Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 08:06 In article <ek5cn4$t07$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ba10e$4565827a$4fe7682$23596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: <snip> > >>> The person gets a days pay but produces nothing as a >>> result. That person will consume things from the economy but not add any >>> goods or services to it. So in effect that person has destroyed a bit of >>> wealth. >> >>They consumed, but the money, representing wealth, has passed >>through. > >No, we now have the same amount of money in the system chasing a reduced >amount of goods and services. The money still exists but something got >consumed and nothing got created to replace it. I suspected that you had the above assumption. There is not a constant amount of money in the world. The amount is a variable. This flaw in your assumption is at the root of a lot of your incorrect conclusions about how finance, economies, and business works. <snip> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 09:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > >> Ken Smith wrote: > >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >>How many communist economies exist worldwide ? > >> > > >> > > >> > Zero if you round off to the nearest whole number. > >> > >> Maggot brain misspeaks again. China, Cuba, North Korea, > >> and VietNam spring immediately to mind. > > > >You think China is communist ? > > Yes. They have developed their unique form of Communism. > It is interesting to watch when they mix a little bit > of capitalism in certain areas. Little bit ???? It can't be communism if they encorage capitalism can it ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 09:35 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> I'm told > >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study > >> that. > > > >It's called social democracy. > > I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives > me a slight warning. And your fear of democracy doesn't surprise me. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 09:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> I'm told > >> that a successful socialist economy is in Sweden. I have to study > >> that. > > > >It's called social democracy. > > I know. The fact that the word democracy has to be included gives > me a slight warning. > > > All of the European 'lbour' parties embrace the > >concept more or less. > > Yes and that's a serious problem when independent thinking > and action is required. I beg your pardon. Do please explain what you mean. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy > > > >" The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered > considerably > >in the 1990s and 2000s [1]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole > >proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and > Ericsson), > >while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low > >unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, > >all while registering sizable economic growth. " > > What bothers me about this is that there is only a few companies. Only a few companies. Whatever are you talking about ? You've gone right off the rails again. > There are many ways to measure cost of living. If they included > all the taxes it would be very high. Eh ? You mean income tax presumably ? Sweden's taxation isn't significantly higher than theEuropean norm AIUI. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 09:40
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a > large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any > other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told > what to do all the time. What nonsense is this now ? Where *do* you get these ideas ? Graham |