justinb138 0 #151 June 6, 2009 Quote and i asked you why shouldn't i talk about your mother like that? Actually, you asked me, and I answered. We're all still waiting for your answers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #152 June 6, 2009 Quote Quote and i asked you why shouldn't i talk about your mother like that? Actually, you asked me, and I answered. We're all still waiting for your answers. the moderator has asked us to drop the subject stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #153 June 6, 2009 Quotethe moderator has asked us to drop the subject No the Mod's told you to cut the P.A's. Now are you gonna answer the question or are you gonna keep ducking?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #154 June 7, 2009 Quote Quote Contrary to popular belief, money is a finite resource. lots of money in zimbabwe What the??? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #155 June 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Contrary to popular belief, money is a finite resource. lots of money in zimbabwe What the??? www.alternet.org/lots-of-money-in-zimbabwe-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #156 June 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Contrary to popular belief, money is a finite resource. lots of money in zimbabwe What the??? www.alternet.org/lots-of-money-in-zimbabwe "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #157 June 7, 2009 QuoteWhat the??? My thoughts exactly! He still refuses to answer the questions.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #158 June 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Contrary to popular belief, money is a finite resource. lots of money in zimbabwe What the??? you say that money is a finite resource and i use zimbabwe as an example where there is lots and lots and lots of money (and more being printed everyday) (hint - labour is a finite resource - money is a mathematical concept that can be any number that is needed)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #159 June 7, 2009 Hmm. So because Zimbabwe prints a lot of money it is therefore infinite. I get it now. Thank you for correcting me. Need I explain that such things as "inflation" when the supply of money is increased through printing more of it? Are you suggesting that if more money is printed the poor will do better? On the contrary, I believe that inflation hits the poor the hardest. By the way, I don't disagree that labor is finite. Would you agree that employers are fewer in number than employees? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #160 June 7, 2009 the immediate thought would be that there are fewer employers than employees. but if i am buying something from a shop am i employing the labour that gets things to me - or is the shop owner? and if the shop is a corporation then the ultimate employers are the shareholders. and what about the armed forces - who is employing them?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #161 June 7, 2009 doctors, plumbers, taxi drivers, electricians, mechanics etc... are single employees with many different employers.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #162 June 7, 2009 Quotethe immediate thought would be that there are fewer employers than employees. but if i am buying something from a shop am i employing the labour that gets things to me - or is the shop owner? and if the shop is a corporation then the ultimate employers are the shareholders. and what about the armed forces - who is employing them? You bring up a valid point. The employer/employee dichotomy isn't entirely relevant in economics. It's just one of many examples of supplier/consumer interaction. The employer is the consumer of labor, and the employee is the supplier of labor. One could could consider the consumer of any service to be an employer. That same consumer could be an employee elsewhere, as well as an employer for other suppliers of services.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tumbler 0 #163 June 8, 2009 I didnt see them say drop it, just dont be a wanker.. Perhaps the Kingdome is going in the right direction.. and being the government that it is, they may stand a chance at really changing the lives of those on this paticular welfare system.. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=123373&d=8&m=6&y=2009 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #164 June 8, 2009 It is a valid point that seemed to come from dd's own thought process. Dd owes beer. Now the issue is the application. As I have stated before, private businesses do not want a poor population because it is bad for business. On the other hand, the employers (consumers) want the best value they can get.from their employees (businesses). These employees (businesses) want the most they can get and have in the past attempted to unionize by forming their own form of organized labor - cartels and consortia. It turns out that these employee unions are illegal because of their detrimental effects. They leave the employers without a choice. In theory and in practice there are significant differences between consumer employers and producer/servicer employers. The writings of Adam Smith are instructive. Still - money is finite. And wealth is not a zero sum game. We know this because in this recession we have basically everybody losing without people gaining. Wealth is not being transferred but being lost. Question for dd: how much should I pay in taxes to support this woman, her kids and those like them? It precludes me from employing others who may employ yet others, does it not? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #165 June 8, 2009 QuoteIt precludes me from employing others who may employ yet others, does it not? And, it allows her and others like her to employ others who may yet employ others.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #166 June 8, 2009 QuoteStill - money is finite. To avoid the Zimbabwe argument, you might rephrase this as "current wealth is finite." The actual wealth in a system at any one time is limited. Over time, of course, more can be created, leading to a (long term) situation where wealth is virtually unlimited. In order to create that wealth, though, conditions must encourage (and allow) it's creation.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #167 June 8, 2009 >how much should I pay in taxes to support this woman, her kids and those like >them? My answer - the minimum possible to keep them from dying of exposure or starvation. Beyond that, up to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #168 June 8, 2009 Quote>how much should I pay in taxes to support this woman, her kids and those like >them? My answer - the minimum possible to keep them from dying of exposure or starvation. Beyond that, up to them. so no education for the children or healthcare? (perhaps we should put a mark, perhaps a star, on them so we can all properly identify the family)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #169 June 8, 2009 How quaint. It's nice to know that only blacks and latinos are in that position, bless their hearts.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #170 June 8, 2009 Quoteso no education for the children or healthcare? Food, clothing and shelter...everything else is gravy? There are no "rights" to any of this.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #171 June 8, 2009 >so no education for the children or healthcare? We're talking about spending specifically for people in her position. There are a great many other expenditures, like education (for all kids in the US, not just hers) and military (which will protect her and her family, as it does everyone.) In terms of welfare, though, the minimum needed to keep them in Ramen Noodles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #172 June 8, 2009 you'll see the value in these places then Quote The workhouse system was set up in England and Wales under the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 although many individual houses existed before this legislation. Outdoor relief was discouraged and each group of parishes had to provide a workhouse. Under the 1834 system individual parishes were formed into Poor Law Unions – each Poor Law Union was to have a union workhouse. Inmates were free to enter and leave as they liked and would receive free food and accommodation. However, the concern was that too liberal a regime would lead to many people who could easily work taking it easy in the workhouse. This would lead not only to an excessive charge on charitable funds but a dilution of the work ethic. To counter this the principle of less eligibility was developed. Workhouse life was deliberately made as harsh and degrading as possible so that only the truly destitute would apply. Attempts were also made to provide moral guidance, training and education to the poor. Workhouse conditions were governed by the Consolidated General Order, a formidable series of rules governing every aspect of workhouse life such as diet, dress, education, discipline and redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhousestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #173 June 8, 2009 >each Poor Law Union was to have a union workhouse. Well, if there was a union involved, I am sure they were great places to work! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #174 June 8, 2009 you probably snigger when the pastor/vicar mentions the 'union of man and woman in marriage' (meanwhile don't you like the way that the victorians thought the workhouse was good for the poor - and all the poor wanted to do was take it easy - so what was good for them was to break up the family and give everyone hard labour) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #175 June 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt precludes me from employing others who may employ yet others, does it not? And, it allows her and others like her to employ others who may yet employ others. As does funding. Whether I earn $10k or steal it, I can employ others with that money. I mean, why have someone else decide how to spend money? I could just take it from them and spend it on something more worthy, like me. Or someone worthy, like you. Whomever I feel like. So long as that person's choice is taken away. Why have her take the money and use it when the government can take it? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
