Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9el9$8ss_001(a)s894.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4565BAEA.9E69351C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >unsettled wrote: >>> > >>> >> NHS has not >>> >> yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more >>> >> decades. >>> > >>> >60 years is enough to prove the point imho. >>> >>> You still have a private system in place. So the NHS >>> does not work to the exclusion of other methods. >> >>So ? I'm not sure what your point is. Private health care >>in the UK is for the >>most part a 'luxury' service for those who can afford it. > > What is a luxury service? Timely treatment? Treatment > when needed? No public waiting lines? Not at all. They are provided free of cost at the point of delivery on the NHS. Private patients get things like nicer hospital rooms, _faster_ access to elective treatment, and little luxuries like better cutlery in hospital. You know, all the middle class things you rail against normally. Now, coming from the US health care environment *you* may think timely treatment, treatment when needed and no public waiting lines is a luxury but over here it is viewed as pretty much the _minimum_ standard.
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 13:23 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. Follow the money. The cost is paid to a maintenance man. >>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. I'll leave you in BAH's hands for this one. She's made the point that every piece of paper had, and may still have, a valid reason for being. It only took a couple of hundred years to get rid of the US "Tea Taster."
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Despite what everyone seems to be claiming here, no one has explained what was so funny with the above. Either you are both trying to get an "in joke" feeling and childishly trying to exclude others - or, /BAH doesn't know either but wants to use this chance to join in with what she sees is an insult. > He has been born and bred with > this attitude and anything else is so foreign that he cannot > see that POV. Incorrect. > It's similar to my inability to understand > how royalty functioned in Europe. There are lots of things which you seem unable to understand. Why start with this one?
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 13:26 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't free to some, and costly to others.
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 13:30
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9f58$8ss_002(a)s894.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ek7d1r$r6e$22(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>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? > > 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. Really? What data are you drawing from for this conclusion? I certainly wouldn't describe that as improving my quality of life and no one I know would. What research have you checked over to confirm the way the people who collect the quality of life data attribute positive and negative measures? > A high QoL means no decisions at all. This is getting to be more > in line with the way Islam works. Blimey. Strange how improving the quality of life of people under the thrall of Islam is occasionally used to justify regime change, isn't it. If what you say is true, then everyone will be happier (and as there is a large enough body of research to support "happier" people being more productive and healthier we can assume the correlation will continue), better off and more "worthy" if everywhere falls under the control of the Imams. Sadly, I am atheistic enough to rate my quality of life without any reference to a religion, nor is it dependant on how "few" decisions I have to make. |