Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 08:53 In article <ek7fhv$hv4$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. You cannot do this. It does simplify anything but does create fictions. > >> 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. Dollars are not constant. See any remarks from the Federal Reserve Board about money supply. > >>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. It cannot. > 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. What you were trying to do is discuss why the apple falls from the tree based on the assumption that pigs do fly. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 08:58 In article <MPG.1fd189542fe9ec36989c7e(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <45675408.11C7C33E(a)hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> krw wrote: >> >> > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > > T Wake wrote: >> > > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >>It [China] can't be communism if they encorage capitalism can it ? >> > > > > >> > > > > They are not encouraging capitalism in lieu of their brand >> > > > > of communism. They are trying out pieces of it. Their >> > > > > field test site is usually the area next door to Hong Kong. >> > > > > If something works, they move it to Shanghia. I am assuming >> > > > > that the pieces that merge nicely with their political methods >> > > > > will creep throughout its economy. >> > > > >> > > > Which is why it isnt considered a communist economy (any more) by normal >> > > > people. >> > > >> > > It's more like a mixed economy run by a party that still calls >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > > itself communist. >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > >> > Too funny! Dumb donkey. >> >> Pray tell what amuses you here. > >If you can't tell, you are a far dumber donkey than anyone here >ever suspected. ...and that's going a far piece! I don't think he is able. He has been born and bred with this attitude and anything else is so foreign that he cannot see that POV. It's similar to my inability to understand how royalty functioned in Europe. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:01 In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(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: >> >> >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. >> >> >> >> <ahem> The word democracy is included in a political party's name >> >> for the same reason the word "science" is put into Computer Science >> >> degree's name. >> > >> >Shame they don't have one for 'hands in the till' for the Republicans then ! >> >> What makes you think that the Republicans are the only ones who >> take money? My state is now pure Democrat. They've had their >> hands in everybody's pockets for decades. > >The Republicans do it on the grand scale. No, honey. YOu've been listening to Democrat rhetoric. One of their tactics, is to get people to believe that there is a serious class structure in the US and that the Republicans are the "rich" who steal from the "poor". This tactic works because the modertately rich believe they are the "poor" and that those mean rich guys should be giving their money to them. This stupid political party is seeding the grapes of wrath which will result in coast to coast riots when everybody who believes the "rich" stole from them gets their revenge. /BAH > >Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested >contracts. > >Graham >
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:03 In article <45672CF4.4465D4C1(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: >> >> >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. > >I wasn't suggesting changing the constitution per se ! > >I'm sure each state could run its own baby-NHS quite effectively and that would >then overcome your objections to size and scale too. I'm sure each state could not. However, I will find out since Massachusetts has made the first step of forcing everybody to have insurance. > >Over here we also have regional management of our NHS as in the 4 countries, >England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. > >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. You are blind. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:08
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > 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. > >> > >>> > >>>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? > > I am getting more and more convinced that this "quality of life" > comparison is getting to mean no obligation to make one's own decisions. > A high QoL means no decisions at all. This is getting to be more > in line with the way Islam works. What ? Quality of life is about how satisfying your lifestyle is as opposed to how wealthy you are. These are not the same thing. Graham |