Can't say we were taught that exaggeration is used for emphasis. Maybe if you're writing a nice little fictional story about bullshit.bassistx said:I am familiar with those terms.
Exaggeration is used for emphasis. Maybe you learnt that in English Ext1?
You know what? I saved the pages which had posts I didn't reply to so I could come back to them.boris said:Can't say we were taught that exaggeration is used for emphasis. Maybe if you're writing a nice little fictional story about bullshit.
Especially not when you're discussing world economies.
Firstly, does anyone know how much agriculture contributes to our GDP? Anyone?Captain Gh3y said:This would also help eliminate our foreign deficits and keep money in the local economy.
And to keep money in the local economy? What, like the EU? Where agricultural grants and subsidies take up half the EU budget, to the degree that money given to farmers amount to US$2.50 per cow per day, in a world where around 3 billion people live on less than US$2 a day? Where Europeans are taxed millions of dollars each year so that they can have a smaller selection of products –food and clothing- at a higher price? Where there is such a surplus of food as a result of these protectionist policies that the EU pays farmers not to grow food?Captain Gh3y said:That's why in order to ensure we keep growing our own food here in Australia, we need to raise taxes on imported goods to record levels.
What would and has this resulted in? Well, it means that developing countries are denied the chance to compete where they can (farming) with more affluent countries. It means consumers have less choice in products, and it means they pay for food whether they buy it or not (through taxes).Johan Norberg said:"There is no easier way of squandering money than through an advanced agricultural policy. Affluent countries are drenching farmers with money through protectionism, subsidies, and export grants. The total cost of agricultural policy in 29 affluent cOECD countries burdens taxpayers and consumers a staggering $360 billion. For that money, you could fly the 56 million ocws in these countries once around the world every year - business class - with plenty of change left over. If they're willing to fly coach, the cows could also be given $2,800 each in pocket money to spend in tax-free shops during their stopovers in the US, the EU, and Asia."
Private monopolies are ALWAYS better than government monopolies because one is implicitly backed by a gun and the other could be taken down tomorrow by a dude with ambition.zimmerman8k said:it is a possibility in a totally unregulated market along with many other potentially destructive corporate monopolies.
hahahahaha you thought I was being serious.zimmerman8k said:That doesn't make sense at all. There are certain goods for which there are no subsitutes, like roads, another good example is food. If a corporation or cartel controls the food supply there is no guiding hand, just on going price gouging, huge profits for the monopoly and great exploitation of everyone else.
And here I was believing history when it talked about all those governments that were overthrown, and all those corparations who were backed by a gun. :rofl:flappinghippo said:Private monopolies are ALWAYS better than government monopolies because one is implicitly backed by a gun and the other could be taken down tomorrow by a dude with ambition.
Your argument fails to take into account the fact that continually importing all our products is ruining local aussie businesses and increasing our foreign debts, increasing unemployment and the cost of living, and hurting ordinary australians.flappinghippo said:Firstly, does anyone know how much agriculture contributes to our GDP? Anyone?
3.8 fucking percent (source)
Yeah okay right we're a 'farming' nation.. fuck off. Nobody makes money in farming except huge corporations, which is incidentally where most of the government subsidies go to.
And to keep money in the local economy? What, like the EU? Where agricultural grants and subsidies take up half the EU budget, to the degree that money given to farmers amount to US$2.50 per cow per day, in a world where around 3 billion people live on less than US$2 a day? Where Europeans are taxed millions of dollars each year so that they can have a smaller selection of products –food and clothing- at a higher price? Where there is such a surplus of food as a result of these protectionist policies that the EU pays farmers not to grow food?
This is the same old tired argument used to benefit a small circle of lobbyists and industrialists at the expense of the poor. It's morally despicable and selfish.
What would and has this resulted in? Well, it means that developing countries are denied the chance to compete where they can (farming) with more affluent countries. It means consumers have less choice in products, and it means they pay for food whether they buy it or not (through taxes).
NOBODY FUCKING WINS EXCEPT SOME LOBBYISTS AND CORPORATIONS
Private monopolies are ALWAYS better than government monopolies because one is implicitly backed by a gun and the other could be taken down tomorrow by a dude with ambition.
Wise choice.risole91 said:after reading this more thoroughly, i like boris.
lolol
.. History talks to you?Nebuchanezzar said:And here I was believing history when it talked about all those governments that were overthrown, and all those corparations who were backed by a gun. :rofl:
There is either a monopoly or competition between companies.zimmerman8k said:They are both backed by a gun. Private monopolies rely on the enforcement of property rights by the state. At least in a democracy we can vote out the government. Private monopolies are accountable to no one.
Going back to my food example, how does a "dude with ambition" take down a corporation or cartel which has a monopoly on the supply of arable land?
Like having no remorse at disposing of tens of millions of your fellow 'equals'.. during peacetime?Nebuchanezzar said:We communists do possess skills that you mortals don't have.
You're joking aren't you?Captain Gh3y said:Your argument fails to take into account the fact that continually importing all our products is ruining local aussie businesses and increasing our foreign debts, increasing unemployment and the cost of living, and hurting ordinary australians.
this could all be solved simply by raising tariffs to record levels... i've been saying it on talkback radio and writing my local MP for years
that's not communist, u ass!flappinghippo said:Like having no remorse at disposing of tens of millions of your fellow 'equals'.. during peacetime?