Double negative logic help

[Devon Gibbons]

I have trouble understanding double negatives and I want some reasonable person to explain what is being declared in this sentence:

 

from Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics (Fifth Edition)" page 79:

 

"...neither individuals nor businesses are willing or able to pay for everything that is not useless, when they are spending their own money."

 

 

This might be a stupid question, but is this the same as saying "...individuals and businesses are not willing or able to pay for everything that is useless, when they are spending their own money"? This is how I interpreted it for myself.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Just swap 'useful' for 'not useless'. It becomes easier to make sense of then. The double negative he used seems to me to be pointless and confusing, as double negatives never cease to be. Lol

[Jamiroquai]

 

I have trouble understanding double negatives and I want some reasonable person to explain what is being declared in this sentence:

from Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics (Fifth Edition)" page 79:

"...neither individuals nor businesses are willing or able to pay for everything that is not useless, when they are spending their own money."


This might be a stupid question, but is this the same as saying "...individuals and businesses are not willing or able to pay for everything that is useless, when they are spending their own money"? This is how I interpreted it for myself.

 

Daniel is right. The sentence means:

"Neither individuals nor businesses are willing or able to pay for everything that's useful, when they're spending their own money." 

 

You negated the "not useless" to mean "useless", while only rephrasing the first half, not negating it. By doing this you change the meaning of the entire sentence. If this is a grammar exercise, I'd assume you should focus on the "not useless" part, not the first half.

By the way, I think that comma before "when" is unnecessary.

[Devon Gibbons]

Daniel is right. The sentence means:

"Neither individuals nor businesses are willing or able to pay for everything that's useful, when they're spending their own money." 

 

You negated the "not useless" to mean "useless", while only rephrasing the first half, not negating it. By doing this you change the meaning of the entire sentence. If this is a grammar exercise, I'd assume you should focus on the "not useless" part, not the first half.

 

By the way, I think that comma before "when" is unnecessary.

 

Ah, I greatly appreciate you pointing out that I don't need to focus on the first half. I knew I was wrong, I'm glad my issue was much simpler than I thought. I didn't see the negation existing in "-less", maybe I interpreted it to mean "used less" rather than zero use.

 

thanks to you both

 

[HordOfTheFlies]

The double negative he used seems to me to be pointless and confusing, as double negatives never cease to be.

 

I'll agree in general on double negatives but thought I'd add that in the context of an economics book this might have been done for emphasis or effect.  The phrase "everything that is not useless" seems to imply that he is talking about an infinite set minus the useful things.  Put into context of the rest of the sentence I think it adds a certain weight if you realize that he is talking about individuals and businesses having to pay for an unbounded number of goods.  He is saying they can't bear that burden.  That was my thought anyway.

 

Or he might just hate the English language and wants everyone to suffer.

[Daniel Unplugged]

You could be right there, however, hating the english language is very understandable. When flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing, something is definitely wrong. Also, what's with capital letters? I can't for the life of me, figure out why they are necessary.