We are looting the world, so human's future is in danger!!

[atinymonkey]

I thought we agreed just to control you. Why are you out of your box, anyway?

[Ophiolite]

Chatlack, I think most people would agree that population control would be beneficial to the longer term 'health' of the human species. Many, myself included, would like to see a substantial reduction in population numbers. That however, has huge economic, cultural, and social consequences. Therefore the means by which this is achieved and the timing of it must be carefully assessed.

I think some of the negative reactions you are getting are because :

you seem to insist this be done immediately

you insist upon sticking with your bacteria analogy, even though this has nothing to do with the problem

you have decided the problem is 'capitalism'

If you would abandon, or set to one side these aspects you might get more positive responses. Just a thought.

[chatlack]

Thanks...You are right about negative reactions.

 

But I didnt think related with bacteria , it was just an example.

Im really suspicious about future. Because I can see disasters in near future. I think you see it too. Its too obvious.

 

I dont think good about capitalism but I do not look from only one side of the river. It must make the system go on for its side. And it is normal.

[psikeyhackr]

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

 

Every culture depends on keeping most people ignorant. Do you ever hear politicians saying that accounting/personal finance should be mandatory in highschool? But you hear politicians talking about education all of the time. If everyone had been taught to concentrate on NET WORTH since 1945, what state would the global economy be in today?

 

Bacteria don't watch television commercials incorporating Freudian psychology to get them to consume. Maybe bacteria are smarter than we are.

[Aardvark]

Every culture depends on keeping most people ignorant.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement. What did the Roman culture depend on keeping people ignorant of? What does present Western culture depend on keeping people ignorant of?

 

Do you ever hear politicians saying that accounting/personal finance should be mandatory in highschool?

 

Why do you think that is important? Those don't sound like essentials to a well rounded education.

 

If everyone had been taught to concentrate on NET WORTH since 1945' date=' what state would the global economy be in today?[/quote']

 

Better, the same or worse. I can't make out what you are trying to imply here.

 

Bacteria don't watch television commercials incorporating Freudian psychology to get them to consume. Maybe bacteria are smarter than we are.

 

We may live in a shameless consumer society which can be idiotically short sighted, but i still reckon the bacteria would have to get up pretty early in the morning to out smart me

[psikeyhackr]

If you bought a new car for $30,000 last year that car would now be worth about $22,000. That is an $8,000 loss is depreciation. If that car had been purchased by Hertz they could file the depreciation with the IRS. According to the book, THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, 36% of millionaires by used cars. Why would a millionaire buy a used car? To avoid depreciation. 200,000,000 cars in the US at $1500 in depreciation per year would amount to $300,000,000,000. That assumes linear depreciation on $18,000. In the real world the depreciation isn't linear and some cars cost less and some more but I think that figure isn't a bad rough estimate. Funny how our economists never say anything about it.

 

My senior year in highschool I was in the financial section of a major book store trying to find a book to help me figure out how to run my life. One book said that a household should be run like a business. This society promotes the idea that you should go to school, get properly educated, so you can have a good career until you retire. The more NET WORTH you have the less you need a JOB. I consider my grammar school education to have been 80% a waste of time and high school 50% a waste of time. And I have had people tell me they think I went to good schools.

 

I think accounting should be mandatory though I also think the way it is taught could use some modification. I have a Glencoe Accounting book that claims to be a first year course. Accounting is so simple that what the average person needs to know could be covered in a semester. Well rounded or dumbed down?

[RedAlert]

Waaaaaahhhhh!!! Run away! We are all viruses. Run away from each other!!!!

 

Wars happen because some of the top minks in our governments are crazy. Not because we are viruses.

 

Hey! If I am a virus, I seem to be missing my little pointy tail! How am I going to insert my DNA inside others!!!!????

 

Want to know another reason for why there are so many problems? Well, that reason is: Some of use are tooooo damn selfish.

[Aardvark]

If you bought a new car for $30,000 last year that car would now be worth about $22,000. That is an $8,000 loss is depreciation. If that car had been purchased by Hertz they could file the depreciation with the IRS. According to the book, THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, 36% of millionaires by used cars. Why would a millionaire buy a used car? To avoid depreciation. 200,000,000 cars in the US at $1500 in depreciation per year would amount to $300,000,000,000. That assumes linear depreciation on $18,000. In the real world the depreciation isn't linear and some cars cost less and some more but I think that figure isn't a bad rough estimate. Funny how our economists never say anything about it.

 

 

It's not any kind of secret that new cars depreciate in value as soon as you buy them. Everyone knows that.

 

You seem to be implying that many people are being mislead into buying overpriced new cars by some sort of conspiracy.

 

My senior year in highschool I was in the financial section of a major book store trying to find a book to help me figure out how to run my life. One book said that a household should be run like a business.

 

Good housekeeping isn't a secret either. Pretty much everyone has to balance income and outgoings. They don't need a self help book to tell them that.

 

This society promotes the idea that you should go to school, get properly educated, so you can have a good career until you retire. The more NET WORTH you have the less you need a JOB.

 

It sounds like you have read some self help books and taken them way too seriously. They tend to regugitate banalities as if they were exciting secrets.

 

 

I think accounting should be mandatory though I also think the way it is taught could use some modification. I have a Glencoe Accounting book that claims to be a first year course. Accounting is so simple that what the average person needs to know could be covered in a semester. Well rounded or dumbed down?

 

Why do you think accounting needs to be taught in schools? Do you really think people are so dumb that they can't work out how to live on a budget and spend their money sensibly without being told to in school?

[psikeyhackr]

I have talked to people who don't know what the word depreciation means.

 

I have seen a website that says 50% of Americans have less than $10,000 in NET WORTH.

 

When have you ever heard the TOTAL amount that Americans loose on depreciation of automobiles?

 

Your tone comes across like you're trying to paint me as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. A culture is a kind of conspiracy. It teaches people within each subgroup within a society to think in a certain way. I had an accounting page on my website. Someone on a message board said I should remove it. I asked him why and he said to check with an accountant or an economist. Interestingly I was communicating with a woman in England a few months later who said that everything on my site was correct. I am 50+ years old. I have caught people hiding information about things often enough. I have seen it in computers a lot. The distribution of relevant knowledge affects how our society works. The internet is a new way to mess with society.

 

http://www.simpleliving.net/ymoyl/default.asp

[Mokele]

If you bought a new car for $30,000 last year that car would now be worth about $22,000. That is an $8,000 loss is depreciation. If that car had been purchased by Hertz they could file the depreciation with the IRS. According to the book, THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, 36% of millionaires by used cars. Why would a millionaire buy a used car? To avoid depreciation.

 

I'll illustrate it more vividly:

 

Hi, I'm living off less than $15k per year. However, I drive a near-new-condition Mercedes Benz. It cost less than my friend's Toyota (with the added benefit of displaying more damage resistance than a cheaply-made soda-can). All because it's a 98 rather than an 05.

 

Why do you think accounting needs to be taught in schools? Do you really think people are so dumb that they can't work out how to live on a budget and spend their money sensibly without being told to in school?

 

Yes.

 

Hell, look around you. Everything screams that is the case. I know of *college graduates* who can't figure out the correlation between their poverty and their weekly $80 bar tab. I know of *above-average* people who buy $10 blocks of gourmet cheese and eat it in the dark because they haven't paid their power-bill in 4 months.

 

The plain, honest-to-god fact of the matter is that *yes*, most people truly are that stupid, at least in the US.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Most people simple aren't interested in that kind of education. Nor do I see any particular reason why I'm obligated to give it to them. I sense you do have some good points, though, if you can clarify them a bit. Saving money is certainly a good thing.

 

You proceed on a false assumption in saying that society would be better off with higher net worth for individuals (or as you put it, "what state would the global economy be in today?"). The churning of money has produced a much wealthier society than ever existed in the land-based and collectivist cultures of the past. The United States is successful *because* it invented concepts like "making money", not in spite of them.

 

Your automobile example is an example of depreciation, but it's not an example of overall decline. On the contrary, value often goes up. Houses tend to appreciate rather than depreciate. Businesses often do as well. Investments certainly do. Are these not examples of wealth, even if they're not examples of how you define "net worth"?

[psikeyhackr]

You have nothing to loose but Ferengi.

 

"Most people simple aren't interested in that kind of education."

 

What kind of education do you think people are interested in? You think I was interested in 4 years of English literature? I worked for IBM for 4 years. Nobody asked me about Shakespeare or Canterbury tales. I only got B's in the garbage because it was so easy.

 

"Nor do I see any particular reason why I'm obligated to give it to them."

 

Are you paying taxes being used for education? Why is 4 years of English literature better than 3 years of English and 1 year of accounting? Does English cost more than accounting?

 

"You proceed on a false assumption in saying that society would be better off with higher net worth for individuals (or as you put it, "what state would the global economy be in today?"). The churning of money has produced a much wealthier society than ever existed in the land-based and collectivist cultures of the past. The United States is successful *because* it invented concepts like "making money", not in spite of them."

 

I'm glad you use the word "churning." That word is also used to apply to stock brokers who encourage clients to trade because they make comissions on the trades not on clients holding stock with its price going up. Wealth for who? The car dealers and salesman? The same applies to computers. I am typing this on a used 1.3 GHz machine that cost me $300. In 1998 a 300 MHz machine cost $3000. I have talked to men who payed that much for computers. The man that had 2 mirrored 300 Gig drives didn't need it he built it to brag about it.

 

Of course the wealth of the United States is based on annihilating the Indians. Do they make more if the land appreciates in value?

 

NET WORTH is the estimated value of any WEALTH that can be sold. The only way to realize the wealth of your house is to sell it and then you don't have anyplace to live. You can borrow money against it but then you have to pay interest. If the value goes up the taxes probably go up too so you pay more for wealth trapped in your house.

 

The "smart" people want the "dumb" people to stay dumb because the smart people can figure out ways to make money of the desperation of the dumb.

 

OH! I intended to point out that the woman in England said she was an accountant. She said my site did a good job of pointing out the treadmill of debt.

 

"Know your enemy, know yourself and you will win 100 battles." - Sun Tzu

 

I find it interesting that you use the word "collectivist" are the right-wing anti-communist leanings peaking out?

[Pangloss]

So... you don't think college students should be allowed to pursue degrees in English, or whatever major they choose? Or are you just saying that a little accounting should be thrown into the mix as part of a wider curriculum? I agree with the latter.

 

But if that's the case, then I'm not sure what the problem is. I had to take two classes in accounting when I was a Physics major at Georgia Tech, one on actuarial math and one on personal finances, and that was 20 years ago. I also had to have "macro" and "micro" economics. All required. Is that not commonplace anymore for Bachelor of Science programs?

 

 

Wealth for who? The car dealers and salesman? The same applies to computers. I am typing this on a used 1.3 GHz machine that cost me $300. In 1998 a 300 MHz machine cost $3000. I have talked to men who payed that much for computers. The man that had 2 mirrored 300 Gig drives didn't need it he built it to brag about it.

 

That's an interesting example. Are you aware of what a computer with your exact specifications cost five years before you bought it? Do you know why the price went down?

 

In fact you wouldn't have been able to buy that 1.3 ghz computer for $300 if it wasn't for your bragging neighbor buying the next generation of computer for $1,000 -- he's directly responsible for that price change.

 

And the funny thing is, five years from now you may need that 300 gigabytes hard drive in order to run the software you need to run. And you'll be able to buy it for only $200. All thanks to your bragging neighbor.

 

That's what *I* meant by "churning".

 

 

NET WORTH is the estimated value of any WEALTH that can be sold. The only way to realize the wealth of your house is to sell it and then you don't have anyplace to live. You can borrow money against it but then you have to pay interest. If the value goes up the taxes probably go up too so you pay more for wealth trapped in your house.

 

Or, if you're lucky and/or skilled, you can sell it, buy another house, and still realize a profit. If you borrow money against it and invest it, you might earn more than the interest you're paying, depending on the investment. People do this sort of thing all the time. It's the primary function of a second mortgage, for example.

 

If you're just making the point that Americans make a lot of mistakes and bad errors in judgement in this area, or that taxes are too high, I totally agree with you there. People can be serious idiots when it comes to money -- we're in complete agreement there. And politicians keep raising taxes primarily to pay for entitlements for people who don't get out there and earn it on their own (and ridiculously high defense spending, but that's another argument).

 

But these flaws are in people, not in the economic system we have.

 

 

The "smart" people want the "dumb" people to stay dumb because the smart people can figure out ways to make money of the desperation of the dumb.

 

On the contrary, smart people tend to figure out the way the world works and take advantage of it. Dumb people tend to stay dumb because they really aren't interested, not because anybody's holding them back. Just my opinion, of course, but apparently we're just exchanging opinions here -- it's not like you cited a scientific study.

 

Take a look at Forbes 400 list of richest people some time. Two-thirds of those fortunes are self-made, not inherited. For that matter, take a look at the Fortune 500. Funny thing about that list -- every single one of those companies started from scratch at some point in history. We all gotta start somewhere.

 

 

Of course the wealth of the United States is based on annihilating the Indians. Do they make more if the land appreciates in value?

 

I'm starting to sense your real beef. You're not concerned about Americans who spend too much money and don't save enough. You're concerned about them spending their money on things you don't approve of.

 

How's that working out for you?

[psikeyhackr]

"So... you don't think college students should be allowed to pursue degrees in English, or whatever major they choose?"

 

Where did I say that?

 

"Or are you just saying that a little accounting should be thrown into the mix as part of a wider curriculum?"

 

That's what I said, but I wasn't sufficiently clear. I meant high school.

 

"I also had to have "macro" and "micro" economics. All required. Is that not commonplace anymore for Bachelor of Science programs?"

 

What did they say about the depreciation of all of the cars purchased by consumers in that macroeconomics course? Surprise, Surprise! Economists define depreciation as applying to capital goods ONLY.

 

"Are you aware of what a computer with your exact specifications cost five years before you bought it? Do you know why the price went down?"

 

I've only been in the computer biz since 1978. I soldered my first computer together then.

 

"he's directly responsible for that price change."

 

Do you expect me to be grateful to him for his stupidity. The Wright brothers used a piston engine in their plane 66 years before the moon landing. It is now 36 years after the moon landing. The airlines switched from pistons to turbines in the 60's. A turbine car almost won the Indy 500 in 1968. It was banned from the race. I recall some announcer saying it was banned because it was too fast. Should I be grateful to all the people dumb enough to buy new piston cars so the auto industry won't switch to turbines. The airlines had to overhaul piston engines every 500 hours of operation. Turbines go 10,000 hours between overhauls. A company, Rosen Motors, was working on a gas turboelectric car that used electromagnetic braking and stored the braking energy in a flywheel in a vacuum. The auto industry wasn't interested.

 

"And the funny thing is, five years from now you may need that 300 gigabytes hard drive in order to run the software you need to run. And you'll be able to buy it for only $200. All thanks to your bragging neighbor. That's what *I* meant by "churning"."

 

What kind of crappy software is going to use up 300 Gig. MacroScam is making bloatware already. I'm typing this on Linux right now. Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and TAH TAH Longhorn is coming. That is what I meant by churning. And you did too. LOL! Turn over the suckers for the investors.

 

"but apparently we're just exchanging opinions here -- it's not like you cited a scientific study."

 

Is it a matter of OPINION that the economics profession doesn't say anything about how much consumers loose on depreciation of automobiles each year? Someone who has taken courses in micro and macro economics needs a "scientific study" to notice the obvious once it is pointed out? Have you always had this problem with AUTHORITY?

[Aardvark]

Your tone comes across like you're trying to paint me as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. A culture is a kind of conspiracy. It teaches people within each subgroup within a society to think in a certain way.

 

 

Firstly you imply that i'm being unfair by 'trying to paint' you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist, then you state that culture is a kind of conspiracy.

 

Well which is it?

 

You come out with comments like 'The "smart" people want the "dumb" people to stay dumb because the smart people can figure out ways to make money of the desperation of the dumb.'

 

As if intelligent people are deliberately working to keep stupid people stupid. That does sound like paranoid conspiracy theorising.

 

You then talk about the car industry suppressing turbine engines. Again, another conspiracy? What is the point of your meandering anecdote?

 

As for car depreciation not being mentioned in economics textbooks. That's pretty feeble. So what?

 

Economics textbooks aren't there to give advice on household budgeting. My Physics textbooks don't explain the basis of English common law, is that a deliberate conspiracy to keep people ignorant?

 

 

Yes, people are encouraged to consume, often this can lead to people making poor choices, getting into debt. But to extrapolate from that that there is any effort made toward deliberately keeping people ignorant or dumb is unsubstantiated by anything you have posted.

 

People have free access to information, people can make and are responsible their own decisions. However much advertising there is, whatever the 'social pressures' people are still independent creatures wit the capacity to reason.

 

You say my tone implies that you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

 

Actually i believe you are over excitable, have identified some elements of human behaviour which are not completely rational and have decided to be extrapolate excessively to a series of foolish conclusions regarding deliberate intentions behind broad social trends.

 

If you calmed down you might actually have some valid points to make about the superficiality of consumer culture. But at the moment your are not coming across as being overly rational.

[Pangloss]

"Or are you just saying that a little accounting should be thrown into the mix as part of a wider curriculum?"

 

That's what I said, but I wasn't sufficiently clear. I meant high school.

 

Great, I don't have a problem with that. We could probably use more education about economics and personal finance at the high school level.

 

 

"Are you aware of what a computer with your exact specifications cost five years before you bought it? Do you know why the price went down?"

 

I've only been in the computer biz since 1978. I soldered my first computer together then.

 

"he's directly responsible for that price change."

 

Do you expect me to be grateful to him for his stupidity. (etc)

 

Um... you do realize that you didn't refute my point, right? You made a big deal out of the fact that you were able to buy a cheap computer, without apparently being aware that the reason you were able to buy that cheap computer is because of millions of other people buying them when they were more expensive, driving the technology forward and the price downward.

 

Whether you *like* the situation or not is really up to you. It's a free country, you can like or dislike as you please.

 

 

Is it a matter of OPINION that the economics profession doesn't say anything about how much consumers loose on depreciation of automobiles each year?

 

Yes.

 

It also happens to be an incorrect opinion -- they say quite a lot about it, it just happens to fall on deaf ears much of the time. We agree about the need for greater education of the public about economic/finance issues.

 

But in the end, (a) it's only a small part of a much larger economic picture in which depreciation and decay are generally not predominant, and (b) people choose to either buy a new automobile, and lose money from depreciation, or not. It's a choice. Nobody's holding a gun to their head.

 

 

Someone who has taken courses in micro and macro economics needs a "scientific study" to notice the obvious once it is pointed out?

 

No, I need a scientific study (or some kind of evidence) to tell me why depreciation of automobiles is an indication of a larger problem.

 

 

Have you always had this problem with AUTHORITY?

 

I have no idea what you mean, but if you're going to attack/insult me then this is going to be a very short conversation. Did you come here to drop bombs and be rude, or did you come here to talk and discuss?

 

 

What kind of crappy software is going to use up 300 Gig. MacroScam is making bloatware already. I'm typing this on Linux right now.

 

Last time I looked at Red Hat and Mandrake they were getting pretty bloated as well. (grin) But at least with Linux you can make a stripped-down distro if you like.

 

But you've completely missed the point. You're using, what, a 20 or 30 gigabyte hard drive today? And you were lamenting that your neighbor had two 300-gig drives, right?

 

The point is that you wouldn't have that dirt-cheap 20-30 gig hard drive that you have today, which you apparently need because you've held up your purchase as intelligent as compared with your neighbor's, if it wasn't for the growth of the industry (based on vast amounts of purchasing) that allowed those hard drives to become that cheap.

 

You're taking advantage of the market, not circumventing it.

[psikeyhackr]

You come out with comments like 'The "smart" people want the "dumb" people to stay dumb because the smart people can figure out ways to make money of the desperation of the dumb.'

 

"As if intelligent people are deliberately working to keep stupid people stupid. That does sound like paranoid conspiracy theorising."

 

 

I didn't say INTELLIGENT I said SMART. I didn't say STUPID I said DUMB.

 

When I was accepted for a job at IBM after 3 interviews they gave me a contract to sign which basically said if I came up with any new ideas they belonged to IBM. They weren't hiring me to come up with ideas, they were hiring me to FIX THEIR EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. I considered refusing to sign an walking out, but my objective was to get into the computr industry. I just decided I wouldn't come up with any ideas while I worked there.

 

Plenty of "intelligent" people are working for "smart" people who aren't as intelligent as themselves. That is the nature of economic power games. Plenty of intelligent people don't know accounting. It is quite boring actually.

 

"As for car depreciation not being mentioned in economics textbooks. That's pretty feeble. So what?"

 

The depreciation of 200,000,000 cars not being mentioned FEEBLE. REALLY? Of course that is not the total number of cars since WWII.

 

People with PhDs from Harvard and the University of Chicago failing to solve a grammar school algebra problem since WWII? FEEBLE?

 

OH, I understand! The economists are FEEBLE MINDED. You're absolutely right.

[psikeyhackr]

"You're taking advantage of the market, not circumventing it."

 

When you figure out a way for me to circumvent the market and survive in this society let me know. I haven't found it yet. But at least I can try to mess with it via the internet.

[atinymonkey]

I didn't say INTELLIGENT I said SMART. I didn't say STUPID I said DUMB.

Even in bold' date=' they are still the same meanings.

 

When I was accepted for a job at IBM after 3 interviews they gave me a contract to sign which basically said if I came up with any new ideas they belonged to IBM. They weren't hiring me to come up with ideas, they were hiring me to FIX THEIR EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. I considered refusing to sign an walking out, but my objective was to get into the computr industry. I just decided I wouldn't come up with any ideas while I worked there.

 

You probably are not too aware of this, but the same rule applies almost every contract you will ever sign. It's to prevent employee having intellectual rights to critical systems and processes, not some insidious plot.

 

As to not hiring you to come up with ideas, you have to prove yourself in some way before they let you run around the company trashing systems. Companys are not stupid, they don't hire you based on your CV and hope for the best.

 

 

Plenty of "intelligent" people are working for "smart" people who aren't as intelligent as themselves. That is the nature of economic power games.

Almost every employee thinks they are smarter than the boss, it's just not true. Trust me, the reason they don't promote you over the other candidate is simply because your worse at your job.

 

The depreciation of 200,000,000 cars not being mentioned FEEBLE. REALLY? Of course that is not the total number of cars since WWII.

Car's are worth less because of the associated mechanical problems a car acquires with age and the related cost of repair. Plus, the whole wear of the car diminishes the appearance. On top of that, most new cars are designed to have parts that last for 5 years of consistent use, beyond which major replacements are required. We don't have magical pixie cars that run forever on pixie dust, things just wear out.

 

People with PhDs from Harvard and the University of Chicago failing to solve a grammar school algebra problem since WWII? FEEBLE?

I assume you mean that a PhD is supposed to be a magical sheild against ignorace, and you have decided to call people feeble if they don't understand algebra. That's real sweet of you. What have you got against education?

 

OH, I understand! The economists are FEEBLE MINDED. You're absolutely right.

Hum.

 

 

When you figure out a way for me to circumvent the market and survive in this society let me know. I haven't found it yet. But at least I can try to mess with it via the internet.

 

The 'market' does not care if you life or die, so long as you consume. Which, obviously, you do.

[Aardvark]

 

"As if intelligent people are deliberately working to keep stupid people stupid. That does sound like paranoid conspiracy theorising."

 

 

I didn't say INTELLIGENT I said SMART. I didn't say STUPID I said DUMB.

 

It still sounds like paranoid conspiracy theorising.

 

When I was accepted for a job at IBM after 3 interviews they gave me a contract to sign which basically said if I came up with any new ideas they belonged to IBM. They weren't hiring me to come up with ideas' date=' they were hiring me to FIX THEIR EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. I considered refusing to sign an walking out, but my objective was to get into the computr industry. I just decided I wouldn't come up with any ideas while I worked there.[/quote']

 

And your point is?

 

 

The depreciation of 200' date='000,000 cars not being mentioned FEEBLE. REALLY? Of course that is not the total number of cars since WWII.[/quote']

 

Yes, it is feeble to complain that economics textbooks don't focus on car price depreciation. Economics is different from personal finance.

 

 

People with PhDs from Harvard and the University of Chicago failing to solve a grammar school algebra problem since WWII? FEEBLE?

 

That seems to be a completely irrelevant aside. So what if some people with Phds don't know algebra?

 

OH' date=' I understand! The economists are FEEBLE MINDED. You're absolutely right.[/quote']

 

From the content of your posts you are not making any rational or consistent points. Those points you are making are not being backed with any logic or reason and you evade or ignore all queries and questions.

 

BTW, the quote button is on the bottom right of the screen, it would improve your posts if you used it.

 

Also, capitalising WORDS doesn't make them any more CORRECT, it's just bad manners AND makes the poster look CHILDISH.

[Pangloss]

That's it?

 

Wow, that was disappointingly easy.