Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Helen asks…

Is this Britains policy on Domestic poverty?

Protect our the creation of a “hated and despised underclass”.


If the non beneficiaries of capitalism were treated with any sympathy – through the media, this would essentially mean redistribution, high taxes, high inflation, and a drop in the value of your savings…and our economic model and society would be brought into disrepute.

1) Every single poor person – must now be portrayed as either dumb, inferior, morally bankrupt, uneducated, unskilled, illiterate, undeserving or criminal.

Every Single One.

There cannot be a minority of undeserving poor, or a list of people – who have been let down of left behind, through our necessary poor and unequal distribution of wealth or employment opportunity. The media must continually broadcast this message to allow this perception to grow in the public. This will create stability and a moral faith in our society as a whole.

2) There must be a whole vocabulary established that instantly discredits the poor.

Some examples are…
Young adults – being failed by our societies vastly expensive housing economics must be labelled Mummies Boys.

3) There must be absolutely no vocabulary that discredits us.

4) If there is criticism – it can easily be dismissed with tried and tested Victorian esq. language such as

5) You must never at any time resort to the language of the underclass.

6) The poor must never be able to take the moral high ground, even if they have spent the last fifteen years writing out application forms, for every minute of every day, or they somehow manage to get very qualified, skilled and experienced in areas such as voluntary work.

7)“Chinks” must always be exposed in their moral or ethical or intellectual armour.

Our society (and your sustained wealth) now desperately rely on the creation of the perception of our moral superiority..

8) We will turn the society against itself – on the basis of employed/unemployed, by creating an environment where the poor / working man moralise and judge themselves, and not either us or our perfect system.

9) The exception must always be the rule, to now protect our ageist, elitist, low opportunity, poverty dependant and discriminatory society.

10) Any abuse of the system must be developed, and encouraged to have maximum impact and then thoroughly exploited through the media – to maintain the illusion of the criminality in the poor.

11) A perception of a perfect moral and rewarding world through “work” (even if there in no employment) must survive, at all costs…through the creating of heroes and villains. It is suggested we create a perception of an abundance of work society by publishing the case of illegal aliens and illegal workers.

12) The plight of the poor in other countries – must be put at the forefront of of any debate of this issues, to divert attention from the poor people of Britian.

By creating this environment, we will protect YOUR WEALTH, and YOUR economic stability – and will instill terror in the critics of our poverty dependant society.

Carry On.

admin answers:

Being one of the benefit claiming council house dwelling uneducated social parasites that people on here are always whining about (who gets thousands of pounds and produces one illegitimate child after the other) i have to agree with you. But even though my answer makes no sense my English is poor my spelling is terrible and my punctuation non existent (as i often get told if i have the cheek to ask a question or in the unlikely event of me thinking i might have an answer) i will try to answer this one.The patronising pompous know it alls should think themselves lucky that they had the chance to get an education find a job and be able to afford a house and a car .they should get on with they’re own life instead of making assumptions about people who they know nothing about no body wants to live in poverty and have no hope of getting out of it unless they`re crazy ,and do these people who point there finger know how much an unemployed person actually gets a single person on benefit gets about £50 a week they still have to pay water rates gas electric TV licence food and with whats left they can buy cigs and go to the pub every day ,living the life of Riley arn`t they.Well none of the superior class knows what might be around the corner ,cause tomorrow they could get knocked of their perch and and find them self among the socially inferior and lucky enough to live in our privileged lifestyle i wonder if they would still go on about how great it is.

Mandy asks…

Conservatives/Republicans who are also scientists: from a purely scientific standpoint, doesn’t it strike you?

as a little pathetic that with all the non-stop talk that we get from Corporate America about “synergy, innovation, new ideas, etc.” that we haven’t developed a more comprehensive basket of energy resources? Doesn’t it strike you as incredibly lame that the on-going solution to our nation’s energy needs has been “get more oil”?

