i'll try to, but please be aware that english is not my main tongue and not even the first foreign tongue.
social welfare in my view is government providing basic human needs if needed, such as food, home, basic medical care.
other social responsibilities are free education (schools, universities, libraries), universal healthcare and, as you already mentioned, policing.
the difference between the first and the second are that first are only availiable to who really depends on them, or, in parts to who depends on parts of it. to prevent misuse, people who depend on the welfare for a longer period of time must do community services.
a society with involuntarily homeless people (and i am not talking about those punks who prefer to live on the strees) and people who cannot have basic medical care is not a functioning society. only parts of that society are functioning, but not the whole.
military police is not called "military" because it has military-like organisation. it is called "military" because it is part of armed forces and is policing members of armed forces.
my spare time is free. i don't pay myself for my spare time, my employer doesn't pay me for my spare time. and i definitely don't want to spend the whole day earning money because in that case the following question arizes:
what is all the money good for if i don't have any spare time to spend it?
you are making a big mistake in assuming that money is something real and thus mixing wealth and money.
in fact, money is virtual and stands for debt. when you work for your employer, he owes you a debt for your work. normally it would be some physical value but it is unpractical so he gives you money as a symbol for a physical value. first, the coins were of gold and silver and already had their physical value. later paper money were issued by a bank and this paper money stood for a fixed value in gold, silver, gems, whatever.
now money in most countries is backed by absolutely nothing and is worthless (only that people are accepting it as if it had worth)
the government can just print some more money to pay the bills.
so, the argument isn't rediculous at all. there is already more money around than in 1500s because
1) more bills are printed 2) as money stands for debt, if there are more people there are more debt possibilities 3) as money stands for debt, if there are more natural resources exploited, there are more debt possibilities
imagine i find a gem. i pay some jewellier for making it nice and sell the gem for a large sum of moneys. i owe the jewellier a bit, the buyer of the gem owes me lot, and there is a gem less in the earth.
the jewellier gets some of my virtual wealth (aka money), i get money from the buyer and he gets the gem. the money were redistrubuted from one pocket to another. no money were maid.
the buyer has less money now but a real object instead. as long as people think that money has real value, i became more wealthy after selling the gem. but if a hyperinflation happens (and such has happened often enough) i would be the loser.
this is oversimplified but backed by reality. during and after the collapse of the ussr and in the beginning of the 1990s the russian monetary system was collapsed and mostly barter was used.
to your second argument:
this only works in a complete competition markets. well, i've got news for you. complete competition is wishful thinking. it rarely happens in the reality. and wealth is really just redistributed but not exactly back and forth.
he who posesses much wealth would just accumulate more and more of it, if nothing extraordinary happens. he who posesses very little wealth would just lose and lose even more, as long nothing extraordinary happens. only in the "middle class" wealth is redistributed more or less back and forth but the "middle class" erodes.
anyway, it is not possible to just seat on the wealth because people would starve in that case. either you take the wealth of others by force or you must give the others a bit of your wealth to receive theirs.
ah, you mean they earn money. that is not money making, that is money redistributing.
it is actually very easy to understand.
imagine, i have 100 moneys. i buy a product of the company you described for, say, 50 moneys. now i have got 50 moneys less and the company one of their products less, but 50 moneys more.
that is redistribution, nothing else. wealth cannot be created, only redistributed.
the thing is, sometimes a good, thick, shielded cable is important. if you have an electric guitar with passive pus (like 99% of all electric guitars).
put volume and tone at 10 and connect the guitar with a thin, cheap, really long cable to the amp. play something.
then try it with a thick, good shielded, really short cable (like 50 cm). listen to the astonishing difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a grammar Nazi today... Ich hoffe, dass das äußerst hilfreich für euch alle war!
no closed public pools?
cheap, good for fitness and very relaxing altogether.
according to numerous literacy tests you are wrong.
you are likely to be eaten by a grue
solzhenitsyn has written a lot of bullshit. this would mean nearly half of the soviet population at that time.
p.s. i was born in the ussr.
thank you for my new signature
two wrongs don't make a right.
(but three lefts do, according to someone's signature)
well, usa has been the only country getting mad at others and invade in the last years.
i'll try to, but please be aware that english is not my main tongue and not even the first foreign tongue.
social welfare in my view is government providing basic human needs if needed, such as food, home, basic medical care.
other social responsibilities are free education (schools, universities, libraries), universal healthcare and, as you already mentioned, policing.
the difference between the first and the second are that first are only availiable to who really depends on them, or, in parts to who depends on parts of it. to prevent misuse, people who depend on the welfare for a longer period of time must do community services.
a society with involuntarily homeless people (and i am not talking about those punks who prefer to live on the strees) and people who cannot have basic medical care is not a functioning society. only parts of that society are functioning, but not the whole.
government has one basic purpose, true. but this basic purpose is to maintain a working society. policing is just a part of it, as is social welfare.
yeah. let me guess. you are one of those who never let things like facts stand in the way of their opinions.
and they still wonder why usa isn't that popular anymore.
parent is answer to this question.
military police is not called "military" because it has military-like organisation. it is called "military" because it is part of armed forces and is policing members of armed forces.
there is an old joke here in germany.
little fritz comes to his dad and asks him: dad, what's the difference between theory and practice?
his father sais: go and ask your sister whether she would sleep with a stranger for a million euros.
little fritz quickly goes asking. he returns and sais: yes, she would.
now ask your mother the same thing, sais his father.
little fritz goes asking and returns with the same answer.
well my son, sais the father. here is the difference. in theory, we are rich. in practice we have two whores in the house.
the morale of the story is: maybe you should get a life and learn the difference yourself.
hmm, works here with w3k server.
most of them, yes. the roaming works practically everywhere where gsm is availiable.
but (at least for all german plans) you have to pay for receiving calls if you are in an other country.
irony is a watch.
http://prostore.com/swatch/irony5.html
well, actually half of them is dutch.
i don't get it.
my spare time is free.
i don't pay myself for my spare time, my employer doesn't pay me for my spare time. and i definitely don't want to spend the whole day earning money because in that case the following question arizes:
what is all the money good for if i don't have any spare time to spend it?
economics are very theoretical. reality often differs from the theory.
the people have their basic needs first.
you are making a big mistake in assuming that money is something real and thus mixing wealth and money.
in fact, money is virtual and stands for debt.
when you work for your employer, he owes you a debt for your work. normally it would be some physical value but it is unpractical so he gives you money as a symbol for a physical value. first, the coins were of gold and silver and already had their physical value. later paper money were issued by a bank and this paper money stood for a fixed value in gold, silver, gems, whatever.
now money in most countries is backed by absolutely nothing and is worthless (only that people are accepting it as if it had worth)
the government can just print some more money to pay the bills.
so, the argument isn't rediculous at all. there is already more money around than in 1500s because
1) more bills are printed
2) as money stands for debt, if there are more people there are more debt possibilities
3) as money stands for debt, if there are more natural resources exploited, there are more debt possibilities
imagine i find a gem. i pay some jewellier for making it nice and sell the gem for a large sum of moneys.
i owe the jewellier a bit, the buyer of the gem owes me lot, and there is a gem less in the earth.
the jewellier gets some of my virtual wealth (aka money), i get money from the buyer and he gets the gem. the money were redistrubuted from one pocket to another. no money were maid.
the buyer has less money now but a real object instead. as long as people think that money has real value, i became more wealthy after selling the gem. but if a hyperinflation happens (and such has happened often enough) i would be the loser.
this is oversimplified but backed by reality. during and after the collapse of the ussr and in the beginning of the 1990s the russian monetary system was collapsed and mostly barter was used.
to your second argument:
this only works in a complete competition markets. well, i've got news for you. complete competition is wishful thinking. it rarely happens in the reality. and wealth is really just redistributed but not exactly back and forth.
he who posesses much wealth would just accumulate more and more of it, if nothing extraordinary happens.
he who posesses very little wealth would just lose and lose even more, as long nothing extraordinary happens.
only in the "middle class" wealth is redistributed more or less back and forth but the "middle class" erodes.
anyway, it is not possible to just seat on the wealth because people would starve in that case. either you take the wealth of others by force or you must give the others a bit of your wealth to receive theirs.
making money? like printing dollar bills?
ah, you mean they earn money. that is not money making, that is money redistributing.
it is actually very easy to understand.
imagine, i have 100 moneys. i buy a product of the company you described for, say, 50 moneys.
now i have got 50 moneys less and the company one of their products less, but 50 moneys more.
that is redistribution, nothing else. wealth cannot be created, only redistributed.
even if it is offtopic, the word "ruskies" is twice grammatically uncorrect.
first, "russians" in russian is "russkie". two "s".
second, russkie is already plural. no need for the plural "s".
the thing is, sometimes a good, thick, shielded cable is important. if you have an electric guitar with passive pus (like 99% of all electric guitars).
put volume and tone at 10 and connect the guitar with a thin, cheap, really long cable to the amp. play something.
then try it with a thick, good shielded, really short cable (like 50 cm). listen to the astonishing difference.