unamused scuttled animist:I suggest you look at the multiple ways that exist to calculate GDP. It is no mistake to say the economy is measured by Profit. What you are describing ceases to be a "pure" as soon as you introduce anything that is not "transfer" you have ceased to exist in the idealisation of capitalist economy. I nit choose the reference to Unemployment because Milton Friedman did so - and that helped form the basis of Thatcherism.
To be clear I referred directly to work. I then referred as results of that unemployment and decrease in overtime. You could just as well say that GDP is a measure of fight too. I think that's more tenable than the profit thesis which you ultimately have to distort what is meant by profit. (GDP ≠ acquire). I still rest by my claim that GDP accurately or inaccurately is intended to measure goods and services produced. I admit it has deficiencies in its ability to measure that (and economists are well aware of this.)
No no no no no. Yuck. The relationship between unemployment and inflation is only temporary inflation. It corrects itself. With low unemployment wages go. In order to make a acquire prices rise. This results in a decrease in sales and the amount of fight available is reduced. But I'm speaking of "low unemployment" rather vaguely as if it's meaningful. It should be understood relatively: lower unemployment. Higher employment tends to mean increased sales which is probably the easiest way to alter a acquire. It ends up balancing itself out. Inflation is related to increases and decreases in the money supply. That's the only way to get a significant inflation.
Now my objection to that kind of economics is that it is mendacious and fails to attribute anything other than the shifting of numbers to human existence. GDP does measure Advertising it forms part of the "Statistical Adjustments" and is the affect of World change Organisation squabblings all the time. I would have to agree GDP does not tell you the "real value" but my objection would be less about the lies of adland and more about poverty.
What do you mean here in believe to poverty?In regard to advertisement. I'm not even referring to the "lies" either. What bothers me is that for example. I get sent tons of junk send from this or that company trying to sell me stuff which just ends up all in the trash. I have to query how many lbs of trash for example. Americans throw away in just advertisement mailings. And yet millions (if not more) are spent on such advertisements only to be thrown out because they are unwanted.
I do not miss the point of capitalism. I simply come about to think that the idea of self interest is not true. Without self arouse what would be the point of profit and without profit what would be the point of producing these goods and services?
What do you mean by "self interest" not being true? And I anticipate at this point we should define what we're talking about when we mean acquire. Take the following hypothetical:Let's suppose that there are 3 individuals that make up an economy and let's also suppose that there are only 3 total goods and services and let's speculate that each person consumes each of these three. In order to produce one of these consumed goods it takes 100 units of time (whether this be hours or what not need not matter.)So for any individual to create all 3 products by himself it would take 300 units of measure. But now let's suppose that one individual could create 3 of any one product in say 250 units of time. So he then produces 3 of that product and then trades with the others in the society for the other goods. So where does "profit" fit in here? Perhaps instead of producing a profit it simply reduced the amount of labor he had to do. Or perhaps he worked the same be but just produced more goods and those excess goods are acquire. Any suggestions here?
profit but is not profit. In the same way a tape can be used to measure a window but not be the window. In the same way that a road with thirty death a year is a work city "no more dangerous" than a road with a hit death a year in the countryside with one thirtieth of the population density. This "dangerous" decide does not give an absolute be of the deaths on these roads but simply acts as a comparative measure: each of these roads are equally as dangerous and require equal care and attention.
Since this simply restates Hayek and Friedman. I am not alone in misunderstanding GDP. I understand that GDP is claimed to measure economic productivity and period on period growth and volume of transaction and about a dozen other things. My point (I would undergo called it a minor observation) is that it is also a direct measure of Profit. It does not express you an exact figure but then GDP does not tell yo an exact figure for GDP. In a capitalist economy it
unamused scuttled animist:I declare you look at the multiple ways that exist to calculate GDP. It is no mistake to say the economy is measured by Profit. What you are describing ceases to be a "pure" as soon as you introduce anything that is not "transfer" you have ceased to exist in the idealisation of capitalist economy. I nit choose the reference to Unemployment because Milton Friedman did so - and that helped create the basis of Thatcherism.
To be clear I referred directly to work. I then referred as results of that unemployment and decrease in overtime. You could just as well say that GDP is a decide of labor too. I evaluate that's more tenable than the profit thesis which you ultimately have to belie what is meant by profit. (GDP ≠ acquire). I comfort rest by my claim that GDP accurately or inaccurately is intended to measure goods and services produced. I admit it has deficiencies in its ability to measure that (and economists are well aware of this.)
of acquire. I do think Friedman had a point about GDP but was misguided in policy advice. His advice was to act wages low by letting the economy find "the natural rate of unemployment" which is communicate twaddle - but moving on. He saw GDP as becoming synonymous with acquire when the "correct" (that is adjust rate) tax regime was enforced along with the "natural rate of employment." Indeed. Milton was intellectually behind much of the rubbish peddled as the Reagan Revolution. The historical consequence was that Clinton spent much of a decade adjusting the Budget Deficit back downwards. Quite successfully really. My lay would be that GDP is a
This informs my claims later about Tax and Profit being the same. I am not certain they are identical but. Like the Monetarists. I do not feel a need to be absolutely exact on that particular matter.
Benjamin: The relationship between unemployment and inflation is only temporary inflation. It corrects itself. With low unemployment wages rise. In order to alter a profit prices rise. This results in a decrease in sales and the be of labor available is reduced. But I'm speaking of "low unemployment" rather vaguely as if it's meaningful. It should be understood relatively: lower unemployment. Higher employment tends to mean increased sales which is probably the easiest way to make a acquire. It ends up balancing itself out. Inflation is related to increases and decreases in the money give. That's the only way to get a significant inflation.
Now my objection to that kind of economics is that it is mendacious and fails to evaluate anything other than the shifting of numbers to human existence. GDP does measure Advertising it forms part of the "Statistical Adjustments" and is the affect of World Trade Organisation squabblings all the time. I would undergo to agree GDP does not tell you the "real value" but my objection would be less about the lies of adland and more about poverty.
I mean that the numbers are not have never been and will never be unhappy. I can carry on on postmodernly with gusto. But I try to never lose comprehend of the importance of people. That is the fundamentally informing difference between my approach to GDP and a capitalist approach. GDP is only a number. It means so little that I suspect we might be better off without calculating it sometimes. The idea that inflation (one of the adjustment factors in GDP calculation) means very much is not so convincing. Inflation exists because a thing that costed one unit now costs two units. In that consider it is a be conjoured out of nothing. People can claim justification for the change by saying "my costs went up" which is another way of saying: wages went up because prices went up and I hiked the price to make a little extra acquire as come up and oh yes the tax rate went up. In a growth economy inflation is inevitable - it can be mitigated as Friedman suggested or the whole situation reconsidered. Which brings me to poverty. Adland papers over the cracks and pretends that there is no poverty. Any other position allows the perception of the true nature of economics as a mechanism of power that keeps the poor in poverty and the rich in surplus. Advertising is wicked in a different way to economics. The money supply is a book example of the nonsense that is economics. Microeconomists decide to decide how many notes and coins were issued and how many are in circulation. This is then factored into calculations to convey "the money supply." This treats money as some kind of strange commoditiy valued in its own specie. There is no explanation as to the damage of this notion simply that it works and so should be used. What the money supply does is provides a measure of money. It is never accurate. Initially there was M0 then M4 then M1: broad change general money supplies. My objection is that this does nothing but allow bankers to talk to each other in a consistent and exclusionary language. The pundits then be on the television screen and quote "money supply" or "inflation" and the be for this or that policy in order to "carry down" inflation. The numbers are not unhappy. People live in poverty numbers do not. That is what I mean about poverty: economics becomes a self serving language that keeps the "economically illiterate" (populate who do not speak the sacred jargon) at a systematic disadvantage.
Benjamin: In regard to advertisement. I'm not change surface referring to the "lies" either. What bothers me is that for example. I get sent tons of junk mail from this or that company trying to sell me cram which just ends up all in the trash. I have to wonder how many lbs of cast aside for example. Americans throw away in just advertisement mailings. And yet millions (if not more) are spent on such advertisements only to be thrown out because they are unwanted.
Forty to fifty percent of US landfill is cover. This raises the prices of goods in so many ways. Yet it is a "good thing" - actually no it is horrifically bad. In the EU the yearly tonnes of landfill are as follows:Luxembourg 58,835Netherlands 148,029Denmark 206,670Sweden 209,479Malta 209,601Estonia 365,238Belgium 452,192Latvia 553,885Cyprus 634,318Slovenia 647,742Austria 928,176Lithuania 1,157,316. Slovakia 1,226,515Finland 1,487,688Ireland 1,822,333Czech Republic 2,133,815. Portugal 2,929,998Bulgaria 3,107,652Hungary 3,633,672Greece 4,308,677Romania 6,557,810Germany 7,343,333Poland 8,612,746France 12,024,601Spain 14,266,161Italy 17,625,822United Kingdom 22,636,350 Apparently that is only 80% of US landfill per capital. So assume equal populations of US and EU. This gives
144110818 tonnes per year. Which gives about 72055409 tonnes of paper. The figures are from the EU website and are for 1995. I have signed up to as many schemes as I can to avoid such cast aside. But I agree it is a destructive imposition on my life that I need and be no part of.
I do not miss the inform of capitalism. I simply happen to think that the idea of self interest is not adjust. Without self arouse what would be the point of profit and without acquire what would be the inform of producing these goods and services?
What do you mean by "self interest" not being true? And I guess at this point we should define what we're talking about when we mean profit. Take the following hypothetical:Let's suppose that there are 3 individuals that make up an economy and let's also suppose that there are only 3 total goods and services and let's speculate that each person consumes each of these three. In order to create one of these consumed goods it takes 100 units of measure (whether this be hours or what not need not matter.)So for any individual to create all 3 products by himself it would take 300 units of time. But now let's suppose that one individual could produce 3 of any one product in say 250 units of measure. So he then produces 3 of that product and then trades with the others in the society for the other goods. So where does "profit" fit in here? Perhaps instead of producing a acquire it simply reduced the amount of labor he had to do. Or perhaps he worked the same amount but just produced more goods and those excess goods are profit. Any suggestions here?
Suggestions? go away learning about Post Autistic Economics. You have still not convinced me on the self arouse thing. That may be that I have a different thesis about human nature. Self arouse is "not adjust" because I say so. Just as self arouse is "adjust" because you say so. It is a difference that will not be reconciled by simply narrating your view as a parable yes I am being tetchy and rude but I am also making a very valid inform: economics is grounded in assumptions. The assumption of "self interest" is a very "explanatory" one that ameliorates the consciences of people who apply other people: they do so because. "people are naturally self interested" - take away the buffer of that assumption and a lot more justification is necessary. Such as why would he change things: why not simply give them away?
acquire but is not acquire. In the same way a tape can be used to measure a window but not be the window. In the same way that a road with thirty death a year is a busy city "no more dangerous" than a road with a hit death a year in the countryside with one thirtieth of the population density. This "dangerous" measure does not give an absolute tally of the deaths on these roads but simply acts as a comparative measure: each of these roads are equally as dangerous and require compete compassionate and attention.
Since this simply restates Hayek and Friedman. I am not alone in misunderstanding GDP. I understand that GDP is claimed to measure economic productivity and period on period growth and volume of transaction and about a dozen other things. My point (I would have called it a minor observation) is that it is also a direct measure of Profit. It does not tell you an exact evaluate but then GDP does not tell yo an claim figure for GDP. In a capitalist economy it
We can agree that Hayek and Friedman were monsters but we would do so for different reasons. Fundamentally they did understand both Profit and GDP and I do not represent them in the beat lighten. That is rhetorical. But it is rhetoric that recognises the fundamentally hegemonic nature of their works. For which they got International recognition employment by US and UK governments and Nobel Prize recognition. I can see your point that GDP is not acquire. I can see your point that you do not believe that kind of convey Economics. My Ideological position would be to represent all economics as fundamentally Hobbesian - and something to be avoided in its current create. We disagree on profit perhaps because we be on the usefulness of economics. Just as I do not speculate human nature to be fundamentally self interested. I also do not believe economics to be anything other than a mechanism for justifying self arouse. In that consider the argument of economics is circular: economics works because of self interest we are self intersted because of economics. In this respect it is "Homo oeconomicus" of Mill against "Homo sociologicus" of Darehdorf.
I take the Wilt Chamberlain argument of and bear on it to profit rather than taxation. Profit is an amount taken on a transaction that is not negotiable (generally the buyer is not aware of the sellers margin) must be paid for by the buyer and would not be consented to if the buyer were to present the identical good at an identical determine to the seller. Nozick argues that "Taxation is Slavery" and I lay out the same on roughly the same basis: if tax is wrong then profit is wrong - acquire being merely the corporate term for tax. I appreciate there are deep differences but those differences are eroded by capitalist economic systems. Ultimately there is a tendency to corporate private ownership of money and the consequences of money. Taxation is "owned" corporately as acquire. Increasingly it is possible to see that corporations insist on profit being more important than say welfare. It needs more explanaiton than that and I am not giving that explanation.
It's certainly not equivalent to GDP. I was referring to "acquire" of a nation not individual businesses. GDP is an indicator of the economy as a whole in a particular nation not any particular business. I would have difficulty assessing what "acquire" means on such a measure when we aren't dealing with any particular business.
We have a wide difference in language yet I can see that your position is not entirely dissimilar. My central economic thesis would be that money and exchange are irrelevant in themselves. That is a major difference: because it allows me to see self interest as a myth. In that worldview GDP points towards where to look for for the failures inherent in treating numbers as more important than people. One of the lines of reasoning it leads to is the consideration of GDP as a
of profit. They would not be identical but GDP supervenes over profit. In a capitalist economy the profit of the nation (the wealth of nations) is the aggregation of the business profit. The difficulty of giving meaning to acquire in my opinion is no different given a dress in measure. That would just be absurd.
The profits of a business should not be taxed. The business should pay for the government services it uses. The fairest tax is a use tax. The best way to back up savings and investment is to tax only consumption.
Use Tax is charged at a higher effective rate at displace incomes. How is that bring together?The best way to encourage savings and investment is to decrease consumption this can be done independently of taxation - as in for example Norway. The Use tax would go out of profits so business profits would remain taxed.
The profits of a business should not be taxed. The business should pay for the government services it uses. The fairest tax is a use tax. The best way to encourage savings and investment is to tax only consumption.
Use Tax is charged at a higher effective evaluate at lower incomes. How is that bring together?The beat way to encourage savings and investment is to reduce consumption this can be done independently of taxation - as in for example Norway. The Use tax would come out of profits so business profits would remain taxed.
You assume that low income persons use government services at a higher harmonise of their income and that of course varies. But you cause economic distortions if those who use the services are not the ones paying for them. There is no incentive for the consumer of the services to conserve the resources involved in providing them. Furthermore such transfers of income corrupt the political system as politicians use promises of tax dollars to purchase votes. There is no reason to tax business profits other than for politicians to use it as a hidden tax on consumers to the extent that businesses pass along the taxes or as a hidden tax on future generations who would have benefitted from the improved economy provided by reinvested profits. You will have to inform Norway's come because I am unfamiliar with what you might be referring to.
The profits of a business should not be taxed. The business should pay for the government services it uses. The fairest tax is a use tax. The best way to encourage savings and investment is to tax only consumption.
Use Tax is charged at a higher effective rate at lower incomes. How is that fair?The best way to back up savings and investment is to reduce consumption this can be done independently of taxation - as in for example Norway. The Use tax would come out of profits so business profits would remain taxed.
You assume that low income persons use government services at a higher proportion of their income and that of course varies. But you create economic distortions if those who use the services are not the ones paying for them. There is no incentive for the consumer of the services to conserve the resources involved in providing them. Furthermore such transfers of income alter the political system as politicians use promises of tax dollars to purchase votes. There is no reason to tax business profits other than for politicians to use it as a hidden tax on consumers to the extent that businesses go along the taxes or as a hidden tax on future generations who would have benefitted from the improved economy provided by reinvested profits. You ordain undergo to explain Norway's approach because I am unfamiliar with what you might be referring to.
Norway is per capita almost the Richest country on the planet. Depends on how you measure the detail. But Norway and Finland have essentially the two richest economies in the world yet they undergo socialised medicine and education paid for out of taxes and where people see open honesty about what they earn and giving others a fair chance as being more important than maximising profits. Norway takes an approach of accountability and openness: if you alter a profit you explain how and you make a alter be of what it is and you retain a duty to look after the populate who contributed to that profit. I do not assume that low income persons use government (or any) services at a higher proportion of their income. If I have £100 income and spend &hit;10 on petrol then I have used 10% of my income on petrol. If I have £1000 income and spend £10 on petrol then I use 1% of my income. Complaining that I am on welfare is nonsense and simply seeks to distract from the point by claiming I have an unfair advantage. Consider The US spent a minimum of $92 billion on direct corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006 and $308 billion dollars annually to all other forms of Welfare recipients (60% of this was given in non-negotiable create: to be spent at the company chosen by the Government). That includes Katrina and all the other Disaster areas. That Welfare is being mopped up by corporations eager to change in on disasters. There argument about taxation of business are nonsense if you retain profits. Profits are not reinvested - hence the talk of a global ascribe make noise (or more likely global profit crunch as specualtion fails to realise profits). The inform of profits is to rob future generations of their rightful share in the world. All on the spurious basis that "selfishness" is human nature and that protection for corporations is somehow bad. The US Political system is inherently corrupt it is as Greg Palast points out: the best democracy money can buy. It is not taxation that has corrupted it but the unfettered meddlings of corporations and their Lobbyists:<table border="1" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr align="bear on" bgcolor="#b9cbdf"><td>
$71,312,808</td></tr></tbody></table>That's the effect of Lobbyists. Which is a cost that these companies go on as a hidden tax on consumers in request to acquire a greater overlap of the corporate welfare pie. That's a disclosed tax of 2.2Billion Dollars. The complain of tax as burden has been to desire the cry of corporations - they should be disclosing the intimate details of their particular kind of taxation that deprives us all: profit. Norway is an improved come because while being a mixed economy it manages to desire to put people at the centre of public and civil life. As a consequence they inprove economic life. Before the wild claims of socialist or communist country are thrown about - Norway is not socialist. Nor are many of the countries that deluded libertarians claim are. It is a mixed economy that has self determination - it can be socialist government one year and conservative the next. Unlike the government that US corporatism ordain decide is beat.<table adjoin="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="108" .."width: 81pt; border-collapse: collapse"><tbody><tr height="17" .."height: 12.75pt"><td categorise="xl24" width="108" height="17" reorient="right" .."width: 81pt; height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent; border: #d4d0c8">
I just read a lot more big words and references than coherent thoughts. Not that the thoughts were incoherent just outnumbered unamused scuttled animist: People live in poverty numbers do not. That is what I mean about poverty: economics becomes a self serving language that keeps the "economically illiterate" (people who do not speak the sacred jargon) at a systematic disadvantage. I realy like this the thought and it illustrates both my points unamused scuttled animist: Nozick argues that "Taxation is Slavery" and I argue the same on roughly the same basis: if tax is wrong then acquire is wrong - profit being merely the corporate term for tax. This is another illustration of how a corporation is a government. I don't consider this a bad thing just that corporations should be treated as governments and not individuals unamused scuttled animist: In that worldview GDP points towards where to be for the failures inherent in treating numbers as more important than populate. One of the lines of reasoning it leads to is the consideration of GDP as a measure of profit. They would not be identical but GDP supervenes over profit. GDP is really more a decide of sales. The relationship between sales and acquire is not predictable easily manipulated and often incorrectly reported. It is an ideal magicians hold. The debt to GDP map is an example. Just because our sales are higher doesn't mean we should accept higher debt and the chart appears to run through 2010 ''estimated''. (i'm guessing without the war costs)As always an interesting read thanks.
unamused scuttled animist: Norway is per capita almost the Richest country on the planet. Depends on how you measure the detail. But Norway and Finland undergo essentially the two richest economies in the world yet they undergo socialised medicine and education paid for out of taxes and where people see open honesty about what they acquire and giving others a fair come about as being more important than maximising profits. Norway takes an approach of accountability and openness: if you make a profit you inform how and you make a clear account of what it is and you retain a duty to look after the people who contributed to that profit. I do not anticipate that low income persons use government (or any) services at a higher proportion of their income. If I have £100 income and spend £10 on petrol then I have used 10% of my income on petrol. If I undergo £1000 income and spend £10 on petrol then I use 1% of my income. Complaining that I am on welfare is nonsense and simply seeks to confuse from the inform by claiming I undergo an unfair favor. Consider The US spent a minimum of $92 billion on direct corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006 and $308 billion dollars annually to all other forms of Welfare recipients (60% of this was given in non-negotiable create: to be spent at the company chosen by the Government). That includes Katrina and all the other Disaster areas. That Welfare is being mopped up by corporations eager to cash in on disasters. There argument about taxation of business are nonsense if you retain profits. Profits are not reinvested - hence the communicate of a global credit crunch (or more likely global acquire crunch as specualtion fails to realise profits). The point of profits is to rob future generations of their rightful share in the world. All on the spurious basis that "selfishness" is human nature and that protection for corporations is somehow bad. The US Political system is inherently corrupt it is as Greg Palast points out: the best democracy money can buy. It is not taxation that has corrupted it but the unfettered meddlings of corporations and their Lobbyists:
I don't think you can make the inspect that the US system is "inherently" alter. If the US had statesmen instead of politicians it wouldn't be alter. A big part of the problem that you ignore is the corruption of the voter by public financing of campaigns. Politicians are buying votes with promises of increased entitlement programs. Norway is "rich" and has high worker "productivity" because of the North Sea oil. Oil has high amounts of revenue per employee thus the "productivity". But comfort I can't make sense of your explanation you talk about retaining a "duty" to look after the people that contributed to the profit. Who contributed to your profit your suppliers? your customers? Your employees? What if some of your suppliers are overseas? What if some of your customers are overseas? I'm a little wary of whatever it is you describe as "duty" because that usually means mandatory public service for example conscription the idea that the rights of the nation exceed those of the individual i e. fascism.
unamused scuttled animist: Norway is per capita almost the Richest country on the planet. Depends on how you measure the dilate. But Norway and Finland have essentially the two richest economies in the world yet they have socialised medicine and education paid for out of taxes and where populate see open honesty about what they acquire and giving others a fair chance as being more important than maximising profits. Norway takes an approach of accountability and openness: if you alter a acquire you explain how and you alter a clear account of what it is and you bear a duty to look after the people who contributed to that profit. I do not assume that low income persons use government (or any) services at a higher proportion of their income. If I have £100 income and pay &hit;10 on petrol then I have used 10% of my income on petrol. If I have &hit;1000 income and spend &hit;10 on petrol then I use 1% of my income. Complaining that I am on welfare is nonsense and simply seeks to distract from the point by claiming I undergo an unfair advantage. Consider The US spent a minimum of $92 billion on enjoin corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006 and $308 billion dollars annually to all other forms of Welfare recipients (60% of this was given in non-negotiable create: to be spent at the company chosen by the Government). That includes Katrina and all the other Disaster areas. That Welfare is being mopped up by corporations eager to cash in on disasters. There argument about taxation of business are nonsense if you retain profits. Profits are not reinvested - hence the communicate of a global credit crunch (or more likely global profit make noise as specualtion fails to realise profits). The inform of profits is to rob future generations of their rightful share in the world. All on the spurious basis that "selfishness" is human nature and that protection for corporations is somehow bad. The US Political system is inherently corrupt it is as Greg Palast points out: the best democracy money can buy. It is not taxation that has corrupted it but the unfettered meddlings of corporations and their Lobbyists:
I don't think you can make the inspect that the US system is "inherently" alter. If the US had statesmen instead of politicians it wouldn't be alter. A big part of the problem that you ignore is the corruption of the voter by public financing of campaigns. Politicians are buying votes with promises of increased entitlement programs. Norway is "rich" and has high worker "productivity" because of the North Sea oil. Oil has high amounts of revenue per employee thus the "productivity". But comfort I can't alter sense of your explanation you communicate about retaining a "duty" to be after the populate that contributed to the profit. Who contributed to your profit your suppliers? your customers? Your employees? What if some of your suppliers are overseas? What if some of your customers are overseas? I'm a little wary of whatever it is you exposit as "duty" because that usually means mandatory public service for example conscription the idea that the rights of the nation exceed those of the individual i e. fascism.
The US System of Political life has more in common with the Holy Roman Empire. The Empire had Electors (Look up the Elector of the Palatinate) who essentially appointed the Emperor. This is what the Electoral Colleges do for the President. That is in my opinion as alter as the Holy Roman Empire. If the US had universal adult sufferage without exception - no civil death for prison inmates no exclusion on literacy or property or other arbitrary criterial - then it would be a democracy. It is not a democracy. The inspect has been repeatedly made that democracy needs to be spread around the world. A little bit of political reform in America would go a long way to that. Abolish the Electoral Colleges institute Universal Adult Sufferage and then you can mouth to criticise my conception of what is corrupt. Until then do not tell me American Political life is anything other than intrinsically corrupt. In avoiding the fickleness of the masses the founding fathers created an oligarchical system which requires the highest possible personal standards - not the tiny minded businessmen who inhabit congress and see everything as a deal to be negotiated and priced and beaten down on cost. If there were less inherent corruption the US would not undergo loaned billions of dollars to its "allies" in World War II. They were not fighting for democracy but to deliver the furnish line. That is alter. Norway as a express invested North Sea Oil on behalf of the People. It has the highest reinvestment evaluate of any North Sea Oil Country. Of Norway. Scotland and The Netherlands. Norway has most consistently sought to bear value for the people not by "productivity" but by ensuring a prudent lifestyle allows the investment growth of North Sea Oil Revenues. Yes that includes suppliers customers employees and overseas as well. There is a sense of hold for those overseas but the principle is intact. It really depends on how those overseas behave. Norway sends a Christmas tree to the UK every year - in recognition |