Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:52 In article <90958$45678f73$4fe7021$3173(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <93e5c$456658ee$4fe70cd$27665(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >cutting to the chase yields: > >>>Perhaps you'd prefer to outlaw all tourism and tourist >>>activities not meeting with your approval? > >> No, I'm suggesting that we should not delude ourselves into assuming that >> all economic transactions in the private sector increase wealth and that >> it is the flow of wealth not the flow of money that really matters. > >"Money is any marketable good or token used by a society as a store of >value" I said basically the same thing some distance back in the thread. IIRC I said "money is a score keeping system that allows wealth to flow in the economy". [....] >Jack Sprat earns a million dollars. He takes it to a casino >and loses it all. The value, and wealth, is lost to Jack, but >is that wealth lost to society? Some fraction of it will be. The running cost of the casino contains lots of places where wealth is consumed. At these places, the money still flows but wealth is lost. The simplest case would be the maintaining of the machines. The wealth used on maintaining them does not produce any new wealth. >Because they don't add value to society, should we outlaw >casinos? No, I never said anything about outlawing them. This is a question of the right way to look at what is happening in an economy. You have to follow the flow of wealth, not merely the flow of money. There are places where wealth is created and places where it is consumed. Pushing needless paper around was my example of a place where wealth is consumed. If you can reduce the amount of needless paper pushing, you can improve the economy. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MathFreak NoMore on 25 Nov 2006 12:54 On Sat, 25 Nov 06 14:25:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Another thing I assumed was possible is that reasoned discussion > between opposing parties is possible and can solve all diagreements. > I was a fool to think this and have corrected my basic assumptions. Hehe :) No you've just come to know a little the rat that you are :) Bahciv, stupid now, I'm certain you've been stupid all of those years! "Opposing parties." Oh what a ... nope, I don't have time for you. -- "az howle halim oftAd tuye dig."
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:58 In article <ek9ht8$8qk_002(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ek7fhv$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. No, it doesn't but lets assume that the amount of money does vary. You tell me which way does the change go and by how much when one hour of needless paper pushing is done. Please explain how it happens. >>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. If I pick a case where the case its self does not change the money supply and run the experiment enough times, the external money supply changes will appear as noise and average to zero. >>No, this assumption works perfectly well for the case I suggested. > >It cannot. Please explain why not. If the money supply is an external issue to the transaction we are discussing, why can't we assume that the average variation goes to zero. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:59 In article <ek7mnr$9d2$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: >In article <ek7fo9$hv4$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ek7ano$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. >> >> >Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld every payday >and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the IRS with the >push of a key. That key is likely to cost a penny. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:04
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4568352A.3416123(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > unsettled wrote: >> > >> >> Tell us, have you ever actually complained to >> >> one department of government about another? Have >> >> you ever tried to sue the government? >> > >> > The NHS get sued over here sometimes when things go wrong as of course >> > they occasionally do in any organisation. >> > >> > It's not difficult at all. And it doesn't involve suing the government >> > either, another daft idea you just invented. >> >> I have complained about various departments in the government on several >> occasions. No problem with it at all. I provide a contract service to the >> government and if they breach it, I wouldn't hesitate to take legal >> action. >> >> Unsettled seems to think the US government is inherently corrupt and that >> it >> is not responsive to the will of the people. Odd really, as I thought the >> US >> was a democracy. > > It [the USA] would appear to be a murky place with little accountability. > Personally, [Anecdotal evidence gathered from my contact with Americans and the US Government], I think the US is fine and is actually a democracy where the government is as accountable to the wishes of the electorate as could reasonably be deemed possible. However, it seems that the more "right wing" posters on this thread are under an urge to quash anything which hints of "socialist" - even if it takes torturing logic like nothing else on Earth. Part of this urge seems to be assuming _anything_ the US government tries to do will be socialist by nature and that _they_ are the only defenders of Raw Capitalism. Quite funny really. The right wing cranks are putting down the things they claim to stand for. |