Let’s take this all the way back to Adam Smith: in his book “The Wealth of Nations” – considered by many to be the founding text of modern economics – Smith outlined two means of creating wealth:

1. The development of as yet unused natural resources (by which he meant not just developing new stores of resources already in use but also the development of technologies that would permit the creation of social utility using materials that were largely ignored)

2. The development of ways to extend the useful life of existing resources. i.e. efficiency.

To me, it seems quite strange that our country has developed a willful ignorance of these basic economic precepts and there is an on-going demand that we ignore the development of alternative resources and focus solely on a single resource.

Maxwell, your statement about btus/kg is correct, but we also don’t use anywhere near the full energy potential of gasoline. 65% of the btus in gasoline go out the tailpipe of the car. Use of micro-turbines in a hybrid power arrangement could increase that figure dramatically, but car-makers have willfully avoided using that kind of technology, even though technology for the various components has existed since the 60s. The real problem with energy is a wholesale failure of the free market to provide the kind of innovation that they claim is there stock in trade.

admin answers:

We achieved nuclear, but society shunned its further development after 3-mile and chenobyl

The problem is, we simply haven’t found an alternate form of energy that contains the stored energy per kg that fossil fuels contain that is anywhere near as usable or cheap.

We have gotten markedly better even in automobiles with getting more energy out of the gas we do burn compared to 20 years ago.

The hybrid tech is growing, and there have been a couple of turbine vehicle engines introduced, but society has yet to be on board with them yet. I think when a hybrid car implements a high efficiency turbine to run a generator, it will be a hit with the public.

I think the problem is more the market inertia than the technology on that front. People are afraid to be the first to invest in new things, and that goes for the manufacturer and the customer. So in that respect our progress is slow.

Linda asks…

How do you feel about bailing out the liberal banking cartel after the bubbles that they nurtured burst?

especially now as they are off again with naked longs and naked shorts, this time with tax payers money.

Liberal Lassiez faire economics until it goes wrong then liberal socialism to bail out their companies. This boom bust cycle is not an unavoidable cycle, its a deliberate creation, nurturing and destruction of bubbles that transfers wealth up the chain.

I wonder why we allow it and why people like Ron Paul are seen as crazy for speaking against them. Well, maybe he is crazy, Kennedy took the same position.

Bit of a rant I know but Im annoyed by this and Im annoyed by the lack of real information thats given to the public as they worship another wall st. / military industrial complex / globalist puppet and vote him into power when there was an other option.
Treacy, above and beyond the left / right bait and switch system theres is the group that are behind modern globalist liberalism, its more or less the British Empire, associated banking families and de facto owners of the US fiancial system and government.

You know, the people that indoctrinate society with the falshood that average white people were responsible for their wars, slavery, classism and sexism.
and you didnt answer me, how do you feel about the debt that you and all your decendants will never escape from, defaults will result in the US handing over natural resources to private banks.
American liberalism was adopted, infultrated and corrupted by elements of the british empire after your war of independence.

There is more to the UKs and Americas “special relationship” than the public know.
Well said Capone, we need to clear them out.
Everyone please have a read of I LUV U’s answer.

admin answers:

Honestly, anyone know got burned because of the 06 housing bubble deserves to get burned because of personnel stupidity.

In a healthy economy the burst would of been painful but not “Next great depression land!”.

We are simply paying the price of shipping all our real job’s over sea’s, runaway immigration, HB1 visa (aka citizen replacement visa).

I have no sympathy for those idiots that thought an adjustable load was a “GREAT” idea.

I figured it out in 06 that it was bad(didn’t think it would have such a domino effect) and yelled at half a dozen people who where thinking about it(half tempted to use those “I told you so’s” but there suffering enough).

The UK is a former Empire that uses America as a crutch since the first world war. I don’t know why we should be so cozy with the red coats(had ancestors that fought in the revolution so call me a traditionalist if I show my dislike for the British crown and people).

America would be better off if we closed our doors and let the Europeans defend themselves.

Donna asks…

What do you think of these ideas for a radical transformation of Christianity?

Here are Matthew Fox’s 95 theses. What do you make of them?
1. God is both Mother and Father.

2. At this time in history, God is more Mother than Father because the feminine is most missing and it is important to bring gender balance back.

3. God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

4. God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

5. “All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

6. Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).

7. Everyone is born a mystic and a lover who experiences the unity of things and all are called to keep this mystic or lover of life alive.

8. All are called to be prophets which is to interfere with injustice.

9. Wisdom is Love of Life (See the Book of Wisdom: “This is wisdom: to love life” and Christ in John’s Gospel: “I have come that you may have life and have it in abundance.”)

10. God loves all of creation and science can help us more deeply penetrate and appreciate the mysteries and wisdom of God in creation. Science is no enemy of true religion.

11. Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

12. “Jesus does not call us to a new religion but to life.” (Bonhoeffer) Spirituality is living life at a depth of newness and gratitude, courage and creativity, trust and letting go, compassion and justice.

13. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same thing.

14. Christians must distinguish between God (masculine and history, liberation and salvation) and Godhead (feminine and mystery, being and non-action).

15. Christians must distinguish between Jesus (an historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).

16. Christians must distinguish between Jesus and Paul.

17. Jesus, not unlike many spiritual teachers, taught us that we are sons and daughters of God and are to act accordingly by becoming instruments of divine compassion.

18. Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters,
species, air and soil.

19. Sustainability is another word for justice, for what is just is sustainable and what is unjust is not.

20. A preferential option for the poor, as found in the base community movement, is far closer to the teaching and spirit of Jesus than is a preferential option for the rich and powerful as found in, for example, Opus Dei.

21. Economic Justice requires the work of creativity to birth a system of economics that is global, respectful of the health and wealth of the earth systems and that works for all.

22. Celebration and worship are key to human community and survival and such reminders of joy deserve new forms that speak in the language of the twenty-first century.

23. Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

24. Creativity is both humanity’s greatest gift and its most powerful weapon for evil and so it ought to be both encouraged and steered to humanity’s most God-like activity which all religions agree is: Compassion.

25. There is a priesthood of all workers (all who are doing good work are midwives of grace and therefore priests) and this priesthood ought to be honored as sacred and workers should be instructed in spirituality in order to carry on their ministry effectively.

26. Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

27. Ideology is not theology and ideology endangers the faith because it replaces thinking with obedience, and distracts from the responsibility of theology to adapt the wisdom of the past to today’s needs. Instead of theology it demands loyalty oaths to the past.

28. Loyalty is not a sufficient criterion for ecclesial office—intelligence and proven conscience is.

29. No matter how much the television media fawn over the pope and papacy because it makes good theater, the pope is not the church but has a ministry within the church. Papalolotry is a contemporary form of idolatry and must be resisted by all believers.

30. Creating a church of Sycophants is not a holy thing. Sycophants (Webster’s dictionary defines them as “servile self-seeking flatterers”) are not spiritual people for their only virtue is obedience. A Society of Sycophants — sycophant clergy, sycophant semina

admin answers:

I think they’re great. You should check out this site it is very consistent with these points

Betty asks…

Do liberals really want to create jobs?

If so, why are they endorsing policies that do the complete opposite? Like increasing minimum wage that harms small businesses(meaning less job available), contributes to negative employment rate, inflated cost of commodities, etc? The harmful effects(such as unemployment rate) of raising minimum wage drastically is self-evident in 1950s in the USA. This is just simple supply and demand. There are unintended consequences for distorting equilibrium in the market. To deny this would be going against modern economics.
Why are liberals fund of other state imposed policies that stifles prosperity and coerce the market into stagnation? A brief analysis of OECD 1960-1996 on the effects of government spending revealed that government spending is negatively correlated with growth rate. And why more tax when it impedes job creation in the private sector, consecutively resulting in less wealth growth?
This is not about “correlation does not equal causation” matter, logically speaking the more money people have in their pockets the more likely they will invest, create jobs, etc even if you have other factors that come into play that overshadows this rationally/empirically sound proposition. Most of all, why do liberals complain about cartels and whine about high prices when they were the ones endorsing policies that contribute to high prices, and maintaining oligarchical structure in the market?
Proud Progressive, i provided sources, and stated one of the most fundamental “laws” of economics. Thanks for the reaffirmation of my perception of liberals, proves my point.
stop being whinny and address my arguments or are you liberals too retarded to do so?

admin answers:

Yes, they want to create jobs.
Will their policies work? Probably not.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers