We're in agreement, a self-documenting fallacy.

Is that like self flagellation???

I am so unenlightened

And went nowhere for 100 years.

I just finished saying that initial prototypes do appear for decades before the item can be rolled out in volume. Inventing something is only the first hurdle; often the easiest hurdle.

There are many more hurdles involved in mass-deployment, and those hurdles often require inventions not in evidence yet. It's not enough to invent something. You have to invent and develop every single tool, process, manufacturing and logistical item to mass-produce the thing in volume, safely, and with all consumer issues addressed.

When your articles start addressing that, we'll reconvene.

Actually it has... but you missed that I suppose.... as you missed the deployment and mass production issues which were answered....

Not in anything you produced.

In your own words:

You mean factual rebuttals like these?

See, if, instead of saying (in your own words, of course) 'Your evidence has failed to sway me, so it is biased/wrong/bad/non sequitor/etc', you would say 'Your evidence has failed to sway me', or 'Here's evidence that proves your evidence is wrong', this 'debate' could go along much more smoothly.

Not all questions are created equal. Not all claims are equally sweeping.

If someone makes a claim whose evidence is very much not in evidence, a demand for a cite is reasonable. If someone is clearly unable to keep up with the basics and needs cites for basic economic laws, that's another thing entirely.

Cites should be expected for the non-trivial and non-obvious. Cites to spoonfeed the trivially obtainable are not obligatory.

You need to grasp the concept of "context."

Virtually no debates go smoothly here, so clearly that is not an attribute much valued here.

Cite.

Of course, when you do I'll just say that you can't use authority, because you're wearing the wrong colour undergarment. I mean, you can't use people's research, that would be like not re-inventing the wheel, and that's just plain leftist.

So we can assume what level of common knowledge on your behalf? Just to define "obvious" (which, pardon the pun, isn't always quite obvious).

Ok, here's an example: if you're debating an economic issue, you shouldn't insist in a cite for the Law of Supply and Demand. a) do a Google search and find it on your own -- I'm not your grade school tutor, and b) if you don't know that law, perhaps you shouldn't be bloviating on economic matters in the first place.

Okay... I'll rate that as highschool grade knowledge. I will assume that such knowledge for you is defined as "obvious" (on all subjects I know to be commonly taught in US highschools this day).

In this instance I asked for your opinion of the Law Of Supply and Demand.... in your own words... I did not want to "google" nor look in a textbook.... I myself understand the principle of supply and demand yet noone understands the mystery of how/why it works...... unless of course you are far more knowledgable than everyone else in the world and have a defined answer????

That is why I asked you if you had checked out the price of dairy products lately.... I was going to make a point.... but you understandably decided against answering....

Is supply and demand that hard a concept to understand? Consumers have a need or desire for goods. Producers have a capacity to produce those goods, where higher quantities offer lower relative costs (in general). The balance is found where the supply of goods creates such competition that there is an optimal balance between the market price, and the production costs. The highest profit per unit.
Defeating this system requires control of (nearly) ALL supply or (nearly) ALL demand. And control needs not be ownership (take the OPEC model for instance).

Except you clearly do not, else you would understand instantly why min wage laws cause unemployment.

Actually, almost everyone other than you understands the how and why.

No, I'm not going to play 20 Questions in the dark. We'll skip the little game playing. If you have a point, make it.

Not at all that hard to understand.... in fact I understand it quite well.... but that was not the point of the conversation/debate before dgg9 misdirected it toward that point..... as has been done since the inception of this thread..... which has as its title "Impeach Bush"...

Nicely done though...... misdirection does take some practice

I suppose our Government must be as stupid as I than to allow Minimum Wage Laws to exist when they know all about Supply and Demand.......

really... and yet it is all presumption...... and remarkable cause and effect which sometimes flys the coop.... elsewise why would businesses go broke and bust and why would million/billion dollar corporations dissolve and/or sell to the highest bidder.... hmmm.. I wonder why that is???