if the plant is unprofitable, it is supposed to die off in a market that provides alternatives (competition) that are more cost effective or are much better quality, something somewhere must give.
it's the same thing as with copyrights, patents and other gov't dictated regulations, gov't messes with economy by laws, by taxes, by subsidies, by bailouts, by stimulus, by copyrights, by patents, by creating monopolies, by setting interest rates, by passing wage laws, by creating moral hazards with FDIC, Freddie, Fannie, medicare, CHIP, fixing food prices and subsidizing food producers, etc. etc. etc., everything gov't does is against economy in specifics and in general. No surprise economy is shit.
1. Iraq had jobs and electrical power. In a country where heat is insane most of the time, where +50C in shade is a normal temperature people need electrical power and now they don't have it. Oh, they are producing power, but they are not distributing it. People had jobs and prices were low, and for majority of population, who is not politically active, that's all that matters.
2. USA did NOT try to kill Al-Qaeda, and the proof is in the pudding: instead of going to Afghanistan all out, USA moved to Iraq and put an insignificant amount of troops into Afghanistan, fewer by numbers than there are cops in NY city.
I have not confused anything. Afghanistan was a butchered job, if they went to Afghanistan instead of going to Iraq right away and just killed the Al-Qaeda and were done, that could have been useful, they could do it quickly. So it's not ME who confused what war was really 'necessary' (and I disagree on Afghan war as necessary anyway) but going to Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time and really only caring about the Iraq when Afghanistan was at least half of a legitimate target, was stupid and wasteful and deceitful and pointless and it endangered troops and civilians and caused millions of civilian lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and a destroyed country (I am talking about Iraq, which is a destroyed country now, it was a dictatorship before, but it was a working country, now it's destroyed.)
It is excellent that Wikileaks is releasing information, it needs to release everything completely and not look at anybody pointing fingers how they 'endanger the troops'.
The only people who endanger the troops are those who sent them to Afghanistan and those who will not get them out of there now.
All information that can be retrieved, must be released. All of this information is of prior situations and it shows that Afghanistan war is just as screwed up as all other wars, it has no chance in hell of achieving anything substantial that can change lives of residents of that country. The US/UN war machine will move on, and Afghanistan will be what it was, what it always was. As they say in Afghanistan: the West has the clocks, but we have the time. It's true, US/UN/Anybody can't last in that war forever, they'll move on and things will go back to where they were, except now there will be more people, who made billions on war and there will be millions who lost lives/limbs/health counting all sides.
The only correct strategy to these wars is to move out of the regions and bring all troops home, all troops, from all bases around the world, and do it immediately. If the leaks of documents help to achieve any part of that, then wikileaks document leaks would be most important actions taken for peace and economy.
Governments everywhere are attacking people through all sorts of means, and for now people are still not on this, there are still enough bread and circuses and wars are fought too far to care.
I think burning Quran is too much honor to give to a religious writing.
I have bought a few Qurans, Bibles and Toras and now I have fun in the toilet, choose a book at will, open on a random page, tear it off and wipe with one page before using toilet paper.
Extra points for getting some interesting passage in there.
As an atheist, it's the least I can do to show my disdain to religions and believes, but it doesn't make news of-course.
But Canada is an oppressive country, I am not sure how this goes around the world, but when you are INSIDE the country, you certainly are faced with this quite often, the entire 'human rights commission' is a huge joke. It oppresses human rights, that's all it does.
well, for 8 years I ate only raw vegetables, fruits and nuts, well and honey, right now I don't, but it's hard to be very social if I only eat raw food because to participate in social events there is very little choice of what to eat at the restaurants. Normally I eat raw food even now though, but I don't eat beans obviously, though I love spinach and all green leafy salads, cabbage, etc. I did try raw potatoes, but I prefer not to, they taste like raw starch.
No, I don't watch Beck, maybe that's because I don't live in the US. However my point is still valid, no matter your ad-hominem, yet I can add another one easily: copyright law.
Yes, copyright and patent law created by gov't is what allows monopolies to appear. Of-course MS also actively lobbied the US gov't, and it got quite a few privileges doing that, and it is the main problem:
If you want to be a monopoly, pay money to politicians.
Gov't must not be a participant in economy, by being a participant it presents a way to gain unfair advantage over competition and destroy it.
Yes, it is laughable that you guessed at my personal circumstances in a line of attack. What possessed you to do such a thing?
wtf
You simply don't understand economics. Let me ask you, how big is the American manufacturing sector right now? I mean, what percentage of GDP. Now, an important question: how big was it at its largest?
- absolute numbers on this are irrelevant in the face of the trade deficit.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=USD - you may want to see this, by setting the dates from 92 to today, you'll see what the numbers are, the numbers are negative, more importantly they are going down consistently, it's almost at a 45 degree angle and even worse this year.
Your absolute numbers don't matter, what matters is that this trend has been going on since Nixon fucked up the economy by getting rid of the gold standard and started printing, all while setting minimum wages laws and fixing prices for food and destroying a working health care insurance that was all private and was allowing 4 people to have insurance for a year for $25 with a $500 deductible covering up to $50K a year, which was 2.5 times the most expensive cancer treatment for a year at the time (20K). So Nixon argued he was going to get everybody insured, there were 10% uninsured people in US at the time, but the PRICES for health care were so low, a day in a hospital under $110. Obviously he met with insurance reps and various lobbyists and got the gov't into insurance and that was it, the prices went up much faster than any inflation. He killed a working system, but did he get rid of the 10% uninsured? No, we know he didn't.
Do you count creating commercials or movies as manufacturing?
- yeah, treasure your movie industry, it's still making money.
How about banking?
- Major US banks are holding the toxic assets and they will crash once the house prices go down after the interest rates soar once the t-bills bubble burst. They will crash hard. Right now banks are making record profits based on being able to borrow at discount 0% and lend back to Fed by buying t-bills and helping to inflate the bubble and making the spread.
Banks are not doing anything useful for the trade balance.
Are those things economically valuable?
- the movies, yeah, sure.
What about software consulting?
- service sector. Almost none of it has anything to do with trade balance. Enjoy your job while it lasts.
Is that manufacturing?
- no.
Demand is specific. It does not always exist. Did demand for computers exist before there were computers? No.
- of-course it did, but there was no product. Once the product hit the shelves, demand was satisfied. This argument that you have on what demand is, is ludicrous. Demand is ABILITY TO CONSUME. And people consume, just give them anything, they'll consume it.
Does the creation of a new entertainment medium reduce demand for other entertainment mediums? History says yes, it does.
- Demand does not go away, the basic principle doesn't change, in fact that is what you are arguing against, when you want gov't to do spending. Competition arises not from gov't spending but from private spending, and private spending is investment into quality and quantity. Changing information medium is changing quality, so market chooses the new competitor with better quality.
Demand for 2 competing products, where one product is cheaper/better than other is resolved by market choosing the better product. Demand is for the same product, but for a better version. If a new product did not affect sales of an old product, then these products were n
Your personal circumstances are irrelevant and also unverifiable, thus laughable in a conversation thread over the web. You are arguing for gov't involvement into economy all the time, your reasons are as follows: gov't must spend and must allow individuals to spend when clearly individuals cannot afford to spend on their own, be damned the overall consequences to the economy.
Why should I answer any question you pose if you didn't answer mine yet: how will borrowing/printing spending fix lack of two-way exchange that economy is? There is no 2-way exchange, one side is busy working and producing and crediting and the other is busy taking the credits and consuming. That is not viable and the more is spent without creating productive jobs, the bigger the hole is.
So you didn't answer that, that's because your side of the argument cannot answer that, because it is based on invalid understanding of economics.
Demand always exists, ability to pay does not. If ability to pay was not required, demand would be met with productive capacity immediately, and that is what gov't spending is doing - it's meeting the demand (*which does not disappear*) with a fake ability to pay. Fake, because it is not an ability that is backed up by production, and again, economy is about two-way exchange of production, of labor, not exchange of labor for IOUs, that kind of economy will not last.
Government does create actual value, it seems silly to argue otherwise. What are roads, schools, bridges, and sewers? Services add value as well, it is silly to claim otherwise. Regulation itself is a valuable service, it keeps markets free.
- gov't must not own any assets.
I had enoughdiscussions on this topic so I am not interested. Suffices to repeat here is that gov't must get rid of all assets, all assets must be owned privately, that takes care of the problem of gov't owning things that it has no intention of keeping unpolluted, in a working condition, this is the same problem with BP oil spill and all other pollutions of environment - gov't is not an owner that cares, only a private owner can really take care of a property and will fight a polluting neighbor.
Gov't has a responsibility in a democratic society to provide a working Justice system, a minimum military against invasions and cops/prisons.
None of the things you have described needs to be owned by gov't. More to the point, none of those things are a Federal gov't responsibility, worst case scenario it's a local government's job, should people in the locality decide to go that way.
---
You see, power comes not just from people's collective action through government, it also comes from economic disparity. When someone has a lot and others don't have enough to survive on their own, and are restrained by notions of other people's private property from producing enough on their own, then the poor are slaves of the wealthy. By acting collectively, societies can limit the unfair accumulation of private power by individuals.
- I violently disagree, you have this point of view because you weren't born in a country that was created by this principle in reality and your family didn't suffer from all the injustice that such ideas bring forward. Suffices to say, my great-grandmother was killed by the Soviet gov't, so where 15 kids out of 18 in the family, the land was taken and the survivors spent enough time in concentration camps, and this story is not about some super-rich people, only about people able to feed themselves, this story repeated 30 million times in Ukraine alone, I am not talking about the rest 14 Soviet republics here either.
There is really only one reason I can comprehend for wanting to get rid of governm
Usually in discussions with people on/. the libertarians are moderated down, I wouldn't be surprised to see your comment go down to -1 Troll for no reason other than you have some principles and the moderators hate them.
I'm doing fine on my own. In fact, I could do fine on my own in nearly any country on Earth, and I have. I have a set of skills that are eminently marketable, if the systems administration skill set won't support me, the chef skill set will. It's not myself I am worried about.
- blah blah blah, whatever. I base my arguments on principles, not someone's personal circumstances.
I believe that we are all responsible for each other's well being, that we all have a duty to take care of our fellow man, at least to a minimal level.
- completely correct, I agree. We are responsible to each other. That's why we must make economy strong by participating in it by PRODUCING first and foremost.
Consumption is the easy part that comes after production is done. Any moron can consume, and it takes ideas and ingenuity and hard work to make something, but once it exists, the consumption follows. This is true for everything, from food, to computers, medications and iPads.
I believe in the old African saying, "It takes free individuals to make a strong tribe, and it takes a strong tribe to make free individuals." We are interdependent, like it or not. None of us can be really free without the support of other humans.
- and as I said, we must do so by being productive.
And yes, I believe that collective, democratic action is the true path to building a strong tribe that empowers free individuals.
- correct.
And nowhere at all in this comment have you done anything to support a government involvement into economy.
--
What is interesting is that you believe it seems, that US gov't must help its people by spending money that is credit to US by other productive nations, but nowhere in your argument is there a response to this basic simple question: how will spending fix the economy?
The response of-course is that gov't spending cannot fix economy, it mis-allocates resources away from private sector, who needs money to invest into jobs to help the fellow human by creating a strong economy. Gov't action in economy is only detrimental, but during good economic times (such as USA had when it was a net exporter) the US as a country could pay for an expensive and non-productive gov't with all its shortfalls and corruption and just insanity.
However what is sad, is that now, that gov't finally was able to destroy the strong economy it will continue doing so until it destroys the currency itself and the ability of people to be Free to be able to build their own businesses.
- Before the USSR was formed, most people in Ukraine were agrarian. During the 30s 30 million of them were killed by gov't because it decided to set the 'collective' above the individual. So 30 million people lost their lives in Ukraine, and those were people who could take care of themselves and were part of a strong enough economy that existed in Ukraine. What is sad, is that the Soviet gov't was able to destroy not only the individuals, but it was able to eradicate ability of society to take care of itself, to think for itself. That's the problem in Ukraine now, where millions of people do not know how to make their lives better because they were never taught to be able to do so, their collective memory was wiped out. They are learning, information can't be controlled so more and more individuals are starting their own businesses, which of-course is hard in a very corrupt system, but eventually they probably will restore the ability to create their own ideas and productive work.
I don't live in Ukraine, though I was born there (in the USSR). But that history will repeat itself in the US and again, the gov't will be the culprit. It's not the gov't of the people by the people, that gov't is long gone.
well no, many root vegetables are edible raw. I even tried potatoes, but I don't recommend.
Tomatoes, cucumbers, avocado, carrots, beats, parsnip, turnip, onions, garlic, radish, celery, all leafy things like salads, cabbage, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, corn... I am not naming all, but there are plenty.
as I said, for a vegetarian it's a more doable idea. For 8 years I only ate raw vegetable/fruits/nuts, that's pretty much it. I ate nothing cooked at all. Now it's a bit different, I cook some of the vegetables.
well, if/. is the main way to socialize, then certainly, you'd care about those things. My comments end up being moderated up and then almost inevitably down because my opinions are not accepted, I still post though, I guess after all these years it's a habit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy them, but if I have to throw one away that my so bought, it goes onto a landfill, end of story.
I would, but he made it so damn easy.
sure, it's "hande hoch".
You should say it to random people around you just for fun.
if the plant is unprofitable, it is supposed to die off in a market that provides alternatives (competition) that are more cost effective or are much better quality, something somewhere must give.
it's the same thing as with copyrights, patents and other gov't dictated regulations, gov't messes with economy by laws, by taxes, by subsidies, by bailouts, by stimulus, by copyrights, by patents, by creating monopolies, by setting interest rates, by passing wage laws, by creating moral hazards with FDIC, Freddie, Fannie, medicare, CHIP, fixing food prices and subsidizing food producers, etc. etc. etc., everything gov't does is against economy in specifics and in general. No surprise economy is shit.
We must repeat over and over that copyrights and patents must be abolished.
It works for the fashion industry and that industry is much bigger than software in total sales.
It must be done.
Bullshit on both points.
1. Iraq had jobs and electrical power. In a country where heat is insane most of the time, where +50C in shade is a normal temperature people need electrical power and now they don't have it. Oh, they are producing power, but they are not distributing it. People had jobs and prices were low, and for majority of population, who is not politically active, that's all that matters.
2. USA did NOT try to kill Al-Qaeda, and the proof is in the pudding: instead of going to Afghanistan all out, USA moved to Iraq and put an insignificant amount of troops into Afghanistan, fewer by numbers than there are cops in NY city.
It's not absurd, it is the correct thing to do if only to make people hurry up and finish this war, which IS absurd.
I have not confused anything. Afghanistan was a butchered job, if they went to Afghanistan instead of going to Iraq right away and just killed the Al-Qaeda and were done, that could have been useful, they could do it quickly. So it's not ME who confused what war was really 'necessary' (and I disagree on Afghan war as necessary anyway) but going to Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time and really only caring about the Iraq when Afghanistan was at least half of a legitimate target, was stupid and wasteful and deceitful and pointless and it endangered troops and civilians and caused millions of civilian lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and a destroyed country (I am talking about Iraq, which is a destroyed country now, it was a dictatorship before, but it was a working country, now it's destroyed.)
So I am not accepting your argument.
It is excellent that Wikileaks is releasing information, it needs to release everything completely and not look at anybody pointing fingers how they 'endanger the troops'.
The only people who endanger the troops are those who sent them to Afghanistan and those who will not get them out of there now.
All information that can be retrieved, must be released. All of this information is of prior situations and it shows that Afghanistan war is just as screwed up as all other wars, it has no chance in hell of achieving anything substantial that can change lives of residents of that country. The US/UN war machine will move on, and Afghanistan will be what it was, what it always was. As they say in Afghanistan: the West has the clocks, but we have the time. It's true, US/UN/Anybody can't last in that war forever, they'll move on and things will go back to where they were, except now there will be more people, who made billions on war and there will be millions who lost lives/limbs/health counting all sides.
The only correct strategy to these wars is to move out of the regions and bring all troops home, all troops, from all bases around the world, and do it immediately. If the leaks of documents help to achieve any part of that, then wikileaks document leaks would be most important actions taken for peace and economy.
The reasons of privacy and Freedom from point of view of press, press is not doing its job most of the time and when it does the messenger is attacked
From point of view of economy and tyranny of government through manipulation of economy
Governments everywhere are attacking people through all sorts of means, and for now people are still not on this, there are still enough bread and circuses and wars are fought too far to care.
I think burning Quran is too much honor to give to a religious writing.
I have bought a few Qurans, Bibles and Toras and now I have fun in the toilet, choose a book at will, open on a random page, tear it off and wipe with one page before using toilet paper.
Extra points for getting some interesting passage in there.
As an atheist, it's the least I can do to show my disdain to religions and believes, but it doesn't make news of-course.
alternatively have a can of this drink
he was.
But Canada is an oppressive country, I am not sure how this goes around the world, but when you are INSIDE the country, you certainly are faced with this quite often, the entire 'human rights commission' is a huge joke. It oppresses human rights, that's all it does.
To learn telling the difference you can start here.
well, for 8 years I ate only raw vegetables, fruits and nuts, well and honey, right now I don't, but it's hard to be very social if I only eat raw food because to participate in social events there is very little choice of what to eat at the restaurants. Normally I eat raw food even now though, but I don't eat beans obviously, though I love spinach and all green leafy salads, cabbage, etc. I did try raw potatoes, but I prefer not to, they taste like raw starch.
No, I don't watch Beck, maybe that's because I don't live in the US. However my point is still valid, no matter your ad-hominem, yet I can add another one easily: copyright law.
Yes, copyright and patent law created by gov't is what allows monopolies to appear. Of-course MS also actively lobbied the US gov't, and it got quite a few privileges doing that, and it is the main problem:
If you want to be a monopoly, pay money to politicians.
Gov't must not be a participant in economy, by being a participant it presents a way to gain unfair advantage over competition and destroy it.
better ask me why I stopped (the reason is that it's difficult to participate in social occasions without almost completely abstaining from all food.)
Yes, it is laughable that you guessed at my personal circumstances in a line of attack. What possessed you to do such a thing?
wtf
You simply don't understand economics. Let me ask you, how big is the American manufacturing sector right now? I mean, what percentage of GDP. Now, an important question: how big was it at its largest?
- absolute numbers on this are irrelevant in the face of the trade deficit.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=USD - you may want to see this, by setting the dates from 92 to today, you'll see what the numbers are, the numbers are negative, more importantly they are going down consistently, it's almost at a 45 degree angle and even worse this year.
Your absolute numbers don't matter, what matters is that this trend has been going on since Nixon fucked up the economy by getting rid of the gold standard and started printing, all while setting minimum wages laws and fixing prices for food and destroying a working health care insurance that was all private and was allowing 4 people to have insurance for a year for $25 with a $500 deductible covering up to $50K a year, which was 2.5 times the most expensive cancer treatment for a year at the time (20K). So Nixon argued he was going to get everybody insured, there were 10% uninsured people in US at the time, but the PRICES for health care were so low, a day in a hospital under $110. Obviously he met with insurance reps and various lobbyists and got the gov't into insurance and that was it, the prices went up much faster than any inflation. He killed a working system, but did he get rid of the 10% uninsured? No, we know he didn't.
Do you count creating commercials or movies as manufacturing?
- yeah, treasure your movie industry, it's still making money.
How about banking?
- Major US banks are holding the toxic assets and they will crash once the house prices go down after the interest rates soar once the t-bills bubble burst. They will crash hard. Right now banks are making record profits based on being able to borrow at discount 0% and lend back to Fed by buying t-bills and helping to inflate the bubble and making the spread.
Banks are not doing anything useful for the trade balance.
Are those things economically valuable?
- the movies, yeah, sure.
What about software consulting?
- service sector. Almost none of it has anything to do with trade balance. Enjoy your job while it lasts.
Is that manufacturing?
- no.
Demand is specific. It does not always exist. Did demand for computers exist before there were computers? No.
- of-course it did, but there was no product. Once the product hit the shelves, demand was satisfied. This argument that you have on what demand is, is ludicrous. Demand is ABILITY TO CONSUME. And people consume, just give them anything, they'll consume it.
Does the creation of a new entertainment medium reduce demand for other entertainment mediums? History says yes, it does.
- Demand does not go away, the basic principle doesn't change, in fact that is what you are arguing against, when you want gov't to do spending. Competition arises not from gov't spending but from private spending, and private spending is investment into quality and quantity. Changing information medium is changing quality, so market chooses the new competitor with better quality.
Demand for 2 competing products, where one product is cheaper/better than other is resolved by market choosing the better product. Demand is for the same product, but for a better version. If a new product did not affect sales of an old product, then these products were n
Your personal circumstances are irrelevant and also unverifiable, thus laughable in a conversation thread over the web. You are arguing for gov't involvement into economy all the time, your reasons are as follows: gov't must spend and must allow individuals to spend when clearly individuals cannot afford to spend on their own, be damned the overall consequences to the economy.
Why should I answer any question you pose if you didn't answer mine yet: how will borrowing/printing spending fix lack of two-way exchange that economy is? There is no 2-way exchange, one side is busy working and producing and crediting and the other is busy taking the credits and consuming. That is not viable and the more is spent without creating productive jobs, the bigger the hole is.
So you didn't answer that, that's because your side of the argument cannot answer that, because it is based on invalid understanding of economics.
Demand always exists, ability to pay does not. If ability to pay was not required, demand would be met with productive capacity immediately, and that is what gov't spending is doing - it's meeting the demand (*which does not disappear*) with a fake ability to pay. Fake, because it is not an ability that is backed up by production, and again, economy is about two-way exchange of production, of labor, not exchange of labor for IOUs, that kind of economy will not last.
Government does create actual value, it seems silly to argue otherwise. What are roads, schools, bridges, and sewers? Services add value as well, it is silly to claim otherwise. Regulation itself is a valuable service, it keeps markets free.
- gov't must not own any assets.
I had enough discussions on this topic so I am not interested. Suffices to repeat here is that gov't must get rid of all assets, all assets must be owned privately, that takes care of the problem of gov't owning things that it has no intention of keeping unpolluted, in a working condition, this is the same problem with BP oil spill and all other pollutions of environment - gov't is not an owner that cares, only a private owner can really take care of a property and will fight a polluting neighbor.
Gov't has a responsibility in a democratic society to provide a working Justice system, a minimum military against invasions and cops/prisons.
None of the things you have described needs to be owned by gov't. More to the point, none of those things are a Federal gov't responsibility, worst case scenario it's a local government's job, should people in the locality decide to go that way.
---
You see, power comes not just from people's collective action through government, it also comes from economic disparity. When someone has a lot and others don't have enough to survive on their own, and are restrained by notions of other people's private property from producing enough on their own, then the poor are slaves of the wealthy. By acting collectively, societies can limit the unfair accumulation of private power by individuals.
- I violently disagree, you have this point of view because you weren't born in a country that was created by this principle in reality and your family didn't suffer from all the injustice that such ideas bring forward. Suffices to say, my great-grandmother was killed by the Soviet gov't, so where 15 kids out of 18 in the family, the land was taken and the survivors spent enough time in concentration camps, and this story is not about some super-rich people, only about people able to feed themselves, this story repeated 30 million times in Ukraine alone, I am not talking about the rest 14 Soviet republics here either.
There is really only one reason I can comprehend for wanting to get rid of governm
Usually in discussions with people on /. the libertarians are moderated down, I wouldn't be surprised to see your comment go down to -1 Troll for no reason other than you have some principles and the moderators hate them.
I'm doing fine on my own. In fact, I could do fine on my own in nearly any country on Earth, and I have. I have a set of skills that are eminently marketable, if the systems administration skill set won't support me, the chef skill set will. It's not myself I am worried about.
- blah blah blah, whatever. I base my arguments on principles, not someone's personal circumstances.
I believe that we are all responsible for each other's well being, that we all have a duty to take care of our fellow man, at least to a minimal level.
- completely correct, I agree. We are responsible to each other. That's why we must make economy strong by participating in it by PRODUCING first and foremost.
Consumption is the easy part that comes after production is done. Any moron can consume, and it takes ideas and ingenuity and hard work to make something, but once it exists, the consumption follows. This is true for everything, from food, to computers, medications and iPads.
I believe in the old African saying, "It takes free individuals to make a strong tribe, and it takes a strong tribe to make free individuals." We are interdependent, like it or not. None of us can be really free without the support of other humans.
- and as I said, we must do so by being productive.
And yes, I believe that collective, democratic action is the true path to building a strong tribe that empowers free individuals.
- correct.
And nowhere at all in this comment have you done anything to support a government involvement into economy.
--
What is interesting is that you believe it seems, that US gov't must help its people by spending money that is credit to US by other productive nations, but nowhere in your argument is there a response to this basic simple question: how will spending fix the economy?
The response of-course is that gov't spending cannot fix economy, it mis-allocates resources away from private sector, who needs money to invest into jobs to help the fellow human by creating a strong economy. Gov't action in economy is only detrimental, but during good economic times (such as USA had when it was a net exporter) the US as a country could pay for an expensive and non-productive gov't with all its shortfalls and corruption and just insanity.
However what is sad, is that now, that gov't finally was able to destroy the strong economy it will continue doing so until it destroys the currency itself and the ability of people to be Free to be able to build their own businesses.
-
Before the USSR was formed, most people in Ukraine were agrarian. During the 30s 30 million of them were killed by gov't because it decided to set the 'collective' above the individual. So 30 million people lost their lives in Ukraine, and those were people who could take care of themselves and were part of a strong enough economy that existed in Ukraine. What is sad, is that the Soviet gov't was able to destroy not only the individuals, but it was able to eradicate ability of society to take care of itself, to think for itself. That's the problem in Ukraine now, where millions of people do not know how to make their lives better because they were never taught to be able to do so, their collective memory was wiped out. They are learning, information can't be controlled so more and more individuals are starting their own businesses, which of-course is hard in a very corrupt system, but eventually they probably will restore the ability to create their own ideas and productive work.
I don't live in Ukraine, though I was born there (in the USSR). But that history will repeat itself in the US and again, the gov't will be the culprit. It's not the gov't of the people by the people, that gov't is long gone.
well no, many root vegetables are edible raw. I even tried potatoes, but I don't recommend.
Tomatoes, cucumbers, avocado, carrots, beats, parsnip, turnip, onions, garlic, radish, celery, all leafy things like salads, cabbage, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, corn... I am not naming all, but there are plenty.
as I said, for a vegetarian it's a more doable idea. For 8 years I only ate raw vegetable/fruits/nuts, that's pretty much it. I ate nothing cooked at all. Now it's a bit different, I cook some of the vegetables.
well, if /. is the main way to socialize, then certainly, you'd care about those things. My comments end up being moderated up and then almost inevitably down because my opinions are not accepted, I still post though, I guess after all these years it's a habit.