MLM Directory

where can I find free examples of marketing plans for an IT company?

What do liberals think of my "free market" healthcare plan? Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan! It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market." Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan. In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance. We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete. The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today. That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week. President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer. Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things. It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer. The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice. Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.) Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market. Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.) This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance! My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired. For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions." Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire. That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity." What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year. Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long. If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?") The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now. Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when co

Are fixed interest rates by the Fed an example of economic planning or a Laisezz Faire free market? Doesn't manually controlling the money supply interfere with supply and demand? future, Bernanke is a clone of Greenspan. And Greenspan created the largest financial buble in all of history.

I need to locate a business plan example to do myself for men's fashion consulting/personal shopping business. This is a small, start-up, home-based business. I already have the business license, a resellers permit and clients lined up (waiting for me to start). I have no start-up capital and need a professional business plan to present to lenders and/or investors as well as for marketing. Is there a site or service that offers free templates/examples of successful business plans?

How would you say the pharmaceutical companies capture the market plan is going in our free market society? The study also reveals demographic trends among those who are being given the medications. Prescription rates for the two different drugs in the studied population differed widely: 1.7% of children aged 6 to 14 received SSRIs in 1998, versus 10.7% for stimulants. The mean age of stimulant recipients is holding steady at around 9 years, while the mean age of those getting SSRIs has dropped from 15 years to around 13 years. http://www.wellnesschiro.com/more_ritalin_&_prozac.htm Facts and Statistics Today, more than 17 million children worldwide have been prescribed psychiatric drugs so dangerous that medicine regulatory agencies in Europe, Australia and the United States have issued warnings that antidepressants, for example, can cause suicide and hostility in children and adolescents. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also issued a warning that stimulant drugs, such as Ritalin and Concerta can cause suicidal as well as violent, aggressive and psychotic behavior, and that these same drugs can cause heart attacks, stroke and sudden death. Of these 17 million, more than 10 million children are in the United States, being prescribed addictive stimulants, antidepressants and other psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs for educational and behavioral problems http://www.fightforkids.org/facts.php Mental illness is common. Statistics show that one in every five Canadians will have a mental health problem at some point in their lives http://www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid=3 # Percentage increase from 1985 - 1999 in stimulant psychotropic drugs prescribed to children: 327% # Percentage increase from 1991 - 2000 in stimulant psychotropic drugs prescribed to preschoolers between 2 & 4 years of age: 50% # The number of antidepressants prescribed annually for children under 19: 11 million # The number of children diagnosed with "ADD/ADHD" & drugged in 1985: 500,000 # The number of children diagnosed with "ADD/ADHD" & drugged today: approximately 6 million # CHADD (Children and Adults with ADD) received over $700,000 in 2001 from pharmaceutical companies to promote & market their drugs. http://www.chaada.org/Page3.html -------------- Have you heard the commercials they put on these day -- Here try "X" -- it might turn you bright orange or you could grow roots out of your buttocks or maybe in some rare cases it may cause spontaneous human combustion Ask your doctor about it today --- and I assume people do

Isn't a free market economy an example of something that is not designed yet both complex and efficient? Free market economies do not have some central planning office which designates how many cars, hair curlers and squirt guns are to be made. Yet there are rarely/never shortages of any one product as a result of another product being over-produced. Nobody sets prices of goods, yet the price never goes so low that a good goes into shortage nor never goes so high that a good isn't produced. Companies that are valued by the economy stick around and those that aren't don't. There is no central office that decides to open and close companies that participate in a free market. They do so of their own accord. Yes, there are intelligently acting agents within the economy. But there is no central agency that dictates the activities of the economy or designs its composition. Those cases in history in which the economy has been centrally controlled and its composition has been designed were, as you likely know, complete failures. This is a follow up to my last question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkoiXRKyXhF.PDnrKYn.N8nsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080724104735AAyergf

Conservatives vs. Libertarians? who has the better free market? What I mean is which of the two would have a better economic plan example: they both believe in a free market but libertarians what to legalize weed conservatives don't. There is a difference between the two libertarians what a more free market with legalized drugs, prostitution, pornography, and atheism. Conservatives what a free market but with restrictions on social issues, such as the above, because they have the bible shoves up their asses! Thanks for all your comments.

1. which of the following is the best example of human capital? 1. which of the following is the best example of human capital? a. a ribbon cutting machine b. a backhoe run by a construction worker c. a pound of coal d. a new employee who has a college degree 2. Which of the following is NOT a program that involves cash transfers? a. workers' compensation b. social security c. food stamps d. unemployment insurance 3. What is the best example of a market economy? a. the government decides how many melons to grow b. a local tribe trades hand-made trinkets for tobacco from a neighboring tribe c. a family visiting a mall buys school clothes d. a girl trades her doll for a softball mitt 4. which of the following is NOT one of the basic economic goals economic systems try to achieve? a. efficiency b. security c. freedom d. integrity 4. An economy in which the government alone decides how the three economic questions are answered is known as a. free market b. centrally planned c. mixed d. balanced

What element of war resulted when a stalemate occurred between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers? Study Guide: 9. What element of war resulted when a stalemate occurred between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers? aerial combat naval battles chemical warfare trench warfare . The desire for independence by __________ complicated the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war on the side of the Central Powers. Armenians and Arabs Serbs and Russians Arabs and Albanians Armenians and Algerians 15. World War I quickly escalated into the first total war, in which nations __________. forced their adult female population to work in factories forced their total male civilian population to fight in the war used all their factories to produce war materials used almost all of their resources to wage war 16. How did governments address the issue of fading enthusiasm for the war within their populations? They allowed soldiers more time to visit their families. They promised there would be no more wars. They used newsreels and posters to stir up emotions. They provided extra food and supplies to the civilian population. 17. During World War I, the roles of some civilians changed. Which of the following is an example of this? More women joined the workforce in. More men stayed at home to care for children. Children were required to work in factories. Women were given important government jobs. 18. One result of total war during World War I was a shift toward __________. free market capitalism planned economies social democracy monarchies

Are all free to download apps for the G1 really free? There are tons of free apps available for download for the tmobile G1 phone. I want to know, are there any hidden fees or monthly service fees? For example, facebook, myspace, and weather channel app are all available for download on the tmobile market for FREE but will i have to pay extra on my tmobile monthly plan? Thats all i want to know.

Are all free to download G1 apps really free? There are tons of free apps available for download for the tmobile G1 phone. I want to know, are there any hidden fees or monthly service fees? For example, facebook, myspace, and weather channel app are all available for download on the tmobile market for FREE but will i have to pay extra on my tmobile monthly plan? Thats all i want to know.

Will you listen to my temporary plan to save jobs at Citi and other companies? It will also sooth the bailout.? I have a plan, I voted for McCain and I believe in Free market and letting some companies fail. But, here is a plan I think will help out the companies and our economy and help companies help themselves. Now, lets take Citi for example, they plan to cut 53,000 jobs. That is going to be devastating on the economy and the moral of this country. But, I have a plan that could help save jobs. My plan would ask all employees working at Citi to go on an average pay scale for a very limited time. Each employee will make $30,000 no bonus no Christmas bonus or executive bonus of any kind. This would include the CEO, CFO, Accountants, Vice Presidents in all parts of the country. This average pay will only be for a limited time to weather these tough times. If you make over $30k your pay would be reduced for a limited time to 30k. If you make under $30k your pay would remain the same. In return there would be no layoffs and credit card rates would be reduced for this limited time. It would be so inspiring for the workers and the country to see a CEO bustining his or her butt off for $30k. Now, my plan would be for only for a very limited time and anyone who wanted to leave for a better job, could leave in good standing. All mangers would be asked to take on more duties for a very limited time and no overtime would be allowed. A hiring freeze would also be put into place. Employees would have the right to negioated credit card fees with card holders and customers would be encouraged to work with us through these tough times. I do not get it, you claim it is a bad idea but a 700 billion dollar bailout is not? There are no stars at these places, they are not getting rid of the worst employees. It is drain on our economy and moral to see 53,000 people get fired while the CEO makes millions. This would at least be an attempt to show sacrifice. If anyone wants to leave let them. If they are cutting 53,000 jobs why do they need our bailout money?

What is a simple example of Capitalism,Communism, and Socialism? I need a very simple example of how Capitalism Is used by the United States of America, how Communism is used by North Korea, and how Socialism is used by England. Feel free to use these definitions within your answer. :) Planned Economy (Communism, and Socialism)- Economy that relies on a centralized government to control all or most factors of production and to make all or most production and allocation decisions. Market Economy (Capitalism)- Economy in which individuals control production and allocation decisions through supply and demand. Mixed Market Economy (Socialism)- Economic system featuring characteristics of both planned and market economies.

Does nobody discuss fundamental policy because both parties share the same fundamental policies? For example, foreign policy. Lots of people talk about whether they agree or disagree with particular wars started under particular majorities in congress and particular presidents, but nobody talks about which is better between intervention or non-intervention, the fundamental foreign policy choices. People talk about economic policies like taxation and regulation, but nobody talks about economic planning or the free market, the fundamental economic choices. People moan and complain about the welfare state a lot, but then elect people who sign the largest entitlement bill since the 1960s (Medicare D) I don't get how Republicans and Democrats can be so blatantly hypocritical and yet still be so many of them at the same time

Do you plan to boycott or support Whole Foods in light of what the boss said about 0bama? Monday, August 24, 2009 Boycotting the Boycotters (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) Rick Watts, 49, protests outside a Whole Foods store in West Hollywood, Calif., Sunday, Aug. 23, 2009. The protest took place after John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods Market, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal about health care reform. John Mackey - the founder, CEO and marketing genius behind Whole Foods - finds himself in an organic, unsustainable mess with his carefully cultivated affluent, liberal customer base after penning an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare." For starters, Mr. Mackey opens with a line from known-liberal-allergen Margaret Thatcher that features the dreaded "S" word: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then he goes on to provide eight sensible free-market solutions gleaned from his company's well-regarded employee health care program. Mr. Mackey, a free-market libertarian, is now at the mercy of an unforgiving grass-roots mob intent on destroying his company. More than 25,000 people have signed on to a Whole Foods boycott on Facebook. "Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives," the online petition reads. "Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities." A complementary Web site, WholeBoycott.com, features unintentionally comical video testimonials from aggrieved former customers. The mainstream media have picked up on the story and fanned the flames. The success of Whole Foods is largely built on Mr. Mackey's understanding of the liberal mind. It wants the good life - but with instant absolution for the sin of conspicuous consumption. Whole Foods is marketing at its best. Iconography and slogans throughout the store - not unlike those Barack Obama used to win the presidency - tell the shopper they are saving the planet in large and small ways. The product is so good even conservatives and skeptics are willing to play along. But Mr. Mackey missed the key ingredient of modern liberalism: intolerance to the ideas of nonliberals. And this miscalculation may prove to be devastating to his multibillion-dollar business. Everywhere one looks these days, the intolerance of self-avowed liberals is on display. Especially since Mr. Obama came to power. The purportedly open-minded and empathic among us who now run everything - save for NASCAR and Nashville - openly wage war against those who dare disagree. Witness Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi's joint-penned editorial in USA Today in which the House's two top Democrats describe those publicly questioning Mr. Obama's proposed health care system overhaul as "un-American." One need not go back too far in the political time machine to recall a time when the same people were claiming that the term "un-American" was being tossed at liberals for opposing the Iraq war, and that Republicans were stifling free speech. Examples were rarely, if ever, given. It just was. And we were told this was a very, very bad thing. The Dixie Chicks brilliantly used this sob line to become a Rolling Stone magazine cover staple, a blue-state crossover and an international cause celebre. A chorus line of would-be liberal celebrity martyrs took a similar marketing tack proclaiming McCarthyism was again afoot - as conservative Hollywood kept its collective mouth shut knowing that support for President Bush or the war was an instant career-killer. Yet amid the cries of "dissent is patriotic" - a phrase seen on the bumper stickers of cars in the Whole Foods parking lot - the antiwar movement grew and grew, unfettered by the war's supporters or by the party in power. As the Hollywood Left churned out antiwar film screeds, it was creating a narrative of its victimhood as it victimized Mr. Bush and his administration with the false accusation that dissenters were being persecuted. But now that they are in power, Democrats are brazenly wielding punitive weaponry against dissenting Americans and are using the power of the state to shut up citizens. The Democratic leadership - and its friends in the mainstream media - seem determined to brand opposition to the president's legislative agenda as illegitimate, even racist in origin. Individuals and grass-roots organizations are helping the statists' cause by advocating boycotts and other means of stifling dissent. The strategy is clear: Intimidate people from speaking up or from attending public protests by telegraphing that anyone can be made a demon for standing up and exercising basic, constitutional rights. To call these people hypocrites would be a grave insult to those who fail to live up to their own standards. Liberalism has never been ab

Economy in Singapore! Urgent!!? Can you give an example of a planned/ traditional/free market system in Singapore? Thanks~

Ideas for mixed economy poster? I have an assignment to create a poster for my economics class. I need to show mixed economy which i know is a mix of centrally planned economy and free market. I have no ideas but one. A column of the white house and underneath it a business license then underneath that (something else) then next to it an addition sign then something that is a good then an equals sign next to that ... equals mixed economy... yeah, i know not too good. does anyone know any ideas. or can at least tell me an example of a free market is

Will free market supporters be first to compete with foriegners who will work for a dollar a day? The great corporations create jobs and we love them -- Business is business --- and if a corporation can get workers who are happy with a dollar and hour --- they should screw Americans and Canadian and British workers out of their livelihood **************** Right ? So all you good right wing people - who have Jesus on their side and are all things good Will you be the first one to try and compete with workers in another land willing to work for far far less than you ? Are you willing to cut your pay to the extent they are? Well -- what do you say ? Because I think you should be first to show us all how it is done Be the example and share with us all now how you plan to make it work for you and yours -- Or are you afraid of a little free market competition ? The Man So your scared because you know you can't and have decided to go on welfare instead of even try to compete for the work another nation will clamor to get -- Fine -- if you can't compete and your going to give up -- OK with me The CEO will still be sitting in his Jag and you can still wave to him as he passes you at the soup line up while you trade your food stamps for a smoke

What's all this alarmist guff about Cap & Trade ? A few facts. a)The overall goal of an emissions trading plan is to reduce emissions. The cap is usually lowered over time - aiming towards a national emissions reduction target b)Because emissions trading uses markets to determine how to deal with the problem of pollution, it is often touted as an example of effective free market environmentalism. While the cap is usually set by a political process, individual companies are free to choose how or if they will reduce their emissions. c) It's worked in the U.S. before and in each case it was found that the least cost solution was dramatically less costly than the same amount of pollution reduction produced by any conventional abatement strategy

Obama's healthcare plan? Every time I refer to Obama's healthcare plan as socialist, liberals become very defensive. Could someone explain to me (intelligently) how his healthcare plan is not a socialist idea but instead something different? Socialism is the nationalization of services The dictionary defines it as - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole So tell me how Obama's ideas to bring healthcare under government control is not socialism...by definition, if its run by the government and not part of the free market, its socialist. There are programs in which society benefits as a whole by placing in government control (roads, education, military and law enforcement for example). The reason being, if these were privately held they could be very detrimental to our country. There are other programs that need to remain out of government control and left to the free market to control. So how is Obama's "government healthcare" plan not simply another way to say "socialist healthcare" plan? You can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig...you can call it government healthcare if you want, its still socialism. Eve: God I love your posts! I have read his plan and it sounds all good and wonderful. But here is the bottom line, how does he plan to keep this government program from becoming just like 1/5 of all government programs? A wasteful, corrupt, unmanaged system that does more harm than good. “Many on the Left argue that other countries have better health care systems with more government involvement. My challenge to the Left is this: see if you can get Medicare and Medicaid to work as well as you believe the French system works or the Canadian system works or whichever you think we ought to be striving for. Only then should you reach for additional government responsibility.” http://econlog.econlib.org/authorakling.html

Do you know any east coast colleges and universities with film AND marketing programs? So, I'm about to apply to schools over the next few months, and I've been having trouble finding schools to apply to that have both a film (production focus, not film studies, like Gender in Modern Film for example) and marketing (or a strong business department for that matter) located in the east coast. I plan on doing a double major in the two, and want to take those two majors to enter some sort of "new media" career. So far, I've found schools such as; New York University, Boston University, American University, Fairfield University, Colombia University, and Champlain College. I was wondering if there are any schools that you guys think I should check out before I start applying. My grades are fairly high (4.1 GPA including AP's). Also, if you think it is necessary, feel free to add a few schools that may not be on the East Coast, but would be a good idea to look at (such as UCLA). Thanks! And for bonus points: When going for a double major, would I be able to get a MFA (Master of Fine Arts) in Film at the same time that I'm taking classes to get a undergrad degree in Marketing?

Obama's plan for a new America? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE!

Obama's plan for America? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE!

I'm unwilling to annoy potential or existing customers, so what marketing perspective is best for me? My reason for needing to own my own business is the need for integrity. Most of the companies I've worked for have perpetual integrity issues, including their marketing methods and perspectives. I do Geek Squad-like tech support, and I have a recipe for success, other than a somewhat 'beatnik' attitude towards marketing. My current marketing plan includes: -Business networking meetings -Being prepared to describe the benefits of using my services -A concise Website with free training and well-considered SEO -Pens, pads of paper and other useful items with my logo for existing and potential customers -A Facebook page for my business -Submitting to typical advertising venues like Google and Superpages I'm planning on putting some money into advertising, but I'm concerned that my complete unwillingness to 'bother' customers could make for a very slow start. Examples of what I consider bothersome (but seemingly necessary) practices include: -Nagging customers (on the phone, specifically) to allow me to finish projects/do needed maintenance -Forcing promotion of my business into casual conversation Any tips, books, or Websites you're aware of in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Most of the existing materials out there aren't geared towards people like myself.

If elected, How much harm can he really do? Should we vote for the best chance? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE!

Economics multiple choice please answer? 1. which of the following is the best example of human capital? a. a ribbon cutting machine b. a backhoe run by a construction worker c. a pound of coal d. a new employee who has a college degree 2. Which of the following is NOT a program that involves cash transfers? a. workers' compensation b. social security c. food stamps d. unemployment insurance 3. What is the best example of a market economy? a. the government decides how many melons to grow b. a local tribe trades hand-made trinkets for tobacco from a neighboring tribe c. a family visiting a mall buys school clothes d. a girl trades her doll for a softball mitt 4. which of the following is NOT one of the basic economic goals economic systems try to achieve? a. efficiency b. security c. freedom d. integrity 4. An economy in which the government alone decides how the three economic questions are answered is known as a. free market b. centrally planned c. mixed d. balanced

Why do some Americans so vehemently oppose health care reform? This interests me, private health care is surely a prime example of free-market failure. Most Western societies have adopted universal health care, and when around 50m of your own citizens fall through the net, shouldn't this be the duty of the government to step in with a solution? The US govt. spends more than the UK and France (in % of GDP) on private health care that doesn't reach 50m!? Not only this but insurance induced debt is the primary cause of bankrupcy. Why the resistance? Is it Obama's specific plan or resistance to what you perceive as 'un-American' Big Government?

Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.? The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market. The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch. If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

Did the Treasury get scammed by the plan to buy up toxic mortgage securities? Holy crow .. I darn near fell off my chair when I read this one! Is this a good deal for the taxpayer - buying the toxic mortgages for far, far more than their worth, and letting the banks determine how much the taxpayer will pay for them? Read this fascinating article before you answer. I'll quote it here for people who don't follow links. The Free Market, Financial Style How the Scam Works URL: dubya dubya duba dot counter punch dot org slash hudson03272009 dot html By MICHAEL HUDSON Newspaper reports seem surprised at how high banks are bidding for the junk mortgages that Treasury Secretary Geithner is now bidding for, having mobilized the FDIC and Fed to transfer yet more public funds to the banks. Bank stocks are soaring – thereby bidding up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as if the “financial industry” really were part of the industrial economy. Why are the very worst offenders – Bank of America (now owner of the Countrywide crooks) and Citibank the largest buyers? As the worst abusers and packagers of CDOs, shouldn’t they be in the best position to see how worthless their junk mortgages are? That turns out to be the key! Obviously, the government has failed to protect itself – deliberately, intentionally failed to do so – in order to let the banks pull off the following scam. Suppose a bank is sitting on a $10 million package of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that was put together by, say, Countrywide out of junk mortgages. Given the high proportion of fraud (and a recent Fitch study found that every package it examined was rife with financial fraud), this package may be worth at most only $2 million as defaults loom on Alt-A “liars’ loan” mortgages and subprime mortgages where the mortgage brokers also have lied in filling out the forms for hapless borrowers or witting operators taking out mortgages at far more than properties were worth and pocketing the excess. The bank now offers $3 million to buy back this mortgage. What the hell, the more they bid, the more they get from the government. So why not bid $5 million. (In practice, friendly banks may bid for each other’s junk CDOs.) The government – that is, the hapless FDIC – puts up 85 per cent of $5 million to buy this – namely, $4,250,000. The bank only needs to put up 15 per cent – namely, $750,000. Here’s the rip-off as I see it. For an outlay of $750,000, the bank rids its books of a mortgage worth $2 million, for which it receives $4,250,000. It gets twice as much as the junk is worth. The more the banks holding junk mortgages pay for this toxic waste, the more the government will pay as part of its 85 per cent. So the strategy is to overpay, overpay, and overpay. Paying 15 per cent is a small price to pay for getting the government to put in 85 per cent to take the most toxic waste off your books. The free market at work, financial style. Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) (end of quote) Please someone ... how do people intelligent enough to rise to the positions of financial advisers to the Administration and Treasury make such errors? Are they truly errors, or is this an example of what happens when you let the wolves guard the hen house?

Is the bailout plan not just 'foolish' but 'sinister' as Ron Paul considers it? Remembering that he was vilified as a kook for predicting this precise situation, is he worth listening to now? "The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! “This is welfare for the rich,” he said. “This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.” That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we’re being told it’s unavoidable. The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess! • The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us. • Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.” This is the New Deal to end all New Deals. • Then there’s this: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.“ Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process. There goes your country. Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this “sadly necessary.” Sad, yes. Necessary? Don’t make me laugh. Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really. Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity. The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care? When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media? Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be. " If you are against this, are you emailing your reps? thanks, justagirl, but Ron Paul is the old fashioned sort of patriot who would prefer to save the country from the damage than be given personal power. Email your reps again, if you want to support this. Pfo his plan would be to live within our means. somehow I can't find a way to make that sound 'kooky'. intelex there will definitely be major bad consequences from the bailouts the fed already did with NO request to congress and the bubbles the fed created. the bailouts just are doing more of what we did to get into this problem to begin with, however. And even Bernanke and Paulson can't say this would even work.

Why do both "major" parties only care about the issues on which they advocate more government? The Democrats have almost always (with the exception of George McGovern and a few other possible exceptions) cared only about their economic platform of central planning by government bureaucrats. Whenever the Democrats are in power, they're always willing to vote to continue to fund wars (and start new wars) even though they pretend to be the party of peace. Whenever the Democrats are in power, they always tend to pass new restrictions on personal liberty, such as reinstating draft registration during the Carter administration and reducing the already small amount of freedom that younger Americans have during the Clinton administration. However, Republicans have normally limited their attacks on the Democrat policies to the areas where they pretend to be for less government instead of their extremist economic policies (although, with John McCain practically a lock to lose this election, the Republicans have done a great job in the last week or so going after Obama's crazy economic ideas). The Republican Party, in sharp contrast to the Democrats, only cares about its program of perpetual war and reducing personal freedom. Although they pretend to believe in limited government and the free market, there is no principle of economic freedom that they are unwilling to sell out, a prime example being when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D a few years ago, which moved this country closer to socialized medicine. 2 more examples of the Republicans selling out the free market are Sarbanes-Oxley (the infamous law that has caused businesses to leave the country to move to places like China that require less bureaucratic paperwork to operate a business) and the infamous bailout (although, to their credit, the Republican politicians were more likely to oppose this than their Democrat counterparts). However, the Democrats somehow think that the Republicans are "limited government ideologues" who irresponsibly "deregulated" the economy. How can both of these parties get the other one so utterly wrong? What exactly are Americans who still believe in the principles of liberty that made this country great supposed to do when both parties show nothing but contempt for those principles?

Why is the Federal Reserve seen by many as a conspiracy rather than an economic issue? The Federal Reserve is central economic planning. It's completely unnecessary and antithetical to a free market. It acts as a lender of last resort, so favorited companies don't have to worry about "risky" ventures (Fannie & Freddie are perfect examples). Completely removes any incentive for honest business if the clowns know a bailout is on the way And "too big to fail" is another way of saying "fed subsidized".

Politically, is FTC regulation of false advertising an illegitimate use of State coercion? As most people here probably know, the Federal Trade Commission regulates certain kinds of advertising in the United States, and is charged with enforcing rules against deceptive statements in advertising, as well as some other abusive kinds of advertising. For example, there is an FTC rule against "bait" advertising -- as in "bait and switch" - advertising that a company uses to lure customers into a store or a web site in search of some item that the advertiser doesn't really plan to sell. In "bait" advertising, a company only uses the promise of having a particular item as "bait" to attract people who then will be presented with a pitch for other stuff -- for example, other consumer goods offered at much higher prices. From a "free market," "laissez-faire" standpoint, do you think that it's wrong for the FTC to impose rules on the advertising business in this way? Or is it okay? If you're a pure libertarian believer in free-market forces, for example, should the Federal Government just butt out of the advertising world completely, and allow advertisers to say whatever they want? Or not?

Why is so much disinformation on Cap & Trade circulating on the internet? A few facts. a)The overall goal of an emissions trading plan is to reduce emissions. The cap is usually lowered over time - aiming towards a national emissions reduction target b)Because emissions trading uses markets to determine how to deal with the problem of pollution, it is often touted as an example of effective free market environmentalism. While the cap is usually set by a political process, individual companies are free to choose how or if they will reduce their emissions. c) It's worked in the U.S. before and in each case it was found that the least cost solution was dramatically less costly than the same amount of pollution reduction produced by any conventional abatement strategy

If government coercion is used to promote a product/idea, do we really need evidence to know how good it is? http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/56043.html "If your product, or your idea for spending tax dollars, or your program for making banks solvent really is that good, you should be willing–if morality and truth are important to you–to offer that product or service voluntarily and take your chances. On the other hand, if you steal from me or otherwise force me to use your “solution,” then neither of us really needs any data about its effectiveness." ---- When a business decides to use government to either fund them or harm their competition rather than accepting the results of the free market, do we really need any studies to know how good their product is? One example of this is high fructose corn syrup, which is used in almost every food product instead of sugar, because the government's policies have increased the price of sugar. Another example of this would be energy, where the government is heavily involved in subsidizing alternative energy (and arguably subsidizing oil as well with foreign wars). If your idea for a product is really a good idea (that is, profitable, high quality etc.), why would you resort to using government to subsidize your product or to attack your competition? Shouldn't we assume that any product or idea that "requires" government "investment" in order for it to be produced is probably a bad idea? Didn't the example of the Soviet Union prove once and for all that the free market is better at choosing which products and ideas to produce than the government is (I understand that there are debates about regulation, safety nets, and public goods, but I thought the debate over whether the government or the market should plan production was settled long ago)?

History. all help is appreciated!......? During World War I, the roles of some civilians changed. Which of the following is an example of this? A. Many women joined the workforce in jobs they hadn’t held before. B. Men who didn’t enlist in the army stayed at home to care for children. C. Children were required to work in munitions factories after school. D. Many women were given important jobs in the government. One result of total war during World War I was a shift toward A. free market capitalism. B. planned economies. C. social democracy. D. monarchies.

Should we vote for the best chance? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE!

Can anybody who believes in God prove that the world could not have come about through spontaneous order? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order Some examples of Spontaneous order include the unhampered free market, human language (especially the English language, which has no central planner), a stateless society, and evolution. Spontaneous order is the theory that an order that appears to have been designed can emerge out of chaos and that attempts at design (such as a centrally-planned Communist economy) fail miserably. Can anybody disprove that the universe emerged through spontaneous order?

I REALLY NEED SOME HOMEWORK HELP W? ECON!? Which of the following is a condition that most people would NOT expect the safety net of the government...? to provide for? a. injuries b. joblessness c. natural disasters d. low income How could the Chinese economy be characterized? a. free market b. centrally planned c. mixed, but on the side of the centrally planned d. mixed, but on the side of the free market What is the struggle among various producers for the consumers business called? a. socialism b. competition c. incentive d. self-regulation What is a factory building an example of? a. human capital b. physical capital c. an economic trade-off d. technology Which of the following is a condition that most people would NOT expect the safety net of the government...? to provide for? a. injuries b. joblessness c. natural disasters d. low income How could the Chinese economy be characterized? a. free market b. centrally planned c. mixed, but on the side of the centrally planned d. mixed, but on the side of the free market What is the struggle among various producers for the consumers business called? a. socialism b. competition c. incentive d. self-regulation What is a factory building an example of? a. human capital b. physical capital c. an economic trade-off d. technology What is the opportunity cost of a decision? a. the series of alternative decisions that could have been made b. the best possible way the question could have been decided c. the different ways that a different person might have made the decision d. the most desirable alternative given up for the decision An efficient economy is one that? a. has very few people who do nnt work for a living b. makes the best use of all its goods and services c. uses its resources to make the most goods and services d. makes the least costly use of its resources PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help :/

Someone Help Please...? 1. How could the Chinese economy be characterized? a. free market b. centrally planned c. mixed, but on the side on centrally planned d. mixed, but on the side of free market 2. which of the following is a condition that most people would NOT the safety net of the government to provide for? a. injuries b. it protects the less fortunate c. natural disasters d. low income 3. which of the following is NOT an example of a public good? a. shopping malls b. national parks c. highways d. municipal libraries 4. how do consumers make their desires known to businesses most effectively? a. through buying products b. by protesting by boycotting products c. through mail and phone survey d. by hiring lobbyist and joining consumer groups 5. What effect does new technology usually have on an economy? a. it reduces the available jobs b. it slows and economy down for at lease a while c. it reduces the dependence of the economy on business d. it makes the economy stronger and more efficient

Should the state have the right to interfere in private-sector healthcare like this (Read Below.)? In 2009 Doctor Muney decided to charge his patients 79 dollars a month plus a 10 dollar co-pay for unlimited doctors visits. This equates to a $948.00/year fixed rate and if one doesn't need more then 5 visits to the doctor a year, and does not need services outside of what the Muney can provide, they will spend roughly $1000 in health care costs a year. The state basically stepped in and told him he could not continue to do this because it was too similar to healthcare insurance. While this isn't a panacea for all issues in healthcare it certainly is a start. A large number of people can set aside money for this. Hell most people get at least 1000 in income-tax. If other doctors caught on to this they could help thousands and indirectly create competition in the health insurance market. They could directly help thousands, perhaps even millions, and could indirectly help many more. This is basically a small example of what the free market can do when left to it's own devices. I don't understand what the issue is. If the patients and their doctors agree to this what is the problem? He isn't doing anything wrong. Charging a 79/month rate for a service that will be provided throughout the year is reasonable and charging a 10 dollar per visit fee is reasonable as well. It is low, but makes people think before they visit their healthcare provider thus preventing possible overcrowding. He wasn't covering nearly as many things as health insurance does and does not cover anything he can not provide in his office. What is the issue? Full Article - http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/1517590-Cost-of-Health-Care-Dr-Muney P.S.: END RESULT - The state forced him to charge $33 dollars for all visits for all but preventative care. Which in short means that clients that would be getting a bargain with him on his original plan now get charged $33 dollars for even the simplest visit. It is also likely affect the way he runs his business over time. Fair?

history help? world war revolution..? In the opening months of World War I, Russia was what? a- fighting for its existence b-pushing German and Ottoman forces back c-neither losing nor gaining ground d-close to defeating the German army What effect did technology have on World War I? a-It enabled nations to quickly defeat their enemies. b-It decreased the amount of money needed to wage war. c-It greatly increased the number of casualties. d-It enabled nations to defeat their enemies with few casualties. Which of the following was not a new weapon or new method of warfare used during World War I? a-poison gas b-artillery c-airplanes d-U-boats Many historians consider the Armenian Massacre to be genocide because it has been suggested that the Ottomans attempted to __________. a-cover up the massacre b-eliminate the Armenian culture c-execute a large number of Armenian political prisoners d-force Armenians to mount suicide attacks during battles During World War I, the roles of some civilians changed. Which of the following is an example of this? a-Many women joined the workforce in jobs they hadn’t held before. b-Men who didn’t enlist in the army stayed at home to care for children. c-Children were required to work in munitions factories after school. d-Many women were given important jobs in the government. One result of total war during World War I was a shift toward __________. a-free market capitalism b-planned economies c-social democracy d-monarchies

Do you like 0bama (SWT) THE GREAT's new health care program? I'll Pass on 'Opting Out' by Ann Coulter 10/28/2009 The Democrats' all-new "opt out" idea for health care reform is the latest fig leaf for a total government takeover of the health care system. Democrats tell us they've been trying to nationalize health care for 65 years, but the first anyone heard of the "opt out" provision was about a week ago. They keep changing the language so people can't figure out what's going on. The most important fact about the "opt out" scheme allegedly allowing states to decline government health insurance is that a state can't "opt out" of paying for it. All 50 states will pay for it. A state legislature can only opt out of allowing its own citizens to receive the benefits of a federal program they're paying for. It's like a movie theater offering a "money back guarantee" and then explaining, you don't get your money back, but you don't have to stay and watch the movie if you don't like it. That's not what most people are thinking when they hear the words "opt out." The term more likely to come to mind is "scam." While congressional Democrats act indignant that Republicans would intransigently oppose a national health care plan that now magnanimously allows states to "opt out," other liberals are being cockily honest about the "opt out" scheme. On The Huffington Post, the first sentence of the article on the opt-out plan is: "The public option lives." Andrew Sullivan gloats on his blog, "Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere." But the only reason government health insurance will be more "affordable" than private health insurance is that taxpayers will be footing the bill. That's something that can't be opted out of under the "opt out" plan. Which brings us right back to the question of whether the government or the free market provides better services at better prices. There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets. So, naturally, liberals aren't sure. In Democratic circles, the jury's still out on free market economics. It's not settled science like global warming or Darwinian evolution. But in the meantime, they'd like to spend trillions of dollars to remake our entire health care system on a European socialist model. Sometimes the evidence for the superiority of the free market is hidden in liberals' own obtuse reporting. In the past few years, The New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors' appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper's entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd. As the Times reported: "In some dermatologists' offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees." As the kids say: Duh. This is the problem with all third-party payor systems -- which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care. Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971. In 1960, 50 percent of all health care spending was paid out of pocket directly by the consumer. By 1999, only 15 percent of health care spending was paid for by the consumer. The government's share had gone from 24 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, IRS regulations made it a nightmare to obtain private health insurance. The reason you can't buy health insurance as easily and cheaply as you can buy car insurance -- or a million other products and services available on the free market -- is that during World War II, FDR imposed wage and price controls. Employers couldn't bid for employees with higher wages, so they bid for them by adding health insurance to the overall compensation package. Although employees were paying for their own health insurance in lower wages and salaries, their health insurance premiums never passed through their bank accounts, so it seemed like employer-provided health insurance was free. Employers were writing off their employee insurance plans as a business expense, but when the IRS caught on to what employers were doing, they tried to tax employer-provided health insuranc

Pls comment on my travel plan Tokyo? I have 6 days free time in Tokyo: Saturday and Sunday in week 1, and Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday in week 2. Below are the places I plan to visit: -Metropolitan Tokyo area (two-day tour, may be non-consecutive days) ------------------------------------------- **Tokyo Imperial Palace & East Garden – free admission Tokyo Science Museum Tokyo Tower (just look at a distance, will not pay & enter) Edo-Tokyo Museum Origami House – tel 03-5684-6040 Studio Ghibli Museum Odaiba Miraikan, Future Science Museum – free Saturdays Chuo Tsukiji Fish Market Harajuku/Shibuya **Meiji Shrine – free (go on Sunday to see traditional Japanese wedding) **Yoyogi Park – free **Omotesando Street Takeshita Dori Daiso Ginza Ueno **Ueno Park & Zoological Garden – is panda still on display? **Tokyo National Museum National Museum of Nature and Science **Asakusa Kannon Temple Nakamise Shopping Arcade National Museum of Western Art – free 2nd / 4th Saturdays Shitamachi Museum Shinjuku district Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building (preferably evening @ 45/F observation deck) Shinjuku Gyoen Garden – closed on Mondays ------------------------------------------- -Tokyo Disney LAND or SEA (one-day tour, stay until evening for fireworks display) - Hakone round course (one-day tour) - Yokohama (half-day tour only, afternoon/evening) Yamate Sankein Garden Yamashita Park Minato Mirai 21 Landmark Tower - Kamakura (half-day tour only, morning/lunch) Great Buddha Hasedera Temple Hachimangu Shrine Zeniarai Benten Zumisenji Temple Kenchoji Temple - Nagano (half-day or one-day tour) Zenkoji Temple Matsumoto Castle Kamikochi (Japanese Alps) Snow Monkeys (Kambayachi) -Omiya Bonsai Museum Railway Museum -Nikko (half-day or one-day tour) Nikko Toshogi Temple Nikko Futarasan Shrine Kegon Falls Do you think I should drop certain cities/wards or specific spots because they are out-of-the-way, or they go in the opposite direction, or they will only cause too much delay in my over-all schedule. What is the proper sequence or order of the tour to visit different sites without going back and forth in one city/ward? Although I will be based in Tokyo, please feel free to recommend an overnight stay in one city to maximize my travel time. Finally, which among the above museums, parks, shrines, temples, castles are really worth paying the entrance fees and spending some time inside? And which ones are worth seeing at a distance outside without having to enter inside the grounds or buildings (and paying the entrance fee in the process). For example, I just want to see Rodin's "The Thinker" in front of Museum of Modern Art.

Why the policy is wrong for the country!? Should we vote for the best chance? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE! Bob ... I don't know how you could possibly know less about how things work then you do. Really. Fred ... go stand with Bob im1096too .... Please read this ... please! Ok ... the link is too long. Do a Google search for "The Financial Crisis: Where Did We Go Wrong? (by David Asman)" Can you atand a little more reading? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9670

Taxing soda and pizza? As a conservative, I don't agree with New York State's plan to tax non-diet sodas an extra 15% and possibly tax pizza the same amount. It's a form of government interference in the free market, giving other businesses (for example, bottled water companies vs. soda companies and sandwich shops vs. pizza parlors) an advantage. It's also an example of the government taking personal responsibility away from citizens, and a result of what happens when you allow the government to be involved in health care. I'm guessing conservatives feel the same way but perhaps there are some liberals out there who agree, also. So, is creating an obesity tax right or wrong?

Why is the Democratic party against economic growth and balanced budgets? I'm 14, and I'm concerned about the country's direction. We're in trouble economically and we have a deficit crisis. Yet the Democrats' policies are completely against the principles America stands for: limited government, free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Their policies make it harder for people to create jobs. -The Democrats support raising taxes on "the rich" and "greedy corporations", yet the rich are the ones that create our jobs! And raising taxes on business means less money can be used to create jobs. They also want to raise spending ad infinitum, which increases the national debt. This creates a huge cloud of uncertainty in the business community about if their taxes will go up. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and businesses are in mass exodus to countries with fairer tax codes. -The Democrats support more job-killing regulations of industries.. For example, if an onion farmer drops a few of his onions on the very same soil it's grown on, those onions can't be brought to market. This raises food prices, which in turn, means less economic growth. -The Democrats support increasing the minimum wage. This sounds like good policy, but it means companies can hire less employees. It's unfair to poor people because it decreases the amount of unskilled labor a company can hire. Also, it drives up the cost of products, discouraging consumption, which is very bad for the economy. -The Democrats refuse to allow drilling offshore and on the ground. They won't let us open nuclear power plants or mine for coal. All of this because of the population of some rare species of caribou or environmental extremist reasons like that. Come on! This makes us more dependent on oil from overseas, and it increases the cost of energy. This severely shrinks our economy and it creates pain for families. Gas is at $4/gallon, and Obama's solution is to tax the oil companies more! Outrageous! Real scientists, like the co-founder of the Weather Channel, know that global warming is a myth! -The Democrats oppose the Connie Mac plan which cuts government spending 1 measly percent a year! They're so opposed to cutting any spending whatsoever and they were able to whine enough to get John Boehner to sign onto a deal that had lots of "future" spending cuts and a lot less in real cuts. -The Democrats support "right-to-work" legislation forcing people to join a Union. This makes the US less business-friendly. And the Obama administration wouldn't let Boeing move its factory to South Carolina because South Carolina was a right-to-work state! Prohibiting a company from doing business and creating jobs when families are struggling? What kind of "change" is that? -As I pointed out earlier, Democrats support increasing taxes which winds up decreasing government revenue. When you take a greater percentage out of the private economy, you have a smaller economy and less growth. This hurts the amount of revenue government takes in. -Democrats have opposed every real plan to reduce the deficit, including the Connie Mac plan(mentioned earlier), Cut Cap and Balance, and the Republican Study Commission Plan. They are the party of no solutions, blank checks, and smoke-and-mirrors budgeting. All in all, Democrats are a conglomerate of liberal activists, freak-environmentalists, atheist progressive vegans, union thugs, and socialists. Please tell me Democrats, why do you oppose cutting government spending and promoting economic growth? Balanced budgets and lower taxes are basic principles that made this country strong. Socialism has always failed. Entrepreneurship is what will save us from the recession, not more government spending. You are jeopardizing my country's future by leaving us a mountain of debt(crisis started in 2006 when the Dems took over Congress) and a weak economy. Why? Many economists are on my side......F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Peter Morici, etc. And I get my information from many reputable sources, including the Wall Street Journal, World Net Daily, FOX News(Regular and Business), CNN Money(liberal bias but not as horrible as other places).

Would Semi-Socialism Benefit America? The title says it all. I am Canadian, and I have noticed that on my cross-border trips to Buffalo or Detroit, much of it seems depressing. Would socialism benefit America in any way? It seems that semi-socialism (Socialist policies without central planning, but with free market and private enterprise) Western countries have a much higher standard of living then America. And this combines with the fact, that America's taxes aren't that low, plus Americans don't have a lot of benefits that say Canadians or Germans have (Universal healthcare is an example). Would a semi-socialist government help solve America's real problems (Healthcare, budget defecit, trade defecit, national debt)? I mean, as in more government intervention and services. Like universal healthcare, job creation, job retraining, stimulus for failing industries (already being implemented I think), and stuff such as that. And American's don't seem to be getting their money's worth in government services. I've heard one too many stories of people not going to the doctor's because they can't afford it. And what's with all this tax lowering? Is the raising of taxes (especially corporate taxes) adverse to the economy? I mean many American companies take advantage of only being taxed on the money they bring into the country. As Warren Buffett said, if each American company paid it's full corporate tax share, there would be no defecit spending. I am not supporting either side, and I'm not satisfied with both candidates.

True Marketing Errors will make you cringe and laugh all at the same time!!? True marketing errors Below are fine examples of what happens when marketing translations fail to reach a foreign country in an understandable way. Coors put its slogan, "Turn it loose," into Spanish, where it was read as "Suffer from diarrhea." Clairol introduced the "Mist Stick," a curling iron, into German only to find out that "mist" is slang for manure. Not too many people had use for the "manure stick". Scandinavian vacuum manufacturer Electrolux used the following in an American campaign: Nothing sucks like an Electrolux. The American slogan for Salem cigarettes, "Salem-Feeling Free", was translated into the Japanese market as "When smoking Salem, you will feel so refreshed that your mind seems to be free and empty." When Gerber started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as in the US, with the beautiful baby on the label. Later they learned that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what's inside, since most people can't read English. An American T-shirt maker in Miami printed shirts for the Spanish market which promoted the Pope's visit. Instead of "I saw the Pope" (el Papa), the shirts read "I saw the potato" (la papa). In Italy, a campaign for Schweppes Tonic Water translated the name into "Schweppes Toilet Water." Pepsi's "Come alive with the Pepsi Generation" translated into "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave," in Chinese. When Parker Pen marketed a ballpoint pen in Mexico, its ads were supposed to say "It won't leak in your pocket and embarrass you." However, the company mistakenly thought the spanish word "embarazar" meant embarrass. Instead the ads said that "It wont leak in your pocket and make you pregnant." The name Coca-Cola in China was first rendered as Ke-kou-ke-la. Unfortunately, the Coke company did not discover until after thousands of signs had been printed that the phrase means "bite the wax tadpole" or "female horse stuffed with wax" depending on the dialect. Coke then researched 40,000 Chinese characters and found a close phonetic equivalent, "ko-kou-ko-le," which can be loosely translated as "happiness in the mouth." Also in Chinese, the Kentucky Fried Chicken slogan "finger-lickin' good" came out as "eat your fingers off." When General Motors introduced the Chevy Nova in South America, it was apparently unaware that "no va" means "it won't go." After the company figured out why it wasn't selling any cars, it renamed the car in its Spanish markets to the Caribe. Colgate introduced a toothpaste in France called Cue, the name of a notorious porno magazine. ------ Real news headlines 10 These are actual newspaper headlines gathered from papers across the country. March Planned For Next August Blind Bishop Appointed To See Lingerie Shipment Hijacked--Thief Gives Police The Slip L.A. Voters Approve Urban Renewal By Landslide Patient At Death's Door--Doctors Pull Him Through Latin Course To Be Canceled--No Interest Among Students, Et Al. Diaper Market Bottoms Out Croupiers On Strike--Management: "No Big Deal" Stadium Air Conditioning Fails--Fans Protest

Why isthe Democratic party against economic growth and balanced budgets? I'm 14, and I'm concerned about the country's direction. We're in trouble economically and we have a deficit crisis. Yet the Democrats' policies are completely against the principles America stands for: limited government, free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Their policies make it harder for people to create jobs. -The Democrats support raising taxes on "the rich" and "greedy corporations", yet the rich are the ones that create our jobs! And raising taxes on business means less money can be used to create jobs. They also want to raise spending ad infinitum, which increases the national debt. This creates a huge cloud of uncertainty in the business community about if their taxes will go up. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and businesses are in mass exodus to countries with fairer tax codes. -The Democrats support more job-killing regulations of industries.. For example, if an onion farmer drops a few of his onions on the very same soil it's grown on, those onions can't be brought to market. This raises food prices, which in turn, means less economic growth. -The Democrats support increasing the minimum wage. This sounds like good policy, but it means companies can hire less employees. It's unfair to poor people because it decreases the amount of unskilled labor a company can hire. Also, it drives up the cost of products, discouraging consumption, which is very bad for the economy. -The Democrats refuse to allow drilling offshore and on the ground. They won't let us open nuclear power plants or mine for coal. All of this because of the population of some rare species of caribou or environmental extremist reasons like that. Come on! This makes us more dependent on oil from overseas, and it increases the cost of energy. This severely shrinks our economy and it creates pain for families. Gas is at $4/gallon, and Obama's solution is to tax the oil companies more! Outrageous! Real scientists, like the co-founder of the Weather Channel, know that global warming is a myth! -The Democrats oppose the Connie Mac plan which cuts government spending 1 measly percent a year! They're so opposed to cutting any spending whatsoever and they were able to whine enough to get John Boehner to sign onto a deal that had lots of "future" spending cuts and a lot less in real cuts. -The Democrats support "right-to-work" legislation forcing people to join a Union. This makes the US less business-friendly. And the Obama administration wouldn't let Boeing move its factory to South Carolina because South Carolina was a right-to-work state! Prohibiting a company from doing business and creating jobs when families are struggling? What kind of "change" is that? -As I pointed out earlier, Democrats support increasing taxes which winds up decreasing government revenue. When you take a greater percentage out of the private economy, you have a smaller economy and less growth. This hurts the amount of revenue government takes in. -Democrats have opposed every real plan to reduce the deficit, including the Connie Mac plan(mentioned earlier), Cut Cap and Balance, and the Republican Study Commission Plan. They are the party of no solutions, blank checks, and smoke-and-mirrors budgeting. All in all, Democrats are a conglomerate of liberal activists, freak-environmentalists, atheist progressive vegans, union thugs, and socialists. Please tell me Democrats, why do you oppose cutting government spending and promoting economic growth? Balanced budgets and lower taxes are basic principles that made this country strong. Socialism has always failed. Entrepreneurship is what will save us from the recession, not more government spending. You are jeopardizing my country's future by leaving us a mountain of debt(crisis started in 2006 when the Dems took over Congress) and a weak economy. Why? I do remember 9/11, and it is one of the many reasons I became a conservative. I know that evil exists in the world and that terrorists hate us for our freedom. We need to stand up to them and be corageous and strong. We're not Portugal or Chile, we are the United States. We need to have an assertive foreign policy that is not soft like the liberals want it to be. I do remember 9/11, and it is one of the many reasons I became a conservative. I know that evil exists in the world and that terrorists hate us for our freedom. We need to stand up to them and be corageous and strong. We're not Portugal or Chile, we are the United States. We need to have an assertive foreign policy that is not soft like the liberals want it to be.

Why does Jim Wallis (Sojourners Magazine) consider it a consensus of the Christian "faith community" that....? ....the Obama announcements of faster troop withdrawals in the Middle East "are not fast enough" and he's asking Christians to join his petition drive to have the President speed them up even more under a reasoning of "No more war!"? Nobody likes war. But why would a Christian assume that having one nation-participant withdraw would suddenly END the war? And though he quotes Jesus in the spam emails I've been receiving this week, he doesn't seem to quote any scriptures where the Bible talks of wars ALWAYS being among us and WHY they happen (because of the wars that occur inside the human heart.) Do these kinds of "peace campaigns" ignore "The Law of Unintended Consequences"? (Has every troop withdrawal in history brought about peace, an end to suffering, and no more war in that particular area?) Is is appropriate to cite Jesus in justifying our political beliefs? (Does it imply that we consulted Jesus and got his endorsement for our agenda?) The latest email appears below. It is not clear why $50,000 needs to raised. Pleas for donations always accompany such "announcements" -- but that is true for EVERY political campaign (whether religion-related or not) because promoting ideas costs money. [So anybody who blames "Religion$" for this is being hypocritical -- because the real world runs on money and reality, and religions aren't alone in asking for dollars.] BUT SHOULD WE INVOKE THE NAME OF JESUS in political campaigns of this sort? IS IT EVEN A KIND OF "TAKING THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN"? WHAT DO YOU THINK? =========================================================== =========================================================== LATEST EXAMPLE OF PROMO EMAIL: Dear Marketing/Promotions Manager, Last week President Obama unveiled his plan for troop withdrawal. I just want the message from the faith community to be clear – it's not good enough! We will keep calling on President Obama to end the war faster. We're launching a full campaign to let the president know where the faith community stands. We need you to help us raise $50,000 by tomorrow. Your gift today and tomorrow will be matched and we’ll send you a special gift – a free “War No More” bumper sticker. Give now. Too much money has been spent, and too many lives have been lost. This war is wrong. It’s immoral, it’s not working, and it has to end now, not in 2014. The military won their goal of making the withdrawal nominal. Now people of faith – you and I – will insist together on a clear, quick, and responsible exit plan. And our work has gained supporters on both sides of the political divide. This war has already cost more than 10,000 Afghan lives and more than 1,600 American lives, as well as $100 billion for every year it’s been fought. The American people are fed up with 10 years of this war. In fact, 64% of Americans don’t believe this war is worth fighting. Neither our biblical foundation nor sound terrorism response strategy can justify this war. Join the voice of the faith community to call the president to do better. Give today to advance our call for a faster withdrawal. Our exit strategy needs to be responsible and must focus on long-term stability, development, and security for the Afghan people. It needs to respect the long-standing traditions and realities of the country (through political tools such as power-sharing), while ensuring rights and education for women and girls, who are crucial to the country’s future. There is much work left to be done. There are many more political pressures in Washington to challenge, and your involvement – prayers, activism, and generosity – is critical. Make a gift today to fund this and all of Sojourners’ work. We’ll get that bumper sticker in the mail with details on how to be in an educational video we are producing. With gratitude that we’re working on this together, Jim Wallis President/CEO

How many of you really know what Socialism is? Also known as Marxism. Following is an excerpt from Wikipedia. Health care reform (by Obamas Definition), etc is socialism at its finest. Read below and tell me why you want to vote for Obama. [edit] Socialism as an economic system See also: Socialist economics Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the U.S.S.R., state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning – what goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices (cf. Economy of the Soviet Union). Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to Capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers. In the West, neoclassical liberal economists, e.g. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, said that socialist planned economies would fail, because planners could not have the business information inherent to a market economy (cf. economic calculation problem), nor would managers in Soviet-style socialist economies match the motivation of profit. Consequent to Soviet economic stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s, socialists began to accept parts of their critique. Polish economist Oskar Lange, an early proponent of "market socialism", proposed a Central Planning Board establishing prices and controls of investment. The prices of producer goods would be determined through trial and error. The prices of consumer goods would be determined by supply and demand, with the supply coming from state-owned firms that would set their prices equal to the marginal cost, as in perfectly competitive markets. The Central Planning Board would distribute a "social dividend" to ensure reasonable income equality.[53] In Western Europe, particularly in the period after World War II, many socialist parties in government implemented what became known as mixed economies.[54] These governments nationalised major and economically vital industries while permitting a free market to continue in the rest. These were most often monopolistic or infrastructural industries like mail, railways, power and other utilities. In some instances a number of small, competing and often relatively poorly financed companies in the same sector were nationalised to form one government monopoly for the purpose of competent management, of economic rescue (in the UK, British Leyland, Rolls Royce), or of competing on the world market.[55] Typically, this was achieved through compulsory purchase of the industry (i.e. with compensation). For example in the UK the nationalization of the coal mines in 1947 created a coal board charged with running the coal industry commercially so as to be able to meet the interest payable on the bonds which the former mine owners' shares had been converted into.[56][57] These nationalized industries would frequently be combined with Keynesian economics and incomes policies in order to guide the entire economy (see indicative planning and dirigisme).[58] Nevertheless, most economists, and many socialists, consider that these economies were (or are) capitalist economies, and the aspirations of those who believed the mixed economy would abolish boom and slump, mass unemployment, and industrial unrest, were disappointed with the onset of the first world wide recession of 1973–4, the oil crisis of this period, and the monetary instability which followed. Some far left socialists, as well as some workers in the nationalised industries, also criticised the nationalisations for not establishing workers' control of the nationalised industries, through elected representatives, and the amount of compensation paid to the previous owners. Some socialists propose various decentralized, worker-managed economic systems. One such system is the "cooperative economy," a largely free market economy in which workers manage the firms and democratically determine remuneration levels and labor divisions. Productive resources would be legally owned by the cooperative and rented to the workers, who would enjoy usufruct rights.[59] Another, more recent, variant is "participatory economics," wherein the economy is planned by decentralized councils of workers and consumers. Workers would be remunerated solely according to effort and sacrifice, so that those engaged in dangerous, uncomfortable, and strenuous work would receive the highest incomes and could thereby work less.[60] Some Marxists and Anarcho-communists also propose a worker managed economy based on workers councils, however unlike participatory economics in Anarcho communism workers are remunerated according to their needs (which are largely self determined in an anarcho communist system Justagirl....obviously you didn't study as hard as you might have.

are you looking forward to the Bank's 4 step plan for the USA? Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets. Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%. Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot." The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan. Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture. http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/ Billy Blaze: so you managed to read the details in all of 8 seconds did you?

3. Marketing questions. will help study for exam:) someone please do this for me:)? 1.Name your fictitious business and identify the location (city and state if in the United States). State the specific goods or services you will sell. Explain why you have chosen to sell these goods or services. 2.List and describe the five types of promotion. Next, describe which of these types of promotion you plan to use to promote the goods or services you will sell in your business. Explain how each type of promotion will be used in your business. 3.Prepare a typewritten news release to announce the opening of your business and the goods or services that will be offered. Be sure to follow the standard practices for preparing a news release that were covered in this lesson. 4.List the four key elements of visual merchandising. Explain how you will use each of these elements in your business. If you have taken the time to design a logo, banner, or any other items, feel free to include them in your response. 5.List the four general categories of advertising media. Identify how you will specifically use each type of media in your business. Explain what goals you hope to accomplish for your business by using each type of media. 6.Assume that you have a promotional budget of $100,000 per year for your fictitious business. Explain how you will allocate these budget dollars to meet the advertising goals you have just prepared in question 5. 7.List the four key elements of print advertising. Design or write an example of each of the four elements with an explanation of how they will be used in your business. 8.Explain the channels of distribution and how your business will use these channels to receive goods or services. 9.Describe how you will handle the inventory required to service and sell to your customers. Explain the reasons why you will keep inventory in storage and what type of storage facility you will use. 10.List the three types of purchasing situations. Describe the goods or services that you will sell in your business that fall into each of these situations. 11.Name the four key criteria used in supplier selection. Explain how you will use these criteria to select the suppliers for your business. 12.List the steps involved in the stock handling process. Explain whether you will use perpetual or physical methods for inventory tracking in your business and why. Also, describe the plan that you have to keep an accurate account for inventory in your business and what methods and systems you will use to do so.

does this make sense? feel free to add things!? If money was not an issue for me, the company that I would want to create would be a clothing line. Inspired by me: Fun, hip, sassy, but a little classy also. I love colors so I would like my first spring line to be very colorful for example: pink, light blue, and yellow my company would definitely be associated with that. The reason I want to create a clothing brand is because of the passion and creative feel I have towards it. I love bringing trends in, and also like recreating them again. I am like a work of art being brought to life when it comes to clothing. My brand would definitely stand out from other young teen clothing brands such as: Alloy, Wet Seal, and Charlotte Russe. Because I want something that is different but is not too far from where there at. My idea is to first and foremost write a business plan and make a market that reaches the young consumer. Doing something I not only love but have full control of everything is awesome in so many ways and that is something when running a company or service you should not take advantage of. My love for fashion is like the second season. I want to accomplish in creating a clothing line working hard to make it a big success that is my ultimate goal. And at the end of the day everyone has to start somewhere so why not do something you really enjoy!

Would the founding fathers be ashamed of our country today? some of the founding fathers of our country like george washington, thomas jefferson, and alexander hamilton preached that this country should be a free market, capitalist country that follows the constititution and should have a non intervention foreign policy. today is the OPPOSITE of that. 1. George Washington(foreign policy)- george washington was probably the biggest supporter of a non-intervention foreign policy. while jefferson and hamilton were debating to support britain or france, washington remained neutral and chose NOT to intervene. As he left office he read his farewell address(which is great) and he mostly said that the interests and conflicts in the rest of the world does not concern the interests of the U.S. he warned against getting involved in other country's affairs and against alliances. and hes right because alliances can destroy a nation's soverignty and he said that the U.S. can remain neutral because "our greatest ally is the atlantic ocean". Today we are in NATO, UN, we have bases in germany, japan, and south korea, and are policies in the mid east are the wrong policies. we should be going after terrorists and destroying terror NOT nation building and policing the world like we are doing. Washington would not like this at all. 2.Thomas Jefferson(power of the feds) ik that jefferson may have gone beyond his own power during his presidency but he was all about for most of his life folllowing the constitution and leaving many rights to the states. The feds should only have the power for trading, tarriffs, own currency, war, treaties, and dispute between states. today the feds have control over income tax(IRS is stupid and the feds should be funding on budget cuts, excise taxes, and tarrifs), EDUCATION, and even abortion and potentially gay marriage. The feds cant go beyond their power like this! 3. Alexander Hamilton(economy) when hamilton was the first treasury secetary, he preached and had set up a capitalist, free market economy where the people run it(especially the wealthy), competition is strong, and the upper class is on top of all this by competing with each other for profit and revenue and creating jobs for poeple. TODAY, we have a nearly socialist economy where the governement is starting to own businesses and are getting involved in the market world where their actions are decreasing competition. sharing wealth, tax burden on wealth,Bailout plan and potential healthcare plan are prime examples. DO you agree?? i know that the world has changed but our greatest allies are the oceans. if we better secure countries then its more possible to have a non intervention foreign policy and we dont have to have alliances. alliances just prove to haunt you. also capitalism is the best type of system and socialism is a system that the U.S. is NOT meant to have and its an unfair system that doesnt work. also y do the feds have to have so much power??? listen to ron paul, he knows his stuff feds shouldnt have control over education, its a state issue also providing healthcare will decrease the competition for healthcare in the market and whenever you have a monopoly of something which is what the governement providing healthcare is, then thats not good

Who agrees that companies should not be required to offer healthcare plans? I buy my own auto/home/flood insurance on my own. I save for retirement on my own in my IRAs, annuities, etc. I think free market competition, no federal mandates, improved information/fact disclosure on best practices in treatments and costs, and more tax-deferred health savings accounts are the way to go, not more socialism such as medicare/medicaid prescription drug coverage. The following is a perfect example of what NOT to do (a.k.a. the Clinton & Clinton plan): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/02/nhs202.xml

Isn't the whole health care debate a Catch-22? First, let me present some insight borrowed from a writer on Open Salon... "In rough terms, the people who support the free market solution also support reduced government control. Yet the problem is that in order to use the market, the entire incentive structure for what the market seeks to achieve needs to be revised. The present system incentivizes a number of specific practices that allow insurance companies to make money by clever games of finding people who are cheap to insure and getting the most money out of them, and trying hard to exclude people who are expensive to insure. In order for health care to mean “health care for all,” not just “health care for the employed” or “health care for the healthy,” we need to revise the rules. But if the people who are promoting a market-driven approach are opposing regulation, that can’t be done. Those people need to decide whether they want to really help, and if they do, they need to make some serious concessions toward appropriate regulation. The market will not do to this on its own. It has no incentive to. And markets are everything about incentive." Source: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2009/08/22/medical_care_and_the_free-market_catch-22 Also: "the notion that free markets are efficient is simply absurd. they might be better than markets controlled by the wealthy, but free markets invariably become controlled by the wealthy." "The focus by some conservatives is on the loss of a certain freedom in the market, but that freedom is only there for people with a lot of economic power. Many just take the one health care plan they can afford at the one job that would hire them, for example. Some don't even get a health care plan where they're hired. Some aren't hired, and so don't have the “freedom to work.” Some have to work at a crappy job that might not even use their skills or pay otherwise well because it offers the health care they need. The point is that as some freedoms are secured, others are lost, so it's not as simple as those would describe who think that “government care means definitively less freedom” and “private care means definitively more freedom.” The most important freedom in our world is “having enough money” and if one cannot find well-priced health care, there is no money left for the exercise of any other freedom, so the matter is one of pure and uninteresting philosophy to many." "I have a difficult time understanding how people think an institution established to offer a service to others – a public service -- is more efficient by virtue of making a profit. It seems like an illogical assertion. It’s sort of like saying, “I can give you more if I keep some for myself.” It would seem to defy the laws of physics. Of course, there is the moral dilemma of profiting from the misfortune of others." "The idea is that if a private system has to compete with another private system, the only profit it can take (absent situations that are supposed to be illegal under antitrust legislation—enforcement of which is another missing pillar of the modern competitive marketplace) is that which still keeps it competitive with other players in the market. The theory is that the desire to make this profit is so strong that it will drive efficiencies even greater than what the public system will because there is an incentive to innovate in order to achieve better profit." In a nutshell: public-run institutions lack the motivation to innovate; however, private profit-run institutions seek only to create profits through any means necessary. Usually this is done by insuring the healthy, who are a source of income for insurance companies, and denying coverage to those whose poor health would make them an unprofitable investment. It's really simple economics. Insurance companies evaluate risk and determine coverage and premiums based on a person's likelihood to use said coverage. A good example would be flood insurance. Insurance companies have decided that those who live in flood plains, i.e., high risk customers, are not eligible for flood insurance because they pose such a high risk. So those who are likely to need flood insurance are not able to find affordable coverage. On the other hand, people who live in areas with very low risk of flooding may be wary to purchase flood insurance, seeing it as an unnecessary bill. Just as healthy people who can afford health insurance will oftentimes decline to purchase it. But the only way insurance companies can be profitable and still provide affordable coverage is if every person is covered -- that is, those who are at risk along with those who are not. So essentially, people who do not need or use the service end up paying for those who frequently need or use it. We see the same problem with the uninsured in our current system. The insured inevitably end up paying to cover the uninsured through higher insurance premiums. Requiring all people to have insurance The rest of my long-winded argument got cut off, and unfortunately I lacked the foresight to copy and save it in case I had to re-post or add to this (hindsight is 20/20, after all). But I think you can get the general gist of my argument, so this should suffice for now. Basically, aren't both options ultimately bad? Public government-run insurance versus private profit-driven insurance -- one seeks only to increase in size and funding, with no real incentive to improve (government), and one seeks only to amass profits for their shareholders (private insurance), with no real incentive to provide quality affordable health care to those who truly need it.

Economics lesson 11 unit test. Help Please !!? 1. The law of demand says (1 point) the higher the price, the more consumers will buy. the lower the price, the less consumers will buy. the lower the price, the more consumers will buy. the lower the price, the more consumers will substitute. 2. Which of the following describes the substitution effect? (1 point) As the price of a good falls, people will substitute other products. As the price of a good rises, people will substitute other products. As demand rises, people will substitute other products. As demand falls, people will substitute other products. 3. Which of the following is NOT an example of complements? (1 point) skis and ski boots row boat and oars electric shaver and charging cord calculator and cell phone 4. If you keep buying despite a price increase, your demand is (1 point) elastic. strong. normal. inelastic. 5. According to the law of supply, (1 point) the lower the price, the larger the quantity consumed. the higher the price, the larger the quantity produced. if the price of a good rises, some firms will produce less. if the price of a good falls, new firms may enter the market. 6. The change in output from adding one more worker is the (1 point) marginal product of labor. increasing marginal returns. diminishing marginal returns. negative marginal returns. 7. Marginal cost is (1 point) total revenue minus total cost. total revenue plus total cost. the cost of producing one more unit of a good. the difference between fixed and variable costs. 8. A subsidy is (1 point) a tax on the production or sale of a good. a government payment to support a business or market. a form of government regulation. illustrated by the market supply curve. 9. A market is in equilibrium when (1 point) quantity demanded is greater than quantity supplied. quantity supplied is greater than quantity demanded. quantity supplied and quantity demanded are equal. the government takes action to bring it into equilibrium. 10. Disequilibrium occurs when (1 point) quantity supplied and quantity demanded are not equal. quantity supplied and quantity demanded are equal. prices are higher than quantity supplied. there is neither excess supply nor excess demand. 11. When does a surplus exist? (1 point) when new products are brought to the market for sale whenever prices drop when there are too few items for the people who want to buy them when there is a greater supply of a good than people want to buy 12. Rationing is a common form of distribution in (1 point) a centrally planned economy. a free market economy. a price-based system. a market based on competition. 13. A market structure with many sellers and many buyers is (1 point) an oligopoly. monopolistic. perfect competition. nonprice competition. 14. A market that is a monopoly has (1 point) many buyers and sellers. many firms selling slightly different products. three or four firms dominating the market. one seller and many buyers. 15. Compared to a market with perfect competition, a monopoly has (1 point) lower prices and fewer goods. higher prices and fewer goods. lower prices and more goods. higher prices and more goods. 16. One role of the federal government's Justice Department is to (1 point) encourage price fixing. break up monopolies. provide businesses with loans for start-up costs. eliminate barriers to entry. 17. What category would include subsidies, excise taxes, and regulation? (1 point) the effects of rising costs limits on imports government influences on supply benefits of marginal costs 18. What is the most common result of rent control laws? (1 point) High-income families are denied rental housing. Few low-income, high-need renters benefit from the program. Landlords can no longer discriminate against tenants. The supply of apartments rises. 19. What is an oligopoly? (1 point) an agreement by an organization of producers to set prices and production a market structure in which a few large firms dominate the market a market structure in which five firms have a price war a market structure in which a single firm dominates the market

Please revise the following for grammer and mechanics:? The Great Depression, the worst economic crisis to affect America, has shaped the conditions of today. Though Americans during the Great Depression faced many problems, the government took action and made several attempts to provide solutions. With attempts such as the Townsend Plan, the government tried to solve problems like unemployment. The Great Depression saw a fair amount of problems and solutions. Large quantities of problems were faced during the Great Depression. Problems such as starvation and unemployment caused the Great Depression to be a bad time period. One problem that people faced during the Great Depression was starvation. “…for food she depended almost entirely on occasional dinner invitations from her friends.” (Document #3) This describes how this woman ate on rare occasions because she, like most people, did not have the money to afford it. Many people attended soup kitchens and breadlines which were places that offered free food or drinks because many were suffering from starvation. These events took place in large urban areas serving many unemployed people because of the absence of government relief programs during 1932. Doughnuts, bread, soup and coffee are some examples of what were offered. These events were usually organized by volunteer organizations, church groups, or community groups. While going hungry, surplus food couldn’t be sold for a profit. Starvation was mainly caused by the fact that many Americans did not have wages. Unemployment was another problem that citizens faced during the Great Depression. In 1929, the unemployment rate was a little less than 4% but in 1932, it skyrocketed up to approximately 24%. (Document #1) The high unemployment rate made people mobile in order to find jobs as well as food. With 15 million people unemployed, mostly industrial cities in the east and midwest were hit the hardest by this occurrence. By 1933, about 40% of factory workers and 67% of construction workers were unemployed in Ohio. The reason for such high unemployment was because of the stock market crash. At first, people bought many stocks on margin because it seemed the market was going to go up. In reality, these stocks were inflated and build on dreams. As the market went down, banks demanded their money back, forcing people to sell their stocks low. People then rushed to banks to withdraw all their money. Causing banks to collapse, they ran out of money. Only those who were fast enough were able to withdraw their money, which caused many people to lose their life savings. As banks closed, businesses closed as well and left many people jobless. Without wages, people were unable to pay mortgages and rent leaving them on the streets without a home. Without money, food was not affordable and many suffered starvation. During the Great Depression, people suffered because of starvation and unemployment. The government took action in order to solve the problems presented during the Great Depression. New Deal programs and the Townsend Plan were examples of efforts made by the government to solve these problems. New Deal programs were an attempt to solve problems faced during the Great Depression. A cartoon depicts Franklin D. Roosevelt as a doctor using a bag of New Deal remedies with an elderly woman’s permission to cure a hobo. (Document #6) Franklin D. Roosevelt created many New Deal programs to help the depressed U.S. Congress passed these programs in an attempt to pull America out of the Great Depression by offering jobs directly. These programs helped fight the Great Depression through relief, recovery and reform. Creating jobs, it provided many Americans with an income which helped them get through the depression. Some of these programs also promoted forms of entertainment such as art, music, theatre, and writing. Because of the expensive cost, some programs were closed while others still exist today. This would solve the problem of unemployment. Another solution the government presented was the Townsend Plan. “…over the age of 60 years may retire on a pension of $200 per month on the following conditions.”(Document #7) The Townsend Plan was a plan proposed by Mr. Townsend which provided a pension to the elderly if they follow three provisions. One provision was to “engage in no further labor, business or profession for gain.” This gave the young people more opportunities to get jobs because the elderly no longer worked since they received a generous pension provided by taxes. The second provision was that the person must be free of criminality. They included this because they wanted to reward the people that are good and haven’t done anything bad during the duration of their long lifetime. Also the third provision forces the person to spend their money in the United States on consumer goods or services. This would help stimulate the nation’s feeble economy by creating new jobs. Therefore, actions were taken by the government to provide solutions for the problems faced du

Why his policies are wrong ....? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE! "Even Alan Greenspan said so." OH MY GOSH! StopStopStop I can't stand it Please! My sides! Oh my sides! Back to school? Read a book!

