Replies To Bunch Of Replies

Replies To Bunch of Replies(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.01.14 6:32 (#17595480) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2007.01.14 2:09)
1. Economics is not a zero sum game: Not unless you have infinite supplies of resources to go along with that infinitely big ego it isn't. You eventually run out of stuff. True, it might take until your bank account equals the number of atoms in the universe, but that isn't an infinite number either; just an unimaginably large one. -Marxist Hacker 42
Economics ought not to be a zero sum game. But resourses we can use are so limited, so we need to develop new resourses constantly or sustainably just slightly more than enough to back your theory.
2. Protectionism: I believe in local economics first- that you should support the neighbor you know over the third world slave you don't. This is for two reasons- the first is that you're more likely to be willing to pay $500 for a DVD player if you actually know the family of the guy who put it together, and the second is that without providing for that job you're creating local poverty which is a bad idea for YOUR real estate value.
I understand where you put your value and I'd like to think highly of it.
3. There's a correlation between angry people and who the business owner chooses to lay off: Damned straight there's a correlation. But statistical correlations are notoriously bad at showing cause and effect. Sometimes there is no link between numbers that have a correlation. In this case, I think there is, but the cause and effect is backwards: being laid off will cause any human being to become paranoid and angry to the point of being illogical- because the "logic" of economics is directly opposed to their personal experience. Since observed behavior is a superior judgement of reality to stupid theories, the theory of economics should bow to the reality of being laid off.
Forgive and forget. I was fired and laid off just numerous times. They were designed to see only trees but never able to see woods. They were destined to do so. It was not their fault.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters