the Messiah flunks Ec 101

Comparative advantage.

You did learn it, in introductory economics... but it didn't stick, because it's so unintuitive (or "just a theory"), and you have been brainwashed from birth to think in terms of nations and nationalism.

Apparently it's harder than rocket science, because the rocket scientists don't get it, either.

No one else got it either... on an econ board. Revealing, but not totally surprising.

-- Rich

The President's math and economics make no sense to me, so obviously I'm defective.

In university I studied Adam Smith's classic work, "The Wealth of Nations."

I wondered if maybe Smith retracted that, wrote another volume called "Spreading The Wealth of Nations," and that that was President Obama's playbook.

Cheers, James Arthur

I find it difficult to believe that you "studied" the WON. Most of us have a lot of respect for Smith and Ricardo. But we also know that these people put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us. That says that overall observations were more correct than not but that some issues were not treated with appropriate weight.

But as to the main point:

Of Systems Of Political Economy Book IV , Wealth Of Nations -- Adam Smith

"Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign."

Wealth

I'm

these=20

or=20

=20

to=20

public=20

I have a copy of "Wealth of Nations", wow is that a dry repetitive hard to read volume. Have you a copy? Have you tried reading it?

The original Adam Smith, not somebody else's (volume 4) estimate counts here.

I can assure you I studied TWON as little as possible, it being horrendously dry to someone so young.

Perhaps that's why I don't see--even with the advantage of that sagely selected phrase from Mr. Smith's masterpiece--why we should be trying to enrich our sovereign, nor how taxing productive enterprise to support unproductive works is in any way a benefit to society at all, the sovereign excepted.

But perhaps I need the illustrated edition, wherein the sovereign is shown driving a John Deere, dragging his wealth-spreader behind.

Cheers, James Arthur

Sunbeams from cucumbers ARE theoretically possible... cucumbers =3D=3D> methane =3D=3D> electricity =3D=3D> halogen lamp

Well then what about that all-time favorite of the lefties: Light rail? It's wonderful. Costs a fortune to build, cost plently to maintain because it wasn't built for maintenance. Removes all your personal freedom by tying you to a system under the control of those in power with schedules and destinations set by them. Creates a nice "worker" mentality by herding you into large groups daily. And best of all is so inefficient that you can actually have it take you 2:15 to go to work once you add in all the standing around waiting for public transport to arrive. Yes, I DO know because I took the bus to work for years.

I can hear your questions now: Well if it's so bad why did you use public transit for so long? Simple. I did not want to loose touch with reality. Everybody else lived in the suburbs in their air conditioned houses watching their cable TVs and got in their air conditioned cars to drive to their air-conditioned offices where they interacted with a bunch of clueless suburbanites just like themselves and then at the end of the day they reversed the process. Me. I lived right downtown in the urban decay. I took the bus and believe me, if you want to keep in touch with the real people of the world the bus is the way to do it! A bus pass: Still your best entertainment buy!

No, it is the business interests who are the real backers of light rail. They hope to get over priced contracts.

It was built by people who expected to get the contract for maintaining it. They had a vested interest in making it break a lot.

I have used public transport in other countries and it works very nicely. It doesn't break down and gets you quickly where you want to go.

It is pretty good entertainment for a couple of years, then palls as the variety is not that good. I only use it during the rainy season, when riding a motorcycle is not wise.