Economics - October 2006

2006-10-15 20:01:24 · 1 answers · asked by saibal_das99 1

2006-10-15 19:36:32 · 1 answers · asked by saibal_das99 1

2006-10-15 18:41:50 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-15 18:19:51 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-15 18:11:57 · 2 answers · asked by TheSilence 1

2006-10-15 16:25:25 · 2 answers · asked by Pat G 1

2006-10-15 14:18:38 · 2 answers · asked by bonshui 6

ppl think their ideas of justice are correct - but we have super-hyper-extreme injustice [pay from $1 to $1 billion for equal work] - so ppl's ideas of justice are incorrect, right?
justice produces happiness [wellbeing, high quality of life, peace, safety, democracy, liberty, friendliness, low war & crime, few problems, etc] - we have enormous injustice - so improving our ideas of justice can yield enormous happiness, yes?
[the state of happiness, not just the feeling of happiness]
if we stop paying ppl for natural gifts [which means taxing 99% of ppl to pay for paying ppl for natural gifts] we will have more happiness]?
if we stop paying ppl for benefit [which means taxing everyone else to fund the pay for benefit] & only pay for ppl's work [loss, of time & energy] we will have more happiness?
if we stop paying ppl for scarcity [which means taxing 99% to fund this pay for something which has nothing to do with the person who provides the scarce thing] we will have more happines?

2006-10-15 14:07:16 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

everyone already knows it wd cause giant violence if a govt took 90% of income permanently off 90% of ppl & gave it all to 1% - everyone already knows that giant violence wd stop if a govt stopped taking 90% off 90% - it is fact that we have worse inequity than this - everyone knows we have giant violence - so everyone nearly knows that stopping taking 90% off 90% will stop giant violence

everyone already knows that taking 90% off 90% wd reduce general wellbeing [happiness peace etc] to about 100th - so everyone already nearly knows that stopping taking 90% off 90% will increase general wellbeing [happiness peace safety order liberty] by about 100 times
we know justice causes happiness, we know we have extreme injustice, so we nearly know we can be extremely happier
extremely happier is nice, yes?
when everyone knows we can be extremely happier by recognising & outlawing overpay, we can get it without a fight
so we are nearly extremely happier!
worth thinking thru, yes?

2006-10-15 13:40:13 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

what if EVERYONE shouts: stop the madness? what if EVERYONE knows that it is madness? after all, if it is madness, everyone can know it - if everyone cant know it, maybe it isnt madness [which is why there is no reason for force - either it's right, & so everyone can know it, & force is not needed, or it's wrong, & force is not appropriate - use of force by a govt proves that the govt is stealing - if communists had believed in communism, they wouldnt have believed that everybody would want to get away from it - they wd hav let anyone leave because they wd have believed that most ppl wd see the benefits - stopping ppl leaving PROVED the leaders were thieves] -
improving the general human idea of reality is the only way to destroy our miseries - testing our accepted ideas - [testing yr ideas doesnt mean you dont believe in them - the railway engineer checks the wheels regularly - it doesnt mean he thinks wheels are bad]
everyone agrees that taking 90% off 90% of ppl wd be very bad

2006-10-15 13:16:58 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

why aren't protectionist barriers the appropriate remedy for countries like Italy to defend themselves from the Chinese economic rise?

2006-10-15 13:11:14 · 3 answers · asked by matteo_carraro 2

2006-10-15 13:06:52 · 2 answers · asked by Fun and Games 4

does it make tiles

2006-10-15 11:57:31 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

if the ppl seeking justice are pursuing the re-popularisation of limiting fortunes [like the founding fathers, like jesus, like all wise ppl, like all happy societies] can they be secretly seeking wealth/power? i mean, how can a person get wealth/power if he seeks to limit fortunes to the just maximum a person can earn by their own work[seems to be less than US$2 million]? isnt it true that you be SURE that ppl seeking justice by limiting fortunes arent secretly seeking wealth/power?
the amount a person can contribute to the social pool of wealth is limited [no. of workhours in a lifetime, maximum hardness of working/hr] so unlimited fortunes HAVE to be injustice [ie, mostly pay for no work, ie, theft]?
if you pay tertiary students for studying, all 'reasons' for higher than av hrly pay are unjust [& therefore cause destruction of states, happiness, peace, safety, pleasure, everything good]?

2006-10-15 11:55:56 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

some ppl think like this: we have rule of law, happiness, peace, order, wealth, other nations hav corrupt govts, protected elites, centralised planning, poverty, misery
does the ego make us unreal, & therefore miserable by such tricks? [realism is an absolutely essential requirement for happiness/ wellbeing/ quality of life]
when the founding fathers outlawed entail & primogeniture to limit fortunes, prevent wealth concentration, to prevent tyranny destroying the republic, was that centralised planning? when lawyers use rule of law made by govt lawmakers, is that not centralised planning? what is govt & law but centralised planning?
we dont have protected elites, corrupt govts?
laws are like spiders webs, they catch the little but the big break thru - to have rule of law, you have to limit 'size' of individuals to prevent breaking thru - a 1950s senate committee said big business was bigger than govt - yr govt hav not been usurped by 'the great'? you can control monopoly?
real=hap

2006-10-15 10:56:25 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

to take up ocean finances offer of borrowing £25,000 then pay them back £42,000 and still have a smile on yer face.......

2006-10-15 10:39:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Any suggestions? What factors about the companies contribute to how well their stocks are performing. I'm kind of new to the whole idea.

2006-10-15 09:41:19 · 7 answers · asked by kewlchic189 4

the world average hrs/wk have to be somewhere round 50-60, taking into account american housewives work over 90hrs/wk [according to some figures on the net] british housewives, ive seen figures of 70 hrs/wk [book 'housewife'] - the 90% of ppl on less than $1/hr must work hard just to survive

& no one can work more than 100-120 hrs/wk longterm, so no one can justify more than twice average pay by hard work, longer hours, gruelling hours, etc

[i think we can assume that a person working 100-120 hr/wk is not working harder than world average hardness/hr]

if we look at hardness of work per hr, the range of hardness of work is even smaller - i cant see that the hardest working person can work much more than 10% harder than the average/hr - & i cant see that the least hardworking person can work much less than 10% less hard/hr without getting fired

by hardness of work, i do not mean productivity, which is affected by machinehelp, muscle, brain, which are gifts, not the person

2006-10-15 09:34:52 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

we know there are injustices in capitalism - but ppl fear/feel that the alternatives are worse - but can we increase justice [& thereby increase happiness, safety, liberty, democracy, capitalism, peace, pleasure, everything good & reduce worry, fear, danger, war, crime, communism, tyranny, fascism, suffering, pain, misery, everything bad] without departing from the virtues of capitalism?

let's take monopoly as an example, since everyone will grant it is unjust - capitalism tends towards monopolism - monopolism is only an exaggeration of the injustice inherent in capitalism, in trade itself - monopoly enables excess profit, which drains the country's economy & justice, leading to boom & bust, depressions - the market booms with the monopoly profits, & then busts with the completion of hoovering of money out of the ppl's pockets - suddenly profits can no longer be made because no one has money to buy - capping fortunes at a best estimate of the most a person can earn controls injustic

2006-10-15 08:27:34 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

why iraq, why iran, why pakistan, why afghanistan, why always Islam and muslims???????

2006-10-15 07:51:58 · 15 answers · asked by curious 1

2006-10-15 06:19:15 · 3 answers · asked by youthebest 2

what is relationship between economic completion and prejudice? Do you think prejudice would continue to exict if everyone had a good job with a comfortable income?

2006-10-15 05:20:12 · 2 answers · asked by Irina C 6

I keep hearing that China controls much of the US debt and could easily destroy the economy. How so?
I don't understand how this works.

2006-10-15 04:37:43 · 11 answers · asked by The Gadfly 5

What's wrong with staying even, if things are going well and there is enough prosperity?
I don't understand much about economic theory and geniunely want to know.

2006-10-15 04:34:35 · 4 answers · asked by The Gadfly 5

what im getting at is this......would it generate more revenue to do away with the income tax system and have a national sales tax.

id think the gvmt should tax forign investments as well.

it seems to me that more revenue would be generated for the gvmt, and folks would be encouraged to invest in our country, and we could greatly reduce our biggest buracracy

2006-10-15 04:10:37 · 1 answers · asked by hillbilly named Possum 5

2006-10-15 03:27:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Adam Smith?

2006-10-15 03:26:27 · 19 answers · asked by Giggly Giraffe 7

2006-10-15 02:47:03 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hi there! I have a young growing family of four. I am aware of middle-class being diminished, which is where we are at. We are struggling because of tyring to live like our parents did, I understand economics aren't the same back then as they are now. I work at my daghters pre-school, I am going to work more there to help financially. My husband works 40 hrs. with, he is willing to work overtime when the opportunity rises.He also has side work on the computer from home. My husband is my sons baseball coach evenings and wks. We love this time to spend together as a family yet struggle, my husband makes good money, we are not in an oversized home, we have one car pmt. Is forty hrs a work week non existant these days which would mean less family time to set a nest egg for the future? I know of so many retirees who must still work to survive because of health care,etc. Is there a formula for todays young family to survive today and into the future? Thank you!

2006-10-15 02:22:21 · 9 answers · asked by smily 2

with inheritance, the bigger fortunes give a headstart to heirs - money makes money - more money makes more money faster - inheritance means that the effect of rich get richer [which is unjust] is carried on from generation to generation, forever growing inequality/injustice [wealth/poverty, tyranny/slavery], whereas spreading the estates equally among everyone brings everyone back on an equal footing - equal opportunity - money is power, power to make [or, rather, rake] money - unless there is a reequalising mechanism in society, wealth/poverty will grow & grow & grow, until it shakes the state to pieces, with the violence/tension/etc between classes [with all the expenses of that - soldiers, hospitals, courts, etc]
eg, the ancient jews had reequalising every 7 yrs - land reforms reequalise & thus strengthen the state - 'equality breeds no strife' [athenian democracy] - japan, after macarthur's land reforms: strong, fast recovery - marshall plan prevented another depression & hitler

2006-10-14 20:12:17 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous