economic issues, which
seems to operate in the absense of real free speech.
It is essentially the opposite of free speech that
Cahill wants, a la China. QED. Reductio ad absurdum.
