https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Roustabout 2026-10-07T17:26:52Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroeconomics&diff=56010 2007-03-22T01:35:51Z

<p>Roustabout: </p> <hr /> <div>{{stub}}<br /> <br /> Macroeconomics is the analysis of the economy as a whole, or the analysis of large subdivisions of the economy. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Economics]]</div>

Roustabout https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Macroeconomics&diff=45326 2007-03-18T08:40:50Z

<p>Roustabout: </p> <hr /> <div>I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You're not qualified to recognize that a forest v trees analogy and a statement that the subjects of that analogy are opposites don't make sense taken together? You're far brighter than that. <br /> <br /> In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though.</div>

Roustabout https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Macroeconomics&diff=34032 2007-03-14T07:54:50Z

<p>Roustabout: no comment reversion</p> <hr /> <div>This is a pretty embarrassing page, simply from the standpoint of reasoning.<br /> <br /> Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a<br /> disruptive poster.<br /> <br /> There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot<br /> be brought into register. They are presented one sentence following the next.<br /> <br /> one is the forest versus tree analogy. <br /> <br /> two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics.<br /> <br /> Let's think about two in the context of one: would anyone seriously try to define<br /> trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally? <br /> <br /> I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory<br /> logic course.<br /> <br /> == no comment reversion ==<br /> <br /> Tsumetai might also want to consider why I was making the point; <br /> an embarrassingly sloppy three sentences are reinstated. Granted the point<br /> was made rather bluntly. I had not known much of who was who when I saw the piece; <br /> since then, I was pleased to see Tsumetai taking point on getting the thermodynamics <br /> silliness out of the evolution discussion. <br /> <br /> If conservatives can't come up with a definition of macroeconomics that reflects<br /> the level of work on wikipedia, and instead invest that much energy in arguing <br /> muddleheadedness about physics... Well, I'll just say I was thinking there'd be <br /> more on econ and less on unicorns.</div>

Roustabout https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroeconomics&diff=31983 2007-03-13T17:33:28Z

<p>Roustabout: </p> <hr /> <div>Macroeconomics is a topic better defined at our bete noire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics than we can hope to do here without considerable real study. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Economics]]</div>

Roustabout https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Macroeconomics&diff=31971 2007-03-13T17:28:57Z

<p>Roustabout: </p> <hr /> <div>This is a pretty embarrassing page, simply from the standpoint of reasoning.<br /> <br /> Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a<br /> disruptive poster.<br /> <br /> There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot<br /> be brought into register. They are presented one sentence following the next.<br /> <br /> one is the forest versus tree analogy. <br /> <br /> two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics.<br /> <br /> Let's think about two in the context of one: would anyone seriously try to define<br /> trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally? <br /> <br /> I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory<br /> logic course.</div>

Roustabout