OT: UK to move back to imperial units?

Even then the politicians were shooting for good sound bites.

te:

d the money in the first place?

You seem obsessed with the idea that borrowing money somehow creates a prob lem. Borrowing just changes who is spending the money. It is still spent either way. If borrowing creates a problem, then the original possessor of the money spending it would create a problem. What exactly is changing so that something doesn't exist???

money it borrows. Oh, you forgot about that part of the equation? Yes, th e money is spent.

Why does anyone care who is spending the money??? It is spent either way.

ly),

What are you talking about??? Money has to exist for it to be borrowed.

Do you actually think about the things you come up with? Or do you just th ink of things until they "feel" good to you and then you share them with th e rest of us?

You literally make no sense. Either people spend their money or it is borr owed and spent by someone else (like the government). EITHER WAY THE MONEY IS SPENT!!! The fact that the government is the one that spends the money doesn't change the matter.

On a sunny day (Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:44:49 -0700 (PDT)) it happened snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in :

Those countries, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela are OIL producers. The only third world country I can think of now is the United States of Mecca , ehh Merrica. Installing dictators and calling it bringing democracy imperialism, creating wars far from your bed for weapon testing, killing your own people by selling guns, a third world country indeed.

This wouldn't be as much of a country without the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Icebox. Neither was purchased with cash-on-hand.

Worse, government takes money - wealth and resources - that would have been invested, and mostly wastes it. And wastes even more that it doesn't even have. But still is committed to paying it back.

"Goods and services" are quickly gone and forgotten. Investment in productive capacity, and in people, and in infrastructure, builds.

"You didn't build that" == "We didn't let you build anything."

Kim should own all of Korea, not just the northern half. Spread the joy!

Start a HumpBurger chain.

On a sunny day (Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:53:09 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

And robbed the land from the Native Americans, do you see a pattern?

I wonder what the happiness is for the N Korean people compared to the US population. AFAIK they do not have discrimination for example. They seem to have decent rockets too, and even have a satellite.

Some government spending pays back very well. Unfortunately a lot doesn't. We seem to have lost basic sense in government in this respect.

NT

Jan Panteltje wrote in news:qic3oj$unm$1 @dont-email.me:

You are an idiot. N. Korea is 100% North Koreans. That is about as discriminatory as it gets.

You really have like zero big picture viewing capacity.

Jan Panteltje wrote in news:qic3oj$unm$1 @dont-email.me:

No, they do not. They have China's and maybe Russia's 35 year old tech. Maybe even some lame shit from Iran. Hardly 'decent'

After 5 attempts, they put a *lame* 'camera bird' up. It is probably already OOS.

They probably bought it.

N. Korea's capacity for electronics is near nil.

They still operate military vehicles that use carburetors and points.

Some lame nation sold them 4K cameras so they could record and broadcast to the world Kim trapsing through his retarded, militarized, communist life.

For their violations, they do not need sanctioning, they need to be ousted from the UN for doing things they said they would not do and not doing things they said they would do.

The next time they pull one of these lame launches, they should get that launch site destroyed.

We can say it was a NATO missile and response.

The UN should declare their behavior as a violation and threaten the ouster with the next violation. And state that the violating launch site will be destroyed.

Several nearby nations should be upset about the launches.

ote:

ed the money in the first place?

money it borrows. Oh, you forgot about that part of the equation? Yes, t he money is spent.

y.

lly),

One of the more prominent public goods is education, which is spent on chil dren who don't pay anybody anything for them. A better educated work force is more productive, so society gets the money back eventually, but James Ar thur isn't in favour of pulbic education and has the right-wing discounted cash flow mentality which deliberately rejects long-term investment.

In places that do it right - Scandinavia and northern Europe - the governme nts do deliver. In the US the tax-evading well-off have enough political cl out to make sure that any such initiatives are done badly - usually by maki ng sure that they are under-funded - and don't work.

Governments are perfectly capable of investing the money they get from the tax-payers profitably. James Arthur is unwilling to beleive that, and advan ces the antics of the Soviet centrally planned economy as evidence of what any government that claims to be socialist might do. The centrally planned and controlled economy isn't any part of democratic socialism, but James Ar thur seems to think that democaracy isn't either. He much prefers the kind of plutocracy he's used to.

Investment in education and effective health care is money spent on service s. It does build a healthy and productive work force, but this isn't someth ing that James Arthur is willing to admit, and John Larkin lets James Arthu r do his thinking for him in this area.

People who want to set up businesses really resent the regulations that req uire them to do it right, rather than letting them cut corners, rip-off the ir employees and pour dangerous chemicals down the sink.

Love Canal isn't something they can remember. The EU is a heavily regulated area, but somehow Airbus manages to sell more planes tham Boeing.