100% Economie ! - HanuAncutei.com

LocuriFaine: Hoteluri si Pensiuni de Lux | Ferma Club

Regulament

Panouri Izolante si Panouri Sandwich

Va recomandam panouri termoizolante Topanel si Panouri Isopan, un sistem modern de termoizolare dezvoltat de compania romaneasca Topanel.

100% Economie !, pentru cei pasionati...

Optiuni

axel

26 Apr 2005, 09:44 AM

Mesaj #36

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 6.255
Inscris: 3 October 03
Forumist Nr.: 899

QUOTE (dead-cat @ 26 Apr 2005, 11:35 AM)

aia 38% sunt impozitul pe venit sau suma tuturor darilor precum asigurare sociala, somaj etc (daca exista asa ceva)?

Mai e social security - 7.5% din cate stiu eu, si medicare, mai putin.
Dar acei 38% sunt impozit marginal: daca castigi 150.000 de dolari pe an, cat impozit ai da la urmatoarea suta de dolari pe care ai castiga-o?
In realitate oamenii platesc mult mai putin impozit, din cauza diverselor deduceri. De exemplu, daca iti ajunge impozitul marginal pe la 15%, tu in realitate platesti vreo 10%.

--------------------

Azi avem.

actionmedia

26 Apr 2005, 09:51 AM

Mesaj #37

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 5.298
Inscris: 9 June 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.787

QUOTE (MIA @ 25 Apr 2005, 10:38 AM)

Daca o ia pe calea asta discutia numai de economie nu o sa se mai discute ...

Ba tocmai despre economie se discuta.
Salariul lunar pe care il incaseaza orice angajat este o forma de manipulare potrivita democratiei, de asemenea, orice pachete salariale, orice facilitati la plata (rate si ipoteca) sunt forme de manipulare. Oamenii sunt tinuti in frau de anumite organizatii si de alti oameni care controleaza acelel organizatii.
Forta de munca este unul din factorii de productie fara de care economia nu poate exista. In ciuda automatizarilor folosite pe scara tot mai larga, va mai trece mult timp pana cand oamenii nu vor mai fi necesari in economie. De fapt sunt convins ca niciodata factorul munca nu va putea fi eliminat definitiv din economie.
Economia, in orice forma de organizare, inseamna combinarea si administrarea factorilor de productie cat mai eficient.
Factorii de productie, dupa Adam Smith si alti economisti clasici, sunt: Pamantul, Munca si Capitalul.
Binenteles ca daca ai o agentie de publicitate, nu prea ai nevoie de factorul pamant, dar iti trebuie munca si capital.

Munca este dupa parerea mea, cel mai important si cel mai pretentios factor de productie pentru ca este format din oameni, din indivizi care au propriile interese dar si abilitati. Un angajat bun va avea la un moment dat pretentii pe masura abilitatilor sale, daca nu ai posibilitatea sa le satisfaci, va cauta alta organizatie.

--------------------

viata e simpla si misto!

dead-cat

26 Apr 2005, 10:02 AM

Mesaj #38

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.203
Inscris: 6 April 04
Din: On the Rhine
Forumist Nr.: 2.942

QUOTE (axel @ 26 Apr 2005, 09:44 AM)

In realitate oamenii platesc mult mai putin impozit, din cauza diverselor deduceri. De exemplu, daca iti ajunge impozitul marginal pe la 15%, tu in realitate platesti vreo 10%.

aia mi-e clar, ca nici eu nu platesc impozitul nominal, mai bine zis nu ramin cu el ca-mi iau bani inapoi la sfirsitul anului fiscal, dar ce ma interesa pe mine era gradul de fiscalitate. aici, cind intrii cu salariul lunar in "champions league" e de 53% (all inclusive).

--------------------

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

Promo Contextual	26 Apr 2005, 10:02 AM Mesaj #
ContextuALL

axel Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 10:46 AM Mesaj #39
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 6.255 Inscris: 3 October 03 Forumist Nr.: 899	"aici" = unde? -------------------- Azi avem.

MIA

26 Apr 2005, 10:47 AM

Mesaj #40

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.320
Inscris: 21 April 04
Din: Timisoara, Romania
Forumist Nr.: 3.188

QUOTE (actionmedia @ 26 Apr 2005, 10:51 AM)

Binenteles ca daca ai o agentie de publicitate, nu prea ai nevoie de factorul pamant, dar iti trebuie munca si capital.

Cum naiba nu ai nevoie de factorul "pamint" ??

Nu platesti chirie pe spatiile in care-ti desfasori activitatea ( sau taxa pe proprietate, daca e terenul tau ) ?

Oricum - economistii mai moderni au inclus si Informatia intre factorii de productie ( desi nu stiu cit de complet acceptata e aceasta extindere ).

QUOTE

Forta de munca este unul din factorii de productie fara de care economia nu poate exista. In ciuda automatizarilor folosite pe scara tot mai larga, va mai trece mult timp pana cand oamenii nu vor mai fi necesari in economie. De fapt sunt convins ca niciodata factorul munca nu va putea fi eliminat definitiv din economie.

Cum naiba sa fie eliminat ??

Masinile alea automate cine le face/depaneaza ?

actionmedia

26 Apr 2005, 11:02 AM

Mesaj #41

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 5.298
Inscris: 9 June 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.787

QUOTE (MIA @ 26 Apr 2005, 11:47 AM)

Cum naiba nu ai nevoie de factorul "pamint" ??