Lemmings into the sea!? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like Obama is looking out for you?

2 doing for homework? 222 .Importantly, in the free market system in place today in the U.S. the government takes what kind of involvement In the economy? A government involvement is forbidden B the government controls all aspects of the economy C the government acts with prudence but is actively involved in the pursuit of its political goals D very limited involvement is permitted -------------------------------- 223 .When did he Great Depression occur in the U.S.? A following the stock market crash of 1929 B following the Civil War C after the Boston Tea Party D in the 1850s with the Industrial Revolution ----------------------------------------------------- 224. The government's revised role in the 1930’s to “prime the pump” to create jobs and spur economic growth is an example of what kind of economics? A communism B monopoly C Keynesian economics D Command economy ----------------------------------------------------- 225.The program called “The New Deal” in the 1930s was a part of what president's plan to help the U.S. recover from the Great Depression? A George Washington B George Bush C Richard Nixon D Franklin Delano Roosevelt ----------------------------------------------------- 226 The FDIC basically insures bank deposits to what amount? A one dollar B two dollars C $100,000 D $1,000,000 ----------------------------

Was it satisfying to see Obama own the republicans in the Health Care Summit? The only thing Republicans had to say was "scrap the bill and start over." They have no substantive ideas. -Tort reform is not a silver bullet, it accounts for less than 2% of all costs. Certain states have their own restrictions on medical malpractice and premiums still go up. -Simply letting across the state lines competition won't do much. The credit card example was fantastic...once banks could sell credit cards across state lines, they all migrated to states with little regulation so they could charge all the fees they want. -Creating state high risk pools only creates further discrimination. Sure, sick people will have coverage, but they will have to pay out the nose for it. -HSA's are not coverage, it just allows you to set aside the little money you already make in case something happens. People with low incomes cannot afford to set anything aside. -Let's not forget that Health Insurance industries, like oil companies, practice collusion. They get together and they price fix, or make deals on who and who they won't cover, so that no matter where you go, you will be paying the same. Making competition between private insurance companies won't do anything. The ONLY way to guarantee true regulation of skyrocketing premiums is to offer an alternative that is not through private insurers. The public option alone would negate the need for any other reforms. The second someone gets denied, they drop them and go to the public plan. It would keep insurance companies honest. This is common sense. The free market does not work with the overwhelming amount of greed in this world today.

liberals is the "public option" trigger something other than a national takeover of health care? Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"? Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks? Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious. Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer"). To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us. Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

I NEED HELP PLEASE ASAP? 1.The effort a worker makes on a task for which he expects to be paid. 2.A basic component of the consumer sector consisting of all those persons living in a house, condo, or living alone. 3.The amount of money left to a producer or seller after he has removed all his/her costs from the revenue received on the sale of the product. 4.The person buying a product. 5.The reward for entrepreneurship. 6.Communism is an example of what kind of an economy? 7.Communism is the vision of what famous economist and writer? 8.A place where buyers and sellers meet to exchange goods and services for money is called: 9.An economic system that relies on private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of resources left to pure market forces. 10.Laissez-faire capitalism was first proposed by what noted economist who wrote, "The Wealth of Nations". 11.In the pure form of laissez-faire capitalism, the government’s role in the economy is to be: 12.“Let-it-be” capitalism is also called: 13.Importantly, in the free market system in place today in the U.S. the government takes what kind of involvement In the economy? 14.When did he Great Depression occur in the U.S.? 15.The government's revised role in the 1930’s to “prime the pump” to create jobs and spur economic growth is an example of what kind of economics? 16.The program called “The New Deal” in the 1930s was a part of what president's plan to help the U.S. recover from the Great Depression? 17.The FDIC basically insures bank deposits to what amount? 18.The branch of economics that studies the interactions of individual consumers, businesses, and industries in the market place. 19.The amount charged by a supplier of a good or service. 20.The amount a supplier had to pay to make a good or service. 21.The Supply Line in a typical Supply Demand Graph slopes. 22.Governments often place this into effect to control price increases it deems have risen too quickly or rapidly. 23.An economic entity in and of itself and which is also owned by its shareholders. 24.A business organization which is owned and operated by a single person. 25.One serious problem with this type of business organization is that the owners sometimes tend to disagree, and then are inclined to separate.

Do you find it disgusting that financial professionals blame individual home owners for taking bad mortgages? As both a homeowner and a financial professional, I become completely disgusted when financial professionals, Rick Santelli being a prime example, put all the blame on homeowners for taking bad mortgages and get angry when the individuals will receive some stimulus money yet don't seem nearly as upset that poorly managed companies receive a rediculously higher amount of stimulus money for taking high risks and getting burnt? This situation highlights a huge issue that I have with the perspective that so many have. First of all, why do people who work in finance and many wealthy right-wingers in general assume that everyone is financially savvy and should have been able to know they were getting a bad loan? Lets put it this way - when I am ill and go to a physician, and he perscribes a medicine for me, would these same people assume that everyone should be medically astute enough to know on our own if we will be able to handle this dosage, or if this is the right perscription or not? Of course not. So how can these people blame homeowners who visit a mortage broker (who at one point in time could credibly be presumed to be a financial professional), and the mortgage broker says that based on their analysis you can afford $X of a home, and we would recommend this mortgage - how when the person puts their faith in the financial professional's opinion can they all be blamed? This is as hippocritical as if in the previous scenario, a prescription ended up killing many people, would the patients be blamed by medical professionals? And on the second part of my argument, I hear so many right-winged representatives (talk show hosts on radio and tv, among others) mocking individuals who expect to get "free stuff" (i.e. government tax dollars paid for by individuals) from the stimulus package, in particular under Obama. Why do these people not feel the same way, but on a more intense level, to the corporations, like the auto CEO's who flew to meet with congress and asked for their "free stuff", and when congress asked them to show how they will spend it "uuhhhh, we didn't really put a financial plan together to bring with us"...not to mention other corporations who receive insane sums of money for taking huge risks and failing. Wouldn't a better plan for the people of this country have been to let the big corporations who burned themselves fail (doesn't the true nature of a free market involve a "survival of the fittest" component?), and use these huge sums of money to help the individuals and other businesses stay afloat who weren't a cause of this problem but were inadvertently affected - i.e., cut out the problematic corporations on the top of the economic food chain and support the rest of the innocent? Please discuss - and STAR and COME BACK TO THIS QUESTION to keep the discussion going through additional edits. Thanks for sharing. You didn't address one of my points though - you say if YOU cannot buy something that YOU cannot afford, then that is STUPIDITY. What about the financial professionals selling things that people cannot afford? Is that not STUPIDITY from a higher level within the transaction. They have a responsibility to be ethical and perform duel dilligence to make this determination, and when they don't, or even worse knowingly do sell a bad product as an investment which further hurts our economy, that is a much greater form of STUPIDITY. What about the people who were not informed as to how adjustable rate mortages worked, and were encouraged into them by the professionals. How can you not blame the professional over the individual?

Can one person change an election? Seriously! I have been posting what I hope is thoughtful arguments against the bad policy the Demo Team is pushing forward. It seems that there are plenty of people that agree with me …. So …. What can we all do to get our message out there and influence people? Letters to the Editor, Forums, and Blogs? This is a link to a list of every newspaper (nearly) in the US. http://www.usnpl.com/ Take a minute to help. Copy and paste from articles you agree with. DO SOMETHING! PART 1 Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE!

How much harm can they do if elected? Should we vote for the best chance? Your average American gets an idea for a product (or service). He (she) draws up a business plan and finds investors or secures a bank loan to start a business. The business buys property and hires builders. They contract for equipment and machinery to be made. They hire employees to make their product or line of products, and they sell them to retailers. The retailers hire people to price, display, and sell the products or services. The idea spreads throughout the system creating jobs and chances for many. If they are able to sell their product at a competitive price and the consumers find use and value in their product, they may succeed. If not, they must cut costs or fail. That’s what happens in a Free Market system. If you work and are good at what you do, you have a chance. This is a simple example of how (now don’t choke on the term) Trickle Down Economics works. You can apply this model to Grannies Bakery on the corner, IBM, GM, or Starbucks. To deny this process is to deny the indisputable. It starts with an idea, and it ends with a chance for jobs and success. It’s a chance to take one idea, make an improvement on it, and start a business of your own. That’s why McDonalds is not the only one out there selling hamburgers! That is the American Dream! A chance! Competition makes products better and less expensive. Competition makes services more responsive and less expensive. Does Trickle Down mean if companies are successful and make more money, that soon my job flipping burgers is suddenly going to start paying me 75k a year? No. It means businesses will expand and give others a chance for a job. It will also give everyone more chances for advancement. If your skill level, motivation, or lack of education relegates you to flipping, maybe that should encourage you to learn to do more and be the best you can be at your job. The Free Enterprise Capitalist system simply gives everyone willing to participate the best chance to live comfortably and succeed. What about those executives making 10 million a year? Do I think that is right? No. But what do you think he (she) is doing with all that money? Stuffing the mattress? Bank savings accounts? The mattress pays nothing, and the bank only pays a few points of interest per year. They are way too greedy for that. What they do is buy. They buy goods, services, and invest in stocks from their company and others! That creates more chances for all of us. I do not think the Free Enterprise System should be allowed to run wild. Everything needs rules to keep it on course. Interest groups play an important part in the system. Saving Trees, Dolphin free tuna, and the Global Warming groups all need to play a part to keep greed from trampling the innocent. However, we have, in many areas, allowed these groups to stop progress instead of guide it. We have all paid for it. We have also paid for government intervention and paid dearly. NAFTA and our government’s refusal to insist that trading partners remove their tariffs on our products have made them too expensive for other nations to import and buy. But no one is talking about that now, are they? Obama says we should “Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas”. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy. To stay competitive, companies must lower their costs. Unfortunately, that means finding less expensive work forces, less restrictive controls, and lower tax rates. Giving tax breaks does not cause companies to ship jobs overseas; it is encouragement to keep them here! Bad tax policy also spreads throughout the system. It causes lay offs, closings, slows production, and stifles investing. If the Government is hostile to business, all will lose some and some will lose all. That will increase our dependency on those in our government that created the problem in the first place. Does that sound like anyone is looking out for you? We don’t need that kind of “change.” We need a CHANCE!

Did u c this article on Obama and Corporatism etc? Not a source I usually read, but well thought out? and biases are pretty clearly noted. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/01/22/newsbusters-interview-tim-carney-author-obamanomics Here is just a piece of it: " To the chagrin--though hardly the surprise--of many conservatives, very few members of the media raised questions about the blatant contradictions between Obama's "little guy" attitude during the campaign and his support for the behemoths of big business as president. Few have noted his tendency to demonize opponents as lackeys of some large corporation, when in fact the Goliaths of the private sector are on board with his agenda, standing as they do to to make billions from it. With thorough research to back him up, Carney goes where the mainstream media will not, exposing the cronyism, hypocrisy, and economic damage that Obamanomics entails. In his interview with NewsBusters, Carney discusses his "free market populism", the failure of Republicans to live up to their own ideals, and his routine debunking of myths peddled by the liberal left. (Full disclosure: I was a summer intern at the Examiner and worked with Carney on multiple occasions.) NEWSBUSTERS: You hear, especially from Tea Party folks, the word socialist get thrown around a lot. But what you're describing, it's certainly not socialism because it works sort of within the framework of capitalism. Do you think the debate would be more honest maybe if it were actually a socialist capitalist dichotomy? TIM CARNEY: Oh yeah. I always tell my liberal friends, I wish that we were debating about a single payer vs. a free market health care. Instead, we've got two different kind of mixed economies. Something like the current status quo of health care, against an individual mandate where the government is requiring us to buy health care. Or on global warming, what Obama pushes is not some vast strict regulatory regime, it's a cap and trade plan where people can get rich off of gaming the system right, maybe doing what the government wants them to, but special carve-outs get written in. So calling Obama a socialist is off the mark. Saying that he believes in government control of the economy is accurate, but he still believes in sort of harnessing the power of profit and loss, and having the government kind of steer that ship while business does the driving. That's what I mean by Obamanomics is, it's big business together with big government changing the shape of the economy. NB: And obviously the price of that, as you point out, is that small businesses get crushed under the regulatory weight-- CARNEY: They get crushed because they can’t afford to comply with the regulations in the way the bigger guys can. The example I give in the book is Wal-Mart wanting an employer mandate on health care. A smaller retailer can’t necessarily provide the health care the government mandates, Wal-Mart can. That's their best thing is using their economies of scale to get a lower price for something. But also smaller businesses can't afford K Street lobbyists who make sure that the little details in the bill are beneficial to them or who know how to comply exactly with it, or who tweak the regulations, or who can go and actually get the handout being given. So the cost of regulation is one reason why big business benefits often from regulation, but the need for a lobbyist is another reason why small business is the biggest victim because they can't always afford a lobbyist. NB: It's very hard to reconcile what the president has done with his rhetoric during the campaign, and even his rhetoric now, he was stumping for Coakley, and he's talking about how 'we don't need another big business senator in Washington'. The way you describe it, Obamanomics is a necessary consequence of Obama's agenda, not necessarily how he would have set out to accomplish that agenda. CARNEY: Well, let me put it this way. What I'm not saying, and I write this explicitly in the book, what I'm not saying is that Obama is bought and paid for by special interests. You could look at all the money he got from Wall Street and the drug makers and look at how the drug makers benefit from health care reform and Obama likes all the bailouts and say, okay he was bought and paid for, but that's reading into his heart and mind and that’s just not something you can do from available evidence is know what his actual intentions are. I’d say there are two reasons why Obama ends up teaming up with the likes of Goldman Sachs and Pfizer. The first is tactical necessity. He needs allies in his efforts to make these broad changes, whether it’s Wall Street, health care, the environment, etcetera. The second is the economic laws that I was discussing earlier. Big government will inevitably benefit big business. A caveat there: a giant communist steamroller will crush big business. A single payer plan will crush big business. But the big government of the sort Obama is willing to do, a left of center big governme What do you think? Sorry, that last part cut in the middle: " The second is the economic laws that I was discussing earlier. Big government will inevitably benefit big business. A caveat there: a giant communist steamroller will crush big business. A single payer plan will crush big business. But the big government of the sort Obama is willing to do, a left of center big government, that will inevitably help big business. So you can even imagine Obama believed he was going to run the special interests out of town, and then he starts erecting his, you know, his health care reform, his cap and trade, and all of a sudden the big businesses come flocking going 'we love it! tweak this, tweak that, and we'll make profit.' And he might have been a bit surprised, but I don't think so considering that he raised more money form Wall Street than any candidate ever, he raised more money from the drug industry, from the health insurance industry, and even from the oil industry, than any candidate ever. I don't think he was surprised by the big business embrace of his agenda. NB: You I think refer to it as 'the big myth' in the book, sort of a useful myth, that even people who knew that Obama would not be this savior and stand up to big business and lobbyists, people like Paul Krugman would peddle this myth as a way to give Obama some populist appeal. CARNEY: Yeah, and the heart of the myth is that if it's big government, than it's anti-big business. That's the Krugman line. That's to some extent the Thomas Frank line. And now you’re seeing it again with Wall Street. 'Oh well Scott Brown's with Wall Street because he opposes this regulation.' Well, look at who the top Wall Street lobbyist is right now, it's a man named Thomas Nides, I talk about him in the book. He's a Morgan Stanley banker, who comes from Fannie Mae, we know what Fannie Mae was. Fannie Mae was sort of a money laundering operation for politically connected Democrats. The top lobbyist maxed out to Barack Obama, maxed out to Rahm Emanuel. These are the Wall Street lobbyists he pretends he's taking on. And I looked at the other WS lobbyists, they all have four, five, six visits to the white house. So Obama comes in, he says he's battling Wall Street, but he doesn't name who he's battling. He proposes regulations, and then, the next step, the unstated major premise here, is that business always wants to be deregulated. And so then he gets to tar his opponents as being the stooges of business even though there's no evidence right now that Wall Street is opposing regulation. They're opposing the rough idea of a big bank tax. And I promise you, just like you saw the health care reform get brought around to be exactly what the drug makers wanted, and some of what the health insurers wanted, you'll see the Wall Street regulation end up being the sort of thing that protects the big banks by keeping out smaller competitors. " Thoughts? Steve, he does a bit, later in the article. What, you don't think my quote was long enough? In any event, I agree it is on both sides.

Any websites out there that does not charge for free secondary market research for a specific city? Hi, I'm working on my marketing plan and I would like to find websites which offer free statistical information (secondary research is fine). For example, if a woman in Chicago earns 45k-60k a year, how much would she spend on dining out? I need this information for my target market.

Which best leads to prosperity, free markets or government’s central planning? Briefly support with one reason, mechanism or example. Don't forget to include your "team ID." Question 27) Scores so far: Republican 100% Independent 94% Democrat 76% Give your answer and identify your closest political "team." Each question is left in the default category the system chooses.

What is a traditional market system? If possible, please give an example. Also, is Singapore a traditional, planned or free market system? Thx

What to konw about Ethanol Industry ? and the result of this political idea? another state plan ?

What would be YOUR plan to resolve the health care problem in the U.S.?? It seems to me that every medical procedure that IS NOT covered under insurance has a price tag that has plummeted. Examples are Lasik, or RK surgery, plastic surgery, implants.... I remember when eye correction surgery was $20,000. Now you can get it for as cheap as $1,000. With that price drop, and the fact that insurance companies are not involved, should be a VALUABLE LESSON. Free Market is a beautiful thing.

Help! Urgent Econs question! ? What is a traditional market system? If possible, please give an example. Also, is Singapore a traditional, planned or free market system? Thx

Why my question about Why Socialized Healthcare is more expensive for all was erase? : government incompetent? In the fall of my sixth year of grade school, I was treated to my first real lesson in American politics on the occasion of the annual election for president of the student body. It was a lesson I have not forgotten after all these years, and a lesson which has gained increased importance for me in the current phase of the election cycle whenever I hear politicians making bombastic promises to reform healthcare. This memorable grade school election was hyped up for weeks by the faculty and administration who (in their zeal to indoctrinate us with "civic values"), led us to believe that our participation in the election constituted both a sacred right and a solemn duty. The event did not live up to the pompous hype. What actually transpired in the so-called "debate" preceding the election was a farcical competition to see which candidate could make the most fantastic and utopian promises to the student body. One candidate promised to get MC Hammer to perform at our school – prompting the most uproarious applause imaginable. Another promised to extend the summer and winter vacations by months. Still another promised to have candy and soda vending machines installed in every classroom, (although, to be fair to this particular candidate, this promise has actually been partially fulfilled by the public school board, which was eager to boost revenue by fattening their inmates with sweets). Since not a single student had any idea about what a "student body president" does, or had the wisdom to question the truth of their claims, we unsurprisingly elected the student who had made the most fantastic promise (the one who promised MC Hammer, in case you were wondering). The lesson for me was that we need to rationally analyze the fantastic promises of aspiring politicians, rather than blithely assume that they can deliver whatever they promise. If we fail to rationally analyze their promises, we have only ourselves to blame for the disillusionment that will inevitably follow. We learned this lesson the hard way when MC Hammer failed to make an appearance at our elementary school that year. Over the past few months, we have been treated to a slew of promises regarding healthcare reform that make this grade school lesson more important than ever. Virtually every Republican and Democratic presidential contender has made some ridiculous promise to reform healthcare in ways they claim will make healthcare both cheaper and more widely available for everyone. (The lone holdout in this competition to make the most utopian promises is Dr. Ron Paul, who is, quite simply, too wise and too virtuous to make impossible promises simply to get elected.) We have even been treated to a recent propaganda film promoting healthcare reforms that would make the Soviets and Nazis beam with pride. Before we start believing the fantastic promises of aspiring politicians and rich socialist filmmakers, however, let’s take a sober look at what would actually be required to make healthcare cheaper and more widely available for everyone in the United States. Armed with that knowledge, we would then be able to determine whether these plans to socialize American healthcare can actually deliver what they claim to be able to deliver. In other words, let’s find out what would actually be required to get MC Hammer to come to our school, before we simply assume that he’ll automatically come simply because some pompous little politician says he will. In order for any good or service to become cheaper and more widely available, one of two things must occur: 1) the production of the good or service must increase, or 2) the demand for the good or service must decrease. The second of these alternatives is very unlikely to occur in the healthcare industries in the United States over the next couple of decades, simply because the giant Baby Boomer generation is entering the stage of life when the demand for healthcare services tends to be highest. That leaves us with one, and only one, alternative. In order for healthcare services to become cheaper and more widely available in the United States, the supply of doctors, the supply of hospitals, and the availability of medical supplies and drugs must be increased in order for the price of these goods and services to fall and thus become more widely available to everyone. Once this obvious economic fact is recognized, it sheds a great deal of light on the healthcare promises of the current batch of presidential contenders. No presidential contender (with the lone exception, again, of Dr. Ron Paul), has ever promised that his (or, equally importantly, her) healthcare reforms will actually serve to increase the supply of healthcare goods and services. (Have you ever, for example, even heard a politician state that we need more doctors?) On the contrary, they strangely (and wrongly) view the supply of doctors and the supply of other healthcare goods as unchangeably fixed, and their so-called healthcare reforms thus only propose to divvy up the existing healthcare pie in different and politically-motivated ways. Since their proposed socialist reforms do not actually aim to increase the supply of doctors, medicine, and hospitals, it should be obvious that their proposals will not deliver what they claim they will deliver. The proposals logically cannot, in other words, decrease the price of healthcare or make it more widely available to everyone. For, on the one hand, if there is no increase in the supply of these goods and services, the price for these goods and services will remain exactly the same. Prices are determined by the supply of a good and the demand for it, and thus high prices cannot be altered simply by wishing them to change or changing the group who pays them. High prices can only be lowered by increasing the supply of the good or service. On the other hand, it should also be obvious that these proposals will not make healthcare more widely available to everyone, because they do not propose to increase the supply of healthcare services. They simply aim to distribute the existing supply of healthcare services somewhat differently. The proposals, in other words, do not aim to create more healthcare services that will make everyone better off; rather, they simply propose to take healthcare services from some people and give them to other people. They propose healthcare robbery, and nothing more. Recognizing these economic facts, moreover, leads us to ask the most critical question of all: Why is the supply of healthcare goods and services so restricted in the first place? Why are there so few doctors in this country, so few hospitals, and so few medical goods in this country, which is ultimately what causes the high prices? If we can answer these questions, we will have both identified the cause of our high healthcare costs, and identified the necessary means to lowering the prices of these goods and services. The answer to these questions is deceptively simple: The government of the United States has (through its arbitrary regulation and licensing of doctors, medical schools, hospitals, prescription drugs, and other medical goods) artificially restricted the supply of these goods and services below what would exist in the absence of these regulations. Were it not for these licensure and other regulatory acts by the U.S. government, entrepreneurs and individuals (spurred by the high price of these goods and services) would be flocking into the healthcare industries in droves, thus increasing the supply of these goods and services. Medical schools would be opening left and right, and students would be flocking to those schools in the anticipation that they would earn large incomes as doctors. Potential drug manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers would jump at the chance to enter the market, lured by the promise of high profits, were it not for suffocating government regulations that economically bar entry. The end result of freeing the market for medicine would be the necessary increase in the supply of healthcare goods and services, a consequent drop in prices, and the availability of healthcare goods and services would thus multiply exponentially – for everyone. The size of the healthcare pie has thus artificially been restricted to its current size by government licensure laws and other stifling regulation – the supply of doctors and medicine is not naturally any more fixed than is the supply of potato chips. The healthcare pie can and would be increased by simply freeing the market and ridding it of burdensome government interference. The answer to our healthcare woes is thus not more government regulation, or the shifting of payment for healthcare from individuals to the government. In the first place, we are the ones who pay the taxes that government would inevitably use to pay for healthcare were it socialized. We would, therefore, still be paying the same high prices (since the supply of these goods and services would be the same as before) – in addition to paying for the behemoth bureaucracy that would be required to run such a program. We would also put ourselves at the mercy of that same medical bureaucracy – which would inevitably possess the diabolical discretion to tell us when we can or cannot obtain services. The end result of socialization would be both an increase in the price of healthcare for those of us who pay taxes (since we would have to pay the same prices for healthcare services with our taxes, plus the added costs of a new healthcare bureaucracy), and the forfeiture of our individual liberty to determine when or if we want certain medical services. The solution lies not in socialized healthcare schemes that promise something impossible, but rather in freeing the market in healthcare, as has been advocated by Dr. Ron Paul. Only this solution would spur entry into the healthcare industries, increase the supply of doctors, and consequently reduce prices and increase the availability of these goods and services for everyone. This free market solution does not possess the rhetorical splendor of a ridiculous socialization scheme. All it has going for it is that it will actually work to lower the price of healthcare and make healthcare goods and services more widely available for everyone. We are all free, of course, to believe the fantastic healthcare promises of the current batch of opportunistic and mendacious politicians if we so choose. Just don’t complain to me or Dr. Ron Paul when MC Hammer doesn’t show up. July 16, 2007 Mark R. Crovelli

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....? es esta pagina link http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html The most important information dissemination my. Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja. If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

How many receipt-less voting machines are used nation-wide?

Is this the agenda of the liberal left, universal everything? Universal health care is all the rage on the Left. John Edwards and Barack Obama have unveiled plans for government medicine. Since 1993, Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton has been this idea’s poster girl. And why not? As this cause’s advocates insist, every American has a right to medical treatment. “I want to set a goal of universal, quality, affordable healthcare for every single man, woman, and child,” Hillary Clinton said July 3 in Iowa. As Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.) has explained, “I’m committed to universal healthcare coverage because, in America, healthcare is not a privilege, it’s a right.” But why stop there? Rather than target public assistance to the needy, Uncle Sam should do more. Lots more. In 2003, for example, the then-GOP Congress and the Republican White House enacted Medicare drug benefits for all seniors, including multi-millionaires. Similarly, Washington should shower tax dollars on national challenges, like a plane spraying fire retardant on a blazing forest. So, after 231 years of rugged individualism, the time is now, as Eva Peron sings in Evita, for “a government able to give us the things we deserve.” Washington owes America the Omnibus Universality Act of 2007. This comprehensive reform would offer citizens a cornucopia exploding with delights: Universal food. Every American has a right to food. Without it, you starve. We cannot let the savage free market control something as life-or-death as starvation prevention. Government Food Stamps already help poor people buy groceries. That does not go far enough. Low-income Americans still must choose from among Safeway, A&P, Whole Foods, and more. Having picked a store, more choices await: Meat or fish? Fresh peas or frozen? Coffee or tea? If tea, hot or iced? How dare we force the poor, or anyone else, to make so many decisions? The new Federal Food Board’s menus will be balanced, tasty, low-calorie, protein-rich, transfat-poor, free-range, and free of charge. Once the FFB controls those competing grocery stores, it will be a snap to assure that every FFB Calorie Maintenance Center provides just enough of these foodstuffs. To guarantee that Americans don’t eat too much, or too little, Universal Food Stamps will be mailed to every home with that month’s ration schedule. Cuba has perfected this system. It could be imported quickly and easily, without wasting precious time on new FFB feasibility studies or detailed guidelines. Universal housing. Every American has a right to housing. Without it, you freeze, especially in iceboxes like Chicago. That’s where Cabrini Green once stood. The government began blowing up much of that massive housing project in 1995. Nevertheless, its blueprints must exist somewhere. Washington should follow them to construct millions of similar units. Every American will receive free housing. Imagine the joy when we all share a single landlord. Universal transportation. Every American has a right to transportation. Without it, you’re stranded. Every city without a subway system should get one. Existing subways should expand and offer even more stops. As for long distances, let high-speed trains crisscross the country. And why not use abandoned Air Force B-52s to fly people from coast to coast? Of course, everyone rides for free. Universal clothes. Every American has a right to clothes. Without them, you’re naked. Once the new Federal Style Council nationalizes the Gap, Brooks Brothers, Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria’s Secret, and more, every American will have the free clothing needed to stay warm and dry, according to FSC standards. Every American will get new, uniform garments for work or play, specially crafted to eliminate design disparities and spare certain people the discomfort of looking unfashionable. Those navy-blue and bamboo-green outfits that took Peking by storm in the 1960s would make excellent patterns for such simple, easily maintained, ready-to-wear attire. Universal shoes. Every American has a right to shoes. Without them, you’re barefoot. And that’s no way to walk around this Great Society. The same principles apply as with Universal Clothes, but with respect to your feet. Yes, these are big changes. But the American people will understand them — and they will like them — thanks to a series of instructional motion pictures that will make all of this perfectly clear. And the ideal film company already exists to produce them: Universal Studios.

Do You Know The Truth Behind Bush's Healthcare Veto? The Truth Behind Bush's Healthcare Veto Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies. First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs. Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to re-examine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children." Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program." Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy. It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage. Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children? Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government — the Constitution be damned — should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie. What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it. As another example, consider the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Who can forget the Democrats' (Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's) insistence that the future solvency of this entitlement was in such jeopardy that it must be placed off limits in a lock box? Yet when President Bush attempted to reform this "third rail of politics," Democrats didn't just oppose the eminently sensible "partial privatization" aspect of his plan. They went further, completely reversing themselves and denying the system was in trouble at all. Our old friend Sen. Harry Reid said, "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period . . . The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created . . . [Bush is] exaggerating the solvency." This time they went to the other end of the chronological spectrum and used seniors as props. Here again, they pretended to be intervening for the very group of people their demagogic opposition was sure to harm: future Social Security recipients. Demonstrating once more their contempt for the private sector and free markets, they tried to scare seniors into believing President Bush was imperiling Social Security with his very modest proposal to allow participants to invest a small portion of their own funds. Bush's valiant effort was dead on arrival, and we kicked the ball down the road. This week, we were reminded of the consequences of this reckless procrastination when the first baby boomer of a projected 80 million, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, applied for her benefits. Despite the Democrats' denials in the name of protecting seniors –- most of whom are not yet seniors –- Social Security outlays are projected to exceed its receipts by 2041. In the meantime, Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of compassion, is advancing new plans every other week to dole out yet more government money to various groups of voters, er, beneficiaries. These newly promised funds obviously will not be available to pay off maturing Social Security IOUs. But without the slightest self-consciousness, Hillary rails against President Bush for irresponsibly increasing the deficit — though the deficit is, in fact, decreasing. But don't you ever forget how much she cares about the children whose financial future she's mortgaging. Just believe her and her colleagues that it is evil Republicans who are bankrupting our children with tax cuts that have grown the economy and shrunk the deficit. Conservatives must be prepared in this campaign season to return to their own free-market principles and expose the liberals' compassion for the ruse it is

Why wont the Obama and the democrats take responsibility for their part in this financial mess we are in? The Real Culprits In This Meltdown By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read More: Business & Regulation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory." Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck. And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America. As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud. Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million. Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses. In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk. But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America. At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households. The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope. There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road. But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts. Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions. While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge. Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it. To all of you who are so totally negative, I didn't say who I was supporting or one party is to take all blame. I'm just asking why wont dems accept responsibility for their part?

When is McCain going to be honest on what caused this mess? Is he going to start naming names? The Real Culprits In This Meltdown By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read More: Business & Regulation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory." Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck. And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America. As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud. Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million. Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses. In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk. But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America. At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households. The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope. There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road. But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts. Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions. While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge. Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it. *In the original version of this editorial, the Community Reinvestment Act was mistakenly listed as the "Community Redevelopment Act". http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Why is opposition playing politics? If someone disagrees with a bill or legislation on principle alone and says I won’t “play along” or I won’t compromise on this why is it considered playing Politics? For example – the Stimulus I personally as a voter disagree 100% with the premise of the “Bailout” (TARP) and I the constituent expect my elected officials to speak for me. In that, I also personally believe that any of those who voted for the passing of the “Bailout” to begin with should not be elected back to their position and plan to campaign hard against them (yes I am talking republicans as that is where my vote typically goes, not always but mostly) so If that person knows that and is not going along with said bill, why is that “playing politics” and not just standing up for what they believe is right? If I reach out to someone and say hey I think it is best for you to jump of that bridge and they fundamentally believe jumping off that bridge is death and refuse to compromise with me then does that mean they are not really my friend? Are they just playing friendship with me? I mean fundamentally I and many like me do not agree with the bailout and we think it is bad for America, We honestly believe it will cause more problems to the foundation of our economy and probably not even stimulate any short term growth either (though that part is questionable, depending on a few other things) so if I don’t see how it will help and I honestly think No this is the death of the free market and prosperity why would it be playing politics and not doing what we feel is right?

What's the difference between capitalism and socialism? At what SPECIFIC point does an economy cease to be socialist and become capitalist, or vice-versa? Examples: Japan is almost always seen as a capitalist economy; however, the Ministry of Finance is heavily and directly involved in the capital markets. This is apparent to anyone watching a large-cap stock on the Nikkei, which will often hover at arbitrary prices for arbitrary times. You might even say that Japan is a centrally-planned market economy, even though it's sort of a contradiction in terms. How would you classify the Japanese economy in terms of socialism/capitalism? Scandanavian countries like Sweden and Finland are generally perceived as socialist, yet despite lots of government participation in the economy, they have free product and capital markets, and rank very highly on indices of economic freedom, available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_historical_rankings How about it?

Why do people poo poo the fact that demand side stimulus creates jobs? ok...lets do this.... a) a tax cut to every big corporation earning $50 million dollars or more, and a cut in capital gains only applicable to those with capital gain in excess of $100,000 or more per year or b) a tax cut to everyone making less than $250,000 a year and a special tax credit to all small businesses with less than $5 million dollars a year in gross sales that rewards them for providing health care and the number of american citizens they hire. Why is it that people are so sure that plan a) would create more jobs? I personally think that plan b is more of a demand side stimulus which is aimed more at the middle class and creates more money avaiable for people who are not superrich who will then go out and spend the money on goods and services..in other words raising demand for goods and services...which will then entice the supply side to move to meet the demand by making investments to create those goods and services and creating jobs. Plan a which is a supply side approach does put money in the hands of those who can if they wish decide to invest it. But which is more reflective of a free economy.....demand being the leading indicator or supply? Isnt it backward to assume that the supply side will automatically do whats good for the economy? Could the supply side not be more likely to funnel their extra money into things that do not necessarily stimulate our economy..like investing it in foreign markets for example and creating jobs in other countries? I know what the conventional belief is..that a) is superior to b) but I think that its backward...I think that b is more important because if b is triggered than a will come forth to satisfy b and this is what the free market is all about. and everyone will be happy. I think that concentrating on a) is putting a lot of faith that the supply side has the best interest of the country at heart which is not necessarily the case...they have their own best interest at heart. justin...I think you made my point for me...when you said the rich will go elsewhere. the middle class will never go elsewhere ..they are more loyal to our country and our economy... and you miss my point...my point is not about punishing the rich..its about where a proposed tax cut should go and which is best for true stimulation of economy of USA. MY point is that when mid class has extra money it creates more business opportunities for the rich which will still allow them to make money. How are they being punished or cheated if they are making money?? the laws of economics say that demand drives supply and suppliers rush to meet demand. My proposal is more about true economics than your theory. Yours is more about some sort of elitism that assumes that somehow the rich have our best interest at heart. I repeat..and U yourself just said it...they dont...they have their own best interest at heart...even if it means closing factories here and sending them to China or India. its DEMAND ....FOLLOWED BY SUPPLY. nOT SUPPLY SOMEHOW CREATING DEMAND... think about it and you will see I am right. It is the people ..the consumers who must first have the ability and the extra cash to be able to want more goods....once that happens the rich will make their money when they give the consumers what they crave.. one more thing justin. there may have been a time when the supply side approach was effective, but in the new globalization era, it is no longer the best policy for a country to follow. Those multinational corporations are thinking more about global strategies to improve their profitability than whats best for the country..which should be what we the people care about and what the politicians should care about. So if boosting the american economy is the goal (no the chinese or the Indian or the Mexican etc..), then demand side is more appropriate as it attacks the problem more directly... this is a classic debate of elitism vs the people. Obviously you are bent on an ideology that the people must bend to the whims of the elite. I believe that the country is about the people and if the people are respected than all will be good. If the people get that tax cut and not the elite, the elite will make money anyway when the people spend it...... and your inflation argument is very weak.....what does it matter if a family decides it needs refrigerators and the market responds to that demand as opposed to some elite deciding they will make Big screen TV and push them on the public or maybe decide that china looks like a good place to invest that money. No matter what you say, you cant hide from fact my philosophy is more patriotic than yours. You sound like a globalist corporatist. you have no allegiance to the USA or its people or workers and families.

Why are most people ignorant of the fact that Hitler was a Keynesian? source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hitlers-economics.html For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context. The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. "Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide…. Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point." The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point. In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it." What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire." Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

unit 1 economics review for exam 10 points for best answer? 1. What is the opportunity cost of a decision? (1 point) the series of alternative decisions that could have been made the best possible way the question could have been decided the different ways that a different person might have made the decision the most desirable alternative given up for the decision 2. What is the purpose of competition? (1 point) to act as a regulating force in the marketplace to cause producers to attempt to put each other out of business to cause buyers to have to be careful about spending their money to act as a motivating force behind the free market 3. What incentive motivates a manufacturer to sell a product? (1 point) making profits on sales putting others out of business pleasing the consumer popularity of the product 4. All of the following are types of decisions that can be made at the margin EXCEPT (1 point) whether to grow beans or corn on a large farm. whether or not to hire 100 new workers. whether to leave early in the morning or late in the day for a trip. whether or not to go on a vacation. 5. Which of the following is a critical rule for determining whether something is a public good? (1 point) The benefit to each individual who uses the facility is greater than the cost. The benefits of the facility are greater for the society than for the individuals using it. The total benefits to society are greater than the total cost. The total cost is small for each individual taxpayer. 6. What best describes the role of government in a free enterprise system? (1 point) Control business activities. Decide what companies will be formed and then allow the managers to run them. Allow individuals to operate their businesses in ways they think will maximize their profits. Require companies to disclose information to consumers. 7. The government of a country must make a decision between increasing military spending and subsidizing wheat farmers. This kind of decision is a (1 point) guns or butter issue. decision at the margin. global trade-off. basic economic decision. 8. What is one benefit provided by Social Security? (1 point) medical care for the indigent cash transfers to workers injured on the job compensation for all who lose jobs retirement income for the elderly 9. The resources used to make all goods and services are the (1 point) production possibilities. factors of production. production trade-offs. opportunity costs. 10. What is positive externality? (1 point) a way to generate trade that will benefit people who are from other countries an economic side effect that generates unexpected benefits a cash flow that will benefit both the government and the businesses who interact with it an extra payment to welfare recipients 11. What is a factory building an example of? (1 point) human capital physical capital an economic trade-off technology 12. Which of the following is NOT a key economic question? (1 point) What goods and services should be produced? How should these goods and services be produced? Who consumes these goods and services? How should it be ensured that goods and services are paid for? 13. Production possibilities frontiers curve when they are charted on a graph because they show (1 point) the underutilization of resources. the maximum output of goods and services. the increasing costs resulting in increasingly less output. the technological level of the economy's productivity. 14. Which of the following is NOT characteristic of a centrally planned economy? (1 point) The central government owns all land and capital. The central government makes all economic decisions. Each collective or factory sets its own goals. Each person is assigned a job. 15. Which of the following is NOT an example of a public good? (1 point) shopping malls national parks highways municipal libraries 16. What does the process of specialization do for an economy? (1 point) It makes it more efficient. It eliminates unemployment. It fosters competition. It makes it easier to control. 17. What is the function of an economic system? (1 point) to make sure all people have equal access to goods to produce and distribute goods and services to give all producers the same access to consumers to make sure people are paid for their labor 18. What is the struggle among various producers for the consumer's business called? (1 point) socialism competition incentive self-regulation 19. Why does even a free market economy need some government intervention? (1 point) to provide for things that the marketplace does not address to ensure that the government has the freedom to tax as necessary to make sure that the government can fulfill its needs for military personnel so that the government has some control over factory resources 20. Who decided what the farmers would produce on Soviet collectives? (1 point) the farmers the military the governmen

"When Worlds Collide"........................details given below? In the article “When Worlds Collide” the opinions of three thinkers, Thomas Friedman, John Ralston Saul and Jeffery Sachs, are reviewed. Briefly describe the (3) three different solutions to today’s global inequities offered by Friedman, Saul and Sachs. (Approximate length of answer: 3 Paragraphs) THREE THINKERS OFFER THREE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO TODAY'S GLOBAL INEQUITIES The Live 8 concerts, broadcast internationally to an estimated audience of three billion and dedicated to pressuring western political leaders to tackle poverty in Africa, dominated the headlines earlier this summer. For a while at least, the 10 shows, which relied on a global logistics team using advanced telecommunications technology, and on media outlet co-operation worldwide, appeared to strike a chord, and united citizens far and wide to support an undoubtedly important cause. But after the Pet Shop Boys took the stage in Moscow's Red Square, and after crowds swayed to Neil Young in Barrie, Ont., how much was there left to cheer about? Because, although it's easy to agree that ridding the world of poverty is a worthwhile goal, just how to achieve that goal is clearly a much thornier proposition. Against this backdrop, new books from three global thinkers, dedicated to understanding the world we live in and suggesting ways to create a more equitable planet, can be found on store shelves. Their recommendations, not surprisingly, are drastically different. While Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat: A Bnef History of the Twenty-first Century (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, $38.50), suggests that integration is the key to global prosperity, John Ralston Saul argues nearly the opposite in The Collapse of Globalism (Viking Canada, $36), proclaiming the death of globalism as a good thing and reasserting the need for national power. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Sachs's The End of Poverty (Penguin, $40) posits that if rich countries would just increase foreign aid budgets, abject poverty would be eliminated. None of these tomes makes for light summer reading, but the most compelling of the three is Friedman's. In The World is Flat, Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times, argues that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, geopolitical change and technological innovations like PCs, the Internet and workflow software have resulted in an explosion of creative cross-border businesses and an increasingly "flat" playing field for commercial actors worldwide. Friedman's tidy description of the 10 flattening forces lays the groundwork for a provocative analysis of how America (and, by extension, Canada) can thrive in a world led by companies like HealthScribe India, a Bangalore-based firm that relies on satellites and digitization to provide transcription services for doctors working in the United States. While Friedman seems thoroughly convinced that greater trade and economic integration grows the global pie, upping standards of living everywhere and reducing the chances of war, the challenge lies in reconciling the benefits of a streamlined global marketplace with the immediate chaos that factors like outsourcing can cause locally. In Friedman's eyes, the rise of countries like India and China represents the beginning of an era in which the only way westerners can compete is by turning themselves into "untouchables"-people whose jobs cannot be outsourced. Friedman doesn't suggest the transition to a globalized economy-or a globalized society, for that matter-is straightforward. He acknowledges the difficulties of bridging cultural, political and legal divides, and the fact that, at times, the new world order produces absurd results. case-in-point: in 2003, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., an Indian consulting firm, won a multimillion-dollar contract to upgrade the claims-processing system of the unemployment department of the state of Indiana. The deal caused an uproar because, while it saved Indiana taxpayers US$8.1 million, it also cost local jobs. A modern conundrum. But Friedman's deep-seated belief that the forces of globalization are both desirable and unstoppable, and that intertwined economies are the great leveller, is a constant. The book's one weakness stems from Friedman's American bias. Despite his admiration for the flat world, he's adamant the U.S. ought to "dominate the twenty-first century the way it dominated the twentieth." But if collaboration is the key, why should anyone dominate? Meanwhile, in The Collapse ofGlobalism, Saul suggests that the trade liberalization mantra has run its course. He doesn't want privatization, deregulation, tax cuts or shrinking governments; nor, according to him, do the scholars and policy-makers who once sang their praises. Apparently awakened to the reality that market reforms alone do not provide peace and prosperity, the governing orthodoxy, he argues, now embraces details like democratic transition and the rule of law. Saul's key frustration is with people and institutions that advise that, as long as the commercial ties between countries are solid, everything else will fall into place. He goes on at some length about the importance of good governance and proposes a heightened focus on public goods as the only way to ensure justice for all. Moreover, Saul disagrees with the sentiment that borders should take a back seat to commerce. He points to recently reborn nation-states like Ukraine, Bulgaria and Latvia, whose people are reluctant to give an ounce of sovereignty over to a global system, and predicts the re-emergence of powerful nation-states as critical to the maintenance of a fair and balanced world. While Friedman and Saul view the world through very different lenses, they hold in common a tendency to focus on the West and BRIG countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China). In Sachs's The End of Poverty, the emphasis is reversed. Here, the American economist, who is also the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, focuses on the poorest of the poor, laying out a bold, detailed plan for abolishing extreme global poverty by the year 202 5. Outlining the plight of the 1.1 billion people, most of them in Africa and Asia, who get by on, at most, one dollar a day, Sachs argues that if the wealthy world would pony up between US$135 billion and US$195 billion per year in foreign aid over the next 10 years, and continue giving for 10 years after that, abject poverty would be stamped out. He attributes entrenched poverty to geographical bad luck, poor infrastructure and poor health care, and dismisses corruption or culture as possible culprits. Sachs is a fan of free markets, but he argues that market forces alone are not enough to help, say, an isolated village in Kenya grow out of poverty. He suggests the key is investments in agricultural inputs, basic health, education, power, transportation, safe drinking water and telecommunications. Sachs's experience turning around stumbling economies is impressive. He's not shy about it, either-the first half of the book is an autobiography of sorts, detailing his accomplishments dictating monetary policy and fiscal restraint everywhere from Bolivia to China. Reading Sachs's carefully crafted plans, complete with diagrams and budgets, one wants to have faith in the theory-that if only our political leaders would fork over the cash, poverty could be eradicated. Yet it's hard to believe; the technocratic approach seems at odds with messy reality. Each author calls upon a different set of characters to prove his point. Friedman relies heavily on interviews with businessmen whose cross-border ventures are booming; Saul illustrates his perspective with historical examples and comments from politicians and World Bank types. Sachs, on the other hand, invokes personal anecdotes, academic studies, maps and photographs for impact. Ultimately, it doesn't seem like one book has nailed it. Instead, while addressing the common theme of global inequity, each volume shines a spotlight on a different corner of the complex global landscape. In this case, it's only by considering each approach that a full-colour portrait of our times is revealed, and the need to embrace a variety of strategies in order to set the best course exposed.

Are our politicians grasping for all the wrong answers on the economy? Makework job creation? " With attention turning to the next big economic stimulus package, questions are still swirling about our economic troubles. How did we get here? How do we get out? As usual, Washington has all the wrong answers. According to many politicians, we got here by not spending enough, not consuming enough, and not regulating enough. Now government, like some mythical white knight, is going to ride in to save the day by blanketing the economy with dollars, hiring an army of new bureaucrats, creating make-work jobs, and sending everyone some form of a bailout check. The debate seems to focus on whether this will cost enough to save the economy, or if this is just a “down payment” with much more government spending to come. Talk like that would be comical, if the results weren’t going to be so tragic. Worsening Economic Woes Ahead The results will be worsening economic woes until we learn our lesson. But instead Congress is behaving like drug addicts who must hit rock bottom before they are ready to face reality. They are playing foolish games with the economy now because they are thinking only of political expedience. This talk of job creation is a perfect example. Contrary to the belief of many, the goal of the economy is not job creation. Jobs can be a sign of a healthy economy, as a high energy level can be a sign of a healthy body. But just as unhealthy substances can artificially give the addict that burst of energy that has nothing to do with health, artificially created jobs just exacerbate our problems. The goal of a healthy economy is productivity. Jobs are a positive outcome of that. A “job” could be to dig a hole one day, and fill it back up the next, or perhaps the equivalent at a desk. This does no one any good. "The Austrian school of economics teaches that only a free market economy, unencumbered by onerous government controls, creates long-term prosperity. Politicians, however, tend to be notoriously short-sighted." But the value in that paycheck ultimately has to come from taxing someone productive. Some think this round-robin type of economic model is supposed to get us somewhere. Politicians and bureaucrats have already done their fair share to ensure that jobs in the private sector are prohibitively complicated and expensive to create. They are now shocked that the economy is shedding jobs, and want to simply create hundreds of thousands of jobs to make up for the job losses, through another so-called economic stimulus package. The private sector must be permitted to do that, but instead they are massively burdened with taxes and webs of red tape and regulation. Washington’s bandaids will only prolong this agony. Long-Term Prosperity / Short-Sighted Gains The Austrian school of economics teaches that only a free market economy, unencumbered by onerous government controls, creates long-term prosperity. Politicians, however, tend to be notoriously short-sighted. I am left with these questions – who is going to be left standing to tax in the private sector to pay for all these public sector make-work jobs? Is Washington really to be considered some sort of savior for creating unproductive jobs in place of the productive jobs they eliminated? We are at an economic dead-end and those in power are in denial. The truth is our economic problems are due to loose monetary policy, central economic planning, and the parasitic expenses of government. Unless we assess these problems honestly, we unfortunately have a long way to go until, like the junkie, we hit rock bottom. http://www.quebecoislibre.org/09/090115-13.htm At least, that is what Ron Paul thinks. Do you agree, or not? Why? slew, I assure you I never meant to forgive other government sins by speaking out on the one.

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

How many receipt-less voting machines are used nation-wide?

How many receipt-less voting machines are used nation-wide?

If you believe Gore you will believe anything? We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough - irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent - for the environmentalists and their followers to suggestradical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now. In the past year, Al Gore's so-called "documentary" film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain's - more or less Tony Blair's - Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced. The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda". I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the "established" truth, although a lot of people - including top-class scientists - see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities. As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists. The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence. Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions). Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes. I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: "future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age". The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature. As a witness to today's worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following: *Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures *Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided *Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants *Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus", which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority *Instead of speaking about "the environment", let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour *Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction *Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

I think THIS is the right way to talk about the iraq war how about you? Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: We didn’t invade Iraq moron quit thinking like a liberal Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A: But they did, they found chemical and biological ones still intact, they just didn’t find any nuclear ones, stop listening to the liberal drive by media Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq? A: Some of it, you wouldn’t understand about the 17 UN resolutions and it sanctioned by the US Congress and the World Coalition, but that’s because you are listening to that liberal crap again Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: “SMACK”, weren’t you listening or were you just flapping your gums so you can hear yourself speak like all liberal morons? Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, silly. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what was that? A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country, not to mention that he had already invaded Kuwait earlier and had to be put in his place, and since then has refused to abide by the ceasefire, and has constantly broke the “no fly zone” Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people, and killed thousand of the Kurds using those same WMD’s we were talking about, weren’t you listening again? Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: No China didn’t invade anyone like Saddam did in Kuwait and threaten the worlds oil markets, so Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages (the comparison being what we get for wages here in the good ole USA, because those wages in China are and have improved their standard of living) in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer, besides China exports more than the US does, they are now 2nd in the world. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: I guess it’s a matter of definition then, cause exploitation by your liberal *** definition might be a enormous raise in that families standard of living to them….weren’t you listening again you moron…SMACK! Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, I told you all communisms is bad, do I have to smack you again? Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. They hate being oppressed which is why they criticized the government in the first place, and others have been escaping there to come to America ever since Castro took over and found that his system doesn’t work, which is why they are so poor! Q: Like in Iraq? A: No, the Iraq people are now free to choose and they have. They chose a new democracy and a new government, and will be a shinning example of capitalism in the mideast if the outside insurgence and it’s neighbors would leave them alone!. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand is a boil on God’s butt! Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us, well something like that, I don’t rightly know but you being the moron you are and liberal you won’t know any difference. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? A: Don't be a smart-***. You are stupid aren’t you! Communism and Capitolism don’t work side by side. You first have to let communism either implode on it’s on like it always does or wait for the people to be so tired of being oppressed that they will revolt to get what they want. Unfortunately Castro has become what he displaced. Q: I didn't think I was being one. A: That’s because you are a simplistic liberal moron that has mush for brains, but when you grow up and become a Republican you will be a productive member of society and rather than living off the taxes of others! this was posted by another user, wing shooter sorry man I could not resist! okay to the people who dont read, this was POSTED BY ANOTHER USER, and yes I'm a republican, and support the iraq war is that so hard to believe? just ask sean x he will vouch for me. but its probably going to end with stupid american or somthing like that.

What is the relationship between 911 and Saddam?

Jews of Iraq? What about them?

is this french?

Will Al Sharpton be there to protest the Pimp & Ho Party in Atlanta? Group to protest 'Pimp's and Ho's' party By Jill Young Miller Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 05/17/07 By JILL YOUNG MILLER jymiller@ajc.com Protesters plan to gather Friday night outside an Atlanta club that's hosting an event advertised as a "Pimp's and Ho's" party. Meanwhile, Fever nightclub's marketing director, Tucker Kroll, said he wasn't even aware of the ads until a newspaper reporter called him. He said a promoter that Fever hires to draw people to the club, not the club itself, was responsible for the Internet ads that put a unique "twist" on the night. "I'm not going to ask him to stop," Kroll said Thursday. "It's a day before the party." The ads, from Poplife Entertainment in Atlanta, quickly sparked the formation of a group — Advocates Against the Exploitation of Young Women — to protest at the club at 1789 Cheshire Bridge Road. Erik Voss, a protest organizer, said he and others will protest also because Girls Gone Wild, a company that films women willing to bare their breasts and kiss each other for things like tank tops and trucker hats, is hosting the evening. Footage could wind up on one of the "real girls" videos the company puts out. "They have been known to exploit young women," Voss said. Kroll called the event "just a harmless party." He said, "There's no ill intention to demean girls or anything like that." Barry Roesler, a spokesman for Girls Gone Wild, said Thursday he had no comment. In September, Joe Francis and the California-based company he built on "Girls Gone Wild" videos pleaded guilty to violating federal laws designed to prevent sexual exploitation of children and agreed to pay fines totaling $2.1 million. Under a deal with the Justice Department, Francis agreed to personally pay a $500,000 fine to settle charges in Los Angeles that he failed to keep records of the ages and identities of women in his films, according to news reports. As a result, Francis said in a statement, footage of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct appeared in at least two DVDs he released. Voss said he expects from 20 to 50 people to turn out for the protest. "We're going to create awareness about the problem of the pimping of young women and the derogatory term that they use — which is 'hos' — for the young women that they exploit," he said. Among protesters may be Mayor Shirley Franklin's policy adviser on women's issues, Stephanie Davis. Davis said the event is "just one more example of how our culture is glamorizing prostitution and main-streaming the behavior so that the buying and selling of bodies becomes acceptable." Hernan Piraquive, president of Poplife, said "it's all about having a good time. It's like Halloween. People dress up as monsters." That doesn't make them monsters, he said. Piraquive posted the "pimp's and ho's party" ads. "You can't make everyone happy," he said. "But I respect their right to protest. They have freedom of speech just like I do." Said Voss, "We're using our free speech rights to call attention to these events as glamorizing something that is absolutely abhorrent."

Please I need help with my HW? Please read and let me know how you would analyze this article:The Water Crisis: Analysis and Proposals By Celine Tan Water and sanitation is the first of five priority action areas under the WEHAB plan for the post-WSSD implementation of sustainable development. The challenge of providing safe and clean water and sanitary conditions for an increasing world population, in the face of rising inequities, is phenomenal. Forty percent of the world’s population, in 80 countries, currently suffer from serious water shortages. A billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to adequate sanitation (Global Economic Outlook 2002). Yet, the biggest threat to universal access to clean water and adequate sanitation is not mother nature but corporate globalisation. Privatisation of water is aggressively exported to the developing world under the rubric of poverty reduction and debt relief strategies, free trade and economic development. By turning a scarce resource into an economic commodity, the world’s economic leaders and policy planners claim that existing water resources can be managed and consumed efficiently in accordance with competitive market principles. These claims are not only misguided, they are deceitful. There are two myths being projected: first, that placing a price on water will encourage conservation and wise water consumption. Secondly, that market competition will lead to more consumer choice and better services. In reality, the water sector is monopolistic when placed in the hands of the market. It is thus alarming that the commodification of water resources is now heralded as the answer to the world’s water woes. Monopoly and subsidies for corporations Water is a US$400 billion global business, controlled by a handful of European transnational companies and consortiums, namely French multinationals Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise, SAUR and British water companies Thames Water, Anglia Water and United Utilities. The global drive towards privatisation of water services is thus pursued not by a collective of democratically elected governments acting in the interest of the world’s population, but by a cartel of corporations motivated by profit and market conquest. To make matters worse, these companies are subsidised by their governments (and invariably their taxpayers) through support from domestic export credit agencies, and by multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank. They are also subsidised by developing countries who raise credit from international financial institutions to upgrade their water systems prior to private takeover. This corporate subsidy comes at the expense of consumers, most of them in developing countries, who are made to pay for what is a necessity of life. For the poor this means no access to water. Additional loans to facilitate the privatisation process are raised by developing country governments from multilateral and bilateral sources. Often, these loans are also used to finance the creation of an ‘enabling environment’ for foreign water and wastewater investors. This includes the drafting of local investor protection legislation to guard against re-nationalisation of the water industry and to provide for hefty compensation for any attempt to renege (for good reasons) against the privatisation contracts. In many cases, corporate access to a developing country’s water system is paved by a loan or debt relief conditionality requiring the poor or indebted country to privatise its water and sanitation services. For example, the IMF insisted that Tanzania privatise its Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority (DAWSA) as a condition of its debt relief package under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Fallacy of privatisation Experience shows that the privatisation of water services cannot ensure universal delivery of safe water and efficient sanitation. Privatisation imposes additional financial obligations on governments. They may have to bail out failed privatisation project, and also shoulder the costly legal risks of rescinding a privatisation contract with a wealthy transnational, even if the company’s performance is unsatisfactory. Argentina, Hungary and Bolivia have found that the legal claims for compensation by private water companies in Tucuman, Szeged and Cochabamba respectively, have made terminating contracts prohibitively expensive. The dominance of foreign water companies and the liberalised investment climate - mostly facilitated by structural adjustment, and now under trade agreements including those under the WTO Ð in developing countries will also ensure that a large portion of profits from water privatisation will not accrue to the countries themselves but are repatriated abroad instead. The imposition of full-cost water pricing as a result of privatisation will only deprive more and more people of access to clean and safe water by forcing poor communities to seek alternative sources of water for consumption, such as untreated well water and water from sewage-ridden urban rivers. Forced upon rich and poor, consumers and industrial producers, similar rates for water use will also result in greater income disparity and deeper social cleavages, leading to higher risks of civil unrest. In 2000, martial law was declared in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba as a result of city-wide riots precipitated by high water prices. A private consortium led by International Water doubled the water prices to city residents. Water bills went up by 35% and some, twice that. The World Bank supported full-cost water pricing and prohibited any use of its structural adjustment loans to subsidise water services for the poor. Future fears and WSSD outcomes There is no agreement on the text in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation that commits governments to supporting the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford, safe drinking water and access improved sanitation (paragraphs 7 and 7[alt]). However, the most pressing concerns over universal coverage of water and sanitation services are not expressed in these bracketed paragraphs. Rather, they are reflected in the general lack of political will demonstrated by developed countries to address the systemic issues leading to a crisis of sustainable development in the south, and the alarming emphasis placed on public-private partnership funding and implementation of sustainable development programmes. The relinquishing of responsibility by developed countries is marked by their reluctance to commit to specific disbursements of ODA and by repeated references to voluntary partnerships and initiatives as a means of financing WSSD programmatic outcomes. In the absence of firm commitments by governments, Type II partnerships on water and sanitation services will only increase private sector involvement in this crucial area. The private sector is already identified as a key implementer of the ‘Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) for All Initiative’ involving 28 countries, six UN agencies, the World Bank, and the Asian and African Development Banks. Another major threat to universal access to water and sanitation is liberalisation under the WTO’s rules. Although Member countries have the right to liberalise at their own pace, and even choose not to open up a sector under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), there is tremendous pressure especially on developing countries to liberalise. Thus in the ongoing negotiations at the WTO, developed countries are submitting extensive ÒrequestsÓ that seek access to every sector in the developing world, including water services and sanitation. If developing countries succumb, privatisation of water services initiated under World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes could become permanent under the binding rules of the WTO. Once a country is locked into the GATS regime, the right of its government to regulate liberalized service sectors will be diminished, paving the way for foreign transnationals to enter the domestic market. Any attempt to reverse the situation would be subject to WTO disciplines and penalties. Any real effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goal must therefore include commitments to review loan conditionalities that impose privatisation and countries must not be pressured to offer water services under GATS liberalisation. Essential services should be exempted from GATS. Conclusion Privatisation does not address the deeper economic and ecological issues of water shortages. Questions of why there are water shortages in countries not under water stress are not resolved by shifting responsibility of service provision to private companies. Water management and water distribution are also key factors in determining water supply and universal coverage. Until and unless rich countries fulfil their commitment to provide resources for developing countries to build solid, cost-effective water delivery systems which support the needs of the world’s population equitably and ecologically, the water woes of the world will not go away. At the same time, all governments need to recognise and support the diversity and replication of community water management systems and practices. These have proven in many countries to be the most sustainable approach to rural water management for rural populations. The WSSD process and the last 10 years of the work of the CSD have called for good and best practices in sustainable development. However, where water resources are concerned the trend and emphasis are privatisation which has proven destructive. Firm commitments must be made at the WSSD to reverse the trend of corporate takeover in the water and sanitation sector, rather than to accelerate the process of privatisation and corporate monopoly. Undermining the sovereign power of governments to regulate supply of water in their countries and passing the bucket onto private transnationals to steward the world’s water resources would probably be a most anti-development and anti-ecological step.

What video card should I use? Hi! I'm in the market for a new video card, mainly for playing Sims 2. I have all except two of the expansion packs, which I plan on buying very soon. As an example, here's how the water looks in the game. http://picasaweb.google.com/aerie.aerie/DismaysOfTheGame/photo#5196690587923728866 Anyways. I'm on a budget and would be incredibly happy if it were under a hundred dollars. If that's not possible, feel free to say so. Here are my system specs --- Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) System Model: Dell DE051 BIOS: Pheonix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A00 Processor: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.53GHz Memory: 1022MB RAM Page File: 557 MB used, 1907 MB available Thank you very much in advance. Ehhh, I'm not too much of a computer expert, but here's what I could find. On the front of the computer (her name's Dana, actually) it says Dimension B110. She's a Dell computer and it has a blue tag that says Intel Celeron D inside.

The date is Sep 11th 2051, can i take you back 50 years.....? Summary: Since September 11, 2051, with the passing of the 50th anniversary of the 911 destruction, which resulted in the gradual destruction of the USA as both a republic and a democracy, this comprehensive history sought to understand, Just what happened and why. To summarize: The 911 destruction, portrayed persistently in the immediate aftermath, as a terrorist attack fifty years ago, proved in time to have been a combined black operation by the New Triple Alliance (NTA). The alliance of Israel, Britain and the USA sought to engineer popular antipathy towards weaker oil-bearing, Islamic countries for a multitude of reasons. Chiefly because the three NTA countries possessed few or fast depleting oil resources by the end of the 20th century, powerbrokers within the CFR and the NTA decided to stage a highly sensational "attack." The planning for this attack required years of careful yet secretive planning in advance and the cooperation of highly placed criminal elements within each of the three governments. Initially, the attack seemed to be a success. But by 2008 polls indicated many US citizens, disgruntled by endless wars, endless security measures, endless administration deception and, especially, the disaster of the US dollar, began to press for a fuller investigation. Also the widespread use of 911 "truth" (videos, lectures, websites, public speeches, etc) forced an uncomfortable awareness on Americans, followed by predictable anger and rage. In the election year of 2008, during a period of intensely low ratings for the outgoing president GW Bush, another highly suspicious false flag "attack" nearly occurred. Fortunately the bomb planters were caught, not only on CCTV cameras but on dozens of cell phone cams too. (At the time, widespread Internet use of "You Tube" allowed immediate coverage of an event often censored by the then US media). Critics noted that several federal agencies intended to declare martial law and possibly cancel the national elections. These accusations were never fully investigated. Soon after the startling arrest of the group of swarthy men, apprehended in a pair of white vans, confessions by the would-be-bombers followed. The motley group of CIA, MI-5 and Mossad agents admitted, under torture by local Texas police officers, that they worked under the covert direction of the three NTA governments. Public denial, shock and heavy media suppression of the story, predictably followed. The detainees were questioned in secret by the FBI and most of them deported several months later. Following a number of suicides among retired US officers, many of them formerly with the Pentagon, key generals stepped forward in 2012 and publicly confessed to their involvement in the initial 911 attack. Claiming misguided patriotism (resulting in mass murder), the former high-ranking officers, many connected to Able Danger, testified in great detail to their limited, albeit crucial, involvement. The house of cards, long known simply as 911, collapsed nearly as quickly as the dollar. Widespread acts of civil disobedience, coupled with intense demands for an unbiased investigation, followed by the flight of several key suspects, among them Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Marvin Bush, Phillip Zelikow, et al and the untimely deaths of others, among them Larry Silverstein, Rudi Giuliani, Dick Cheney, et al, lent weight to those demanding a true investigation. After long ignoring growing public demand, Congress finally authorized a committee with full subpoena powers. Several citizen watchdog groups volunteered to oversee the entire process. Demanding full disclosure, the watchdog groups pointed to the much-discredited, Kean-Hamiliton 911 Commission Report as an example of the sort of brazen government cover up to be avoided. By 2020, with the US in the tenth year of a lengthy austerity program, precipitated by the sudden crash of the US dollar, a predictable crash and painful depression due to several wasteful foreign wars, and the resultant massive corruption/ inflation they entailed, Congress finally authorized the new 911 Report. After 24 months and thousands of witnesses, all of the testimony open to the public, the investigation concluded. Called simply the 911 Report, the 911-page document detailed massive criminal intent, perjury, premeditated murder, treason, arson, skyjacking, embezzlement, crimes against humanity and widespread government complicity within the top echelons of the FBI, NORAD, NIST and the NSA. Under pressure, the US Supreme Court issued indictments toward the end of 2022. Arrests followed, suicides occurred, arraignment and convictions resulted, lengthy prison sentences, lethal injections (for treason & mass murder) and disgrace for hundreds of those involved was the inevitable result. Both the House of Bush and The House of Clinton, twin dynasties linked together in decades-long criminal activities, had now fallen into deserved disrepute, akin to modern-day Medicis or Corleones, but with far fewer scruples. Conclusion: Because 911 was never fully investigated immediately after September 11, 2001, the massive crimes committed were allowed to go unpunished. Thus the perpetrators were free to commit far greater crimes and reap huge monetary rewards for themselves and their cronies. The resultant wars with Afghanistan and Iraq, the widespread corruption and waste, the toxic spread of DU, the deaths of thousand of US troops and permanent injury to tens of thousands of others, the consensual murder of more than one million Iraqis and the theft of Iraqi oil for NTA members, followed finally by the ill-chosen attempt to strike Iran by the combined military forces of the NTA, and the collapse of the inflated US dollar, at last awakened the world to the full criminal intents of the globalists behind the scenes. Fully half those subpoenaed and a third of those indicted, under the new 911 investigations, held membership in the CFR. Still, the fallout from 911 continues to resonant today. The nearly 3,000 murdered on September 11, 2001 led to a further 30,000 early deaths of heroic first responders due to carcinogens in the air of lower Manhattan. The premeditated poisoning of New York, through the pre-planned yet highly profitable destruction of the World Trade Center, then led to wholesale poisoning, plundering and persecution of the Persian Gulf. Nearly three million (and counting) were killed in the NTA wars against oil-rich Islamic nations between the years 2002--2012. Fifty years later, with the benefit of access to historical documents, the worldview of the master planners of 911 can be clearly seen, recognized and condemned, for what it evidently was: An inside job, perpetrated by a few immoral men, not that far removed from Hitler, bent on worldwide domination and the control and manipulation of world markets. Yes its long, but do read it! enjoy, thanx for your +ve answers, remember where you read it first ! ;o) open your eyes....

How many receipt-less voting machines are used nation-wide?