Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 24 Nov 2006 14:01 In article <ek6qoa$8ss_009(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ek5cn4$t07$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ba10e$4565827a$4fe7682$23596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: ><snip> > >> >>>> The person gets a days pay but produces nothing as a >>>> result. That person will consume things from the economy but not add any >>>> goods or services to it. So in effect that person has destroyed a bit of >>>> wealth. >>> >>>They consumed, but the money, representing wealth, has passed >>>through. >> >>No, we now have the same amount of money in the system chasing a reduced >>amount of goods and services. The money still exists but something got >>consumed and nothing got created to replace it. > >I suspected that you had the above assumption. For the sake of simplification, I held the amount of money constant. > There is not >a constant amount of money in the world. The amount is a variable. I agree that it varies but it does not vary as a result of the small case I suggested. That interaction held the number of dollars constant but did not hold the amount of wealth constant. >This flaw in your assumption is at the root of a lot of your >incorrect conclusions about how finance, economies, and business works. No, this assumption works perfectly well for the case I suggested. The variation in money is orthoganal to the variation in wealth in this case. I set up the case in the way I did for exactly that reason. If both varied in the case I suggested, we would have to get into some math to demonstrate my point. I believe that I have correctly demonstrated the point that tracking the money doesn't work. You have to follow the flow of wealth. The inefficiencies in the economy can then be identified by finding the places where wealth is destroyed. The money will often sail right on through the situation but it is now chasing few goods and services. > ><snip> > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 24 Nov 2006 14:04 In article <ek7ano$r6e$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: [....] >And it costs the IRS not a penny more to collect the money which goes to >Medicare, since people are already filing tax returns. I will dispute that suggestion. Each item to be processed takes a little data entry and CPU time to deal with. Making the tax form simpler would save money. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:03 In article <1164297902.254938.218460(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <45659BD4.C4D74C51(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >> > >> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >> > >> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a good >> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it is for >> >sure essentially 'no frills'. >> >> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a >> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. > >It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in >each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to >that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? >The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. > >> >In comparison the US system fails to deliver as much at a far greater cost. >> >> You are comparing a mom and pop store with a conglomerate. > >You have a very peculiar definition of a mom & pop store. But when did >you ever let small details like facts get in the way of your warped and >twisted world view. > >The UK NHS in its entireity is generally reckonned to be the fifth >largest employer on the planet (1.3M employees in 2005) just below >Walmart & US DOD in the rankings. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#Staff > >A comprehensive US version would have to be bigger but not by all that >much - perhaps 5x at most. BTW The UK health system is an efficient >conglomerate with economies of scale. > >If you are happy with a US system where the uninsurable chronically ill >have to beg for expensive drugs off the manufacturers that is your >problem. And it will only get worse as more powerful genetic tests >allow insurers to screen out high risk individuals before they get >sick. > >It seems to be a prevalent attitude in the USA that only the very rich >who can pay for everything privately deserve to get a decent education >or health care. Most odd. > >Regards, >Martin Brown > Hey, as long as it's not what right-wing fanatics think is "socialism", they'd be happy with taking sick people out and gunning them down.
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:18 In article <ek6p6d$8ss_003(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <4565BA66.1AE61881(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. > >> >>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. >There are many ways to measure cost of living. If they included >all the taxes it would be very high. > >/BAH How about "quality of life"? The US usually ranks near the bottom of western nations. Why must it always be about money to right-wingers?
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 08:21
In article <ek70h3$8qk_012(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <4565FF54.8FB55B64(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >In comparison the US system fails to deliver as much at a far greater >>> >> >cost. >>> >> >>> >> You are comparing a mom and pop store with a conglomerate. >>> > >>> >In population terms the USA's only 5 times bigger. Similar schemes to the >NHS >>> >exist all over Europe with a far greater population than the USA. >>> >>> But dispersed over the equivalent of 50 countries, each with its >>> own sets of rules. In your country everybody agrees to one set. >>> This is not true in the US. The one-rule set is very limited in >>> power. >> >>I can see that the position of the individual states may complicate things a >bit. >>I wouldn't have thought this would be insuperable though. > >Most people, (except it seems our current Demcocrat leadership), >in this country are highly allergic to throwing away our >Constitution. To transfer states' powers to the Federal >government is unconstitutional and requires extraordinary >circumstances and legal actions to do so. > >/BAH "provide for the general welfare" allows a lot of latitude. |