Nu platesti chirie pe spatiile in care-ti desfasori activitatea ( sau taxa pe proprietate, daca e terenul tau ) ?

Asta nu il face factor de productie. O agentie de publicitate poate fi si virtuala, adica e posibil sa nu ai nevoie de un spatiu in care sa iti desfasori activitatea, cel putin teoretic.

QUOTE

Oricum - economistii mai moderni au inclus si Informatia intre factorii de productie ( desi nu stiu cit de complet acceptata e aceasta extindere ).

Mda, informatia este cam in toate. Informatia este si in capital (banii sunt o idee) dar si in factorul munca. Cred ca e buna abordarea distincta, pentru ca informatia face intradevar diferenta si poate creste productivitatea.

QUOTE

Cum naiba sa fie eliminat ??

Pai asta ziceam si eu. Pe de alta parte masinile pot fi reparate de alte masini. Nu asta e problema. Problema este ca sunt domenii in care nu vad inca posibilitatea ca omul sa fie inlocuit de masini.

--------------------

viata e simpla si misto!

dead-cat

26 Apr 2005, 11:33 AM

Mesaj #42

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.203
Inscris: 6 April 04
Din: On the Rhine
Forumist Nr.: 2.942

QUOTE (axel @ 26 Apr 2005, 10:46 AM)

"aici" = unde?

good 'ol Germany

--------------------

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

ilie Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 02:31 PM Mesaj #43
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 2.816 Inscris: 16 March 04 Din: Bucuresti Forumist Nr.: 2.605	QUOTE (MIA @ 26 Apr 2005, 11:47 AM) Cum naiba nu ai nevoie de factorul "pamint" ?? Nu platesti chirie pe spatiile in care-ti desfasori activitatea ( sau taxa pe proprietate, daca e terenul tau ) ? daca stai pe pamant, adica folosesti pamantu' Cred ca Actionmedia se referea la agricultura, petrol, etc.

MIA

26 Apr 2005, 02:43 PM

Mesaj #44

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.320
Inscris: 21 April 04
Din: Timisoara, Romania
Forumist Nr.: 3.188

QUOTE (Freemann @ 26 Apr 2005, 03:31 PM)

Cred ca Actionmedia se referea la agricultura, petrol, etc.

Posibil - dar atunci e mai riguros sa se spuna "resurse naturale" ( sa nu uitam ca in perioada de inceput a stiintei economice primii ginditori din domeniu erau puternic influentati de faptul ca agricultura reprezenta - inca - o activitate cu rol masiv ).

Acest topic a fost editat de MIA: 26 Apr 2005, 02:44 PM

ilie Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 02:48 PM Mesaj #45
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 2.816 Inscris: 16 March 04 Din: Bucuresti Forumist Nr.: 2.605	Cociuba: In ce limbi sunt cartile pe care le ai. Cum pot face rost de ele, cateva m-ar interesa?

cociuba

26 Apr 2005, 05:45 PM

Mesaj #46

Cavalerul nedesavarsit

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 1.548
Inscris: 25 April 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.251

actionmedia

QUOTE

Poporul alege ceea ce i se ofera.
Oamenii sunt comozi, prefera sa fie condusi.
Lupta se da intotdeauna intre lideri, armele fiinde cel mai adesea oamenii care se lasa condusi

corect, oamenii vor sa se simta protejati... , dar nu chiar toti...

intr-adevar formatorii de opinie sunt cei care dicteaza, caci in mod logic toti salariati ar trebui sa fie de stanga, dar de fapt in realitate nu se intampla asa...

MIA

QUOTE

Daca o ia pe calea asta discutia numai de economie nu o sa se mai discute ...

Statul este cel mai important actor economic dintr-o tara: administratia,politia,armata,justitia,diferite monopoluri de stat toti sunt platiti de catre stat, sa nu uitam ca preleva impozite ,da amenzi etc, deci nu putem lasa statul deoparte

dead-cat

QUOTE

care noi tehnologii au "penetrat" mai usor in societate in lumea socialista?
cind deviza era "nimic pentru tine, totul pentru front".

in economia de piata, firma ce-a investit un sac de bani in research vrea sa amortizeze aceste costuri cit se poate de repede si evtl. sa mai faca si profit, deci nu vor disparea in arhive militare (daca nu le cumpara armata bineinteles).

nu cred ca au penetrat , dar totusi daca socialismul ar functiona (desi se pare ca nu functioneaza) ar fi mai eficient deci capitalismul, am sa ma explic in alt post...
te invit sa citesti articolul asta:

QUOTE

Ce valoare are dreptul de a vota, fără recunoşterea dreptului la un standard minim de viaţă, aşa cum este stipulat în Declaraţia Universală a Drepturilor Omului? În ţările unde o mare parte a populaţiei trăieşte sub limita de subzistenţă, este uşor să cumperi voturi. Dar singurele drepturi economice recunoscute de administraţia Bush sînt drepturile de proprietate intelectuală, punînd interesele companiilor de medicamente înaintea intereselor persoanelor grav bolnave, şi dreptul de circulaţie liberă a capitalului, care a avut efecte atît de devastatoare asupra multor ţări.

continuarea :click aici
ai mai dat niste informatii legat de nmarul sindicalistilor, te rog sa-mi oferi o resursa , si daca se poate in legatura cu germania nr locuitorilor,mortalitate/rata nasterilor,pib/locuitor...,mersi

Freeman

QUOTE

Voi in ce tara ati trait?

nu conteaