I thought it might be interesting to note this little discrepancy:
(links at source: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/0...earnings-drop/ )
In the visionary world of the "lower consumption" Left, is the Washington Post's lower earnings, circulation and questionable future laudable or tragic? Or is it both?
Just a thought: consumption is what drives the economy. Calling for less of it is really calling for less demand for goods and services. If we adopt the lifestyles of ascetic monks, all the benefits of the modern world go south.
On the upside, it would be for the greater good.
— “Obama’s hard truth: Americans must consume less,” the Washington Post, February 19, 2010.
— “Washington Post suffers 85% earnings drop,” the Politico today.
(links at source: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/0...earnings-drop/ )
In the visionary world of the "lower consumption" Left, is the Washington Post's lower earnings, circulation and questionable future laudable or tragic? Or is it both?
Just a thought: consumption is what drives the economy. Calling for less of it is really calling for less demand for goods and services. If we adopt the lifestyles of ascetic monks, all the benefits of the modern world go south.
On the upside, it would be for the greater good.
Comment