Economics - October 2006

99% of people are paid less than the world average hourly pay [US$15 an hour, 2006 dollars] - so can they force a lawchange to stop pay for natural gifts?

note that not only do the 99% fund the overpay for natural gifts, money is power, so the 99% lose democratic power and freedom by having to fund this unnatural payment for natural gifts - the 99% fall not only into poverty, but also powerlessness, slavery, wageslavery, etc

have you ever heard of anyone being paid for receiving a christmas gift?

do you think it is a good idea to start paying everyone for receiving christmas gifts?

did the custom of paying for natural gifts spring up because gifted people tended to be in positions of power to decide the customs, and because the 99% who have willynilly funded it have never noticed the unreasonableness of paying people for receiving gifts, never noticed they are paying?

can the body survive the humble organs of the body getting less oxygen?

2006-10-03 23:07:57 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-03 22:59:52 · 3 answers · asked by Ikechukwu A 1

how upset...100th?

how upset...1000th?

ie instead of say US$50,000, only US$5000, US$500, US$50?

would you be quite upset?

would you be very annoyed?

would you be ropeable [fit to be tied]?

would you be murderously angry?

would you join anything that looked like giving you any increased chance of getting more of your earnings, more of the fruits of your labour?

what is the range of personal [ie nonmachine-aided] productivity per unit of time, given that slacking gets fired, it is harder to try to get away with slacking than just to do the work?

90% of workers are paid between 10th and 1000th of world average hourly pay

are they like you?

do they wish they could be fairly paid?

do they feel robbed, enslaved, cheated?

would you?

is money very important, because it buys virtually all good things, including all necessities and major wants? - so is the theft of earned money allimportant, critical, angering, violence-generating?

2006-10-03 22:49:40 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-03 22:41:09 · 2 answers · asked by SREE J 1

changes in agriculture indistry of the globe

2006-10-03 22:32:13 · 2 answers · asked by matheen y 1

Earlier I posted a question regarding marijuana. Weather or not it has positive effects. Within hours the question was pulled. I understand that Yahoo has this right as a private entity. At the same time I belive that their actions are completely uncalled for. Why is that an unreasonable topic for debate? This is a free country, is it not?

Allowing questions of that nature could give Yahoo a bad name. Why would they condone it? The downside is much bigger than the upside as far as they're concerned.

That's what happens when large corporations are in control of things. It's the track that the internet and our country is on. We won't have laws that prohibit free speech. It's just that everything will be privatized and as private corporations they will have the right to censor anything they want.

Look at Google, they bowed down to Chinese censorship. It was their feduciary responsibility to do so. If they hadn't it would have left them open to a lawsuit by their stockholders.

2006-10-03 21:03:04 · 8 answers · asked by josephmarzen 1

if fortunes were limited to $2 million [which is above the most a person can make, by their own work, and save, after a lifetime's expenses] and the overfortunes were distributed equally among all workers [which would give every family another US$70,000 a year], would violence increase or decrease?

would such a state of things be infinitely more just and less violent? [99% would be better paid, 90% would be 10-1000 times better paid, 100% of people would be much safer from violence [kidnapping, assassination, coup, revolution, guillotine, etc], the chances of nuclear winter would shrink dramatically, there would be no tyrannical or overbearing behaviour of ruling classes, corporations, etc, there would be 10 times as many scientists, businesses, inventors etc, high real income growth, high capital formation [investment], democracy, liberty, equality [because money is power and great inequality of money is great inequality of political power [= undemocracy, fascism, communism]

2006-10-03 20:57:29 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

it seems to me that communism was taking everything off everyone and giving it to the state, which meant in practice giving it to the top person - ie communism is the artificial, most extreme injustice - it failed because it was injustice, it was theft, the biggest theft possible

capitalism, as it is at present, permits theft, ie a few [and fewer and fewer] do less and less work per dollar got, and more and more people do more and more work per dollar got - ie present capitalism tends towards the same state as communism: the most extreme injustice

1% get 90% of world income - ie 10% away from getting 100% of world income - pay is up to a million times world average hourly pay - it takes only 8000 people getting overpaid up to a million times, to take all the earnings of everyone on earth

capitalism is 10% away from that

capitalism + justice is polardifferent from both communism and present capitalism - which are unjust, sadist-terrorist, dangerous,violent,warmongering, yes?

2006-10-03 20:03:52 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

given that:

1] people have spent almost all their history in master-slave relation

2] 99% of people are paid less than the world average hourly pay, and therefore have the numbers to force equality of hourly pay which would pay them better, and which would pay 90% of people 10-1000 times better, and yet they do not

3] people after revolutions [eg american french russian] have done nothing to prevent overwealth and power regrowth, which is tyranny [fascism, nazism, communism, monarchy, the present super unjust capitalism] and undemocracy and unfreedom

4] every plutocracy in history has been toppled by the people, so it is not lack of power with the people that makes them prefer tyranny unliberty oppression and powerlessness

is it that people identify with billionaires and dont care that they themselves are not billionaires - they enjoy billionaireship exactly as if it were their own - their billionaire fantasy is more important than their reality funding billionairism?

2006-10-03 19:43:35 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-03 19:18:11 · 4 answers · asked by Jdem 1

given that

1] war and weaponry have grown for millenia

2] violence [war and crime] are caused by pay injustice - [proof: if a govt committed the insane injustice of taking 90% of income off 90% of people, everyone knows this would cause extreme violence]

3] injustice [rich getting more and more per unit of work] has been uncontrolled for millenia [temporary exception of revolutions, ie bringing down of plutocracies]

4] we have super hyper extreme injustice [pay from 1000th to million times average hourly pay]

5] we have the ability to freeze the whole planet 60 times over [nuclear smoke above rain washout level block out sun] - temperature drop 3 times iceage temp drop

6] no sign yet of humanity grasping the essentiality of reducing pay injustice

7] pay injustice, anger, violence still rising

is there a higher than 1% chance of extinction soon?

if there was a 1% chance of a bomb in your home, would it be alarmist paranoid overreaction to do anything aboutit?

2006-10-03 15:25:24 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

decide?

everyone already agrees that taking 90% off 90% of people and giving it to 1% is wrong, unjust, extremely dangerous, madness, infinitely stupid - so humanity has some notion of justice that differs enormously from the current practice or state of things [90% get paid 10th - 1000th of world av hrly pay, another 9% get paid 1th - 10th of world av hrly pay]

can the general human notion of justice in pay be determined with sufficient accuracy, and practised, which must minimise anger at overpay/underpay, and thus minimise violence [war and crime]

the market is extremely unjust - everyone acknowledges this in admitting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - i dont think anyone can argue that pay from $1 to $1 billion a fortnight's work - from a 1000th to a million times average - is anything but extremely far from the general human idea of justice in pay

therefore change is needed and the only correct change is a change closer to what the people think of as just

2006-10-03 15:08:32 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-03 13:53:34 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

causing violence [war and crime] and extinction soon

unlimited pay has sucked up 90% of world income, putting 90% of people on incomes from 10th - 1000th of world average hourly pay, generating enormous violence, endangering us all

can we find a balance between equal pay for all and superexcessive overreward for innovation, etc?

if you overpay some for innovation, you underpay others [most] for innovation

90% of people are too underpaid to become scientists, researchers, inventors, capitalists, businesspeople

letting the market decide income is unjust, because the market pays for scarcity, which is not the worker's innovation, hard work or creativity - new technology has inbuilt scarcity, which overrewards, causing underreward [for most] and stifling the global economy and human progress

new technology has high demand [everyone wants one], low supply [industry still setting up] - this is a private tax on humanity - overpay causing underpay causing violence causing ext

2006-10-03 13:09:33 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-03 11:59:02 · 14 answers · asked by Pseudo Obscure 6

2006-10-03 11:24:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am so heartbroken when I have to drop my daughter at daycare. My husband and I (together) make 75k a year, he makes 2x as much as me of course, but I pick up the slack. Ironicly, we are considered upper-middle class! We drive older cars, live in a nice house, but not a rich one, we have little debt and we only go "out" about once a month. Yet we barely make ends meet and I am p**sed off that I have to put our kid in some flippin daycare where she has picked up bad habits, Im too tired to spend time with her and dammit! we still have no money. I have to wake up this poor child at 6am and drop her off to strangers. I tried to find someone who would come in-house, but they charge a fortune! I've thought about quitting my job, which would put my husband working OT, and we would never see him either.
I just dont understand. not 50 years ago, a family like ours lived comfortably on a husbands income. Why cant we now? Why dont I have the CHOICE to raise my own kid!!!???

2006-10-03 11:10:23 · 9 answers · asked by Sticky 2

I am against globalisation of the economy.
the companys that insure their monopole over thousands of people simply scare me.
I agree with the global sharing of arts and culture. I see that as profitable for us. Do you?

2006-10-03 07:40:41 · 9 answers · asked by vesdale 1

So lets say u have afirm that is BOTH a monopoly and a monopsony. How would tihs firm choose the quantity of labour to employ? What wage would this firm pay?

2006-10-03 07:02:48 · 2 answers · asked by tofu202003 2

Does the movement of interest rates affect the profitability of a firm in the short run? in the long run?

any help would be awesome, thanks!

2006-10-03 05:32:49 · 4 answers · asked by Joe G 1

it would be better if u give answer in point..

2006-10-03 05:13:51 · 2 answers · asked by GuRiYa 3

a plan that [it can be easily proven] everyone already agrees will work and will improve human happiness enormously, is capitalist, democratic, fair, just, easy to do, struggle free, dangerfree, protestfree, pays homemakers and tertiary students, bridles corporation imperialism, requires no great change or jolt in society, requires no change of heart in the ptb, energises the world economy, increases real income growth and capital formation, doesnt inhibit striving to better ourselves, improves the happiness of the rich enormously, wouldnt make africans stop working, wouldnt pay anyone for not working [would stop paying people for not working], requires no oppressive govt, removes oppressive govt, has in it nothing to fear, requires no trust, increases individual power and freedom, reduces bureaucracy and govt interference, destroys millions of problems, increases global safety and friendliness, lowers taxation, prevents abuse of power, increases science 10-fold and medicine 50-fold?

2006-10-03 01:11:17 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Kent Keller, 49, Milwaukee, USA. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/5915.page

2006-10-03 00:51:37 · 125 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have never been to prison, Appllied for over 6000 Jobs (I physically/emotionally reached the point where i cannot apply for any more) and have done aproximately 5 years voluntary work in pretty dangerous envirionments...substance misuse field...(I have never taken drugs either btw)..

There is no moral ickle story to it, just unemployement over a period of time, screws your life up, to the point where there is absolutly nothing you can do about it - apart from eventually give up.

Whether you have Brilliant references, qualifications and experience or not (I have all of these),

Field..I.T. (Databases. expert msaccess programmer).

There is nothing I am not telling you btw.

2006-10-02 22:34:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have never been to prison, Appllied for over 6000 Jobs (I physically/emotionally reached the point where i cannot apply for any more) and have done aproximately 5 years voluntary work in pretty dangerous envirionments...substance misuse field...(I have never taken drugs either btw)..

There is no moral ickle story to it, just unemployement over a period of time, screws your life up, to the point where there is absolutly nothing you can do about it - apart from eventually give up.

Whether you have Brilliant references, qualifications and experience or not (I have all of these),

There is no moral to giving up either. You eventually have too give up (about a year ago), for the sake of preserving whats left of your confidence and nerves. You only have one life and spending it filling out application forms - and getting rejected for pretty crappy jobs - eventually becomes rediculous and I can assure you - totally unbearable.

I am unemployed simply because I am unemployed.

2006-10-02 22:17:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

..

2006-10-02 21:14:54 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-02 20:41:22 · 8 answers · asked by stanjuster529 2

import and export products

2006-10-02 20:39:37 · 8 answers · asked by whinx 1

2006-10-02 20:23:37 · 1 answers · asked by tia 1

if possible explain it with the help of the selected industry.

2006-10-02 19:37:49 · 6 answers · asked by lakshan_vishva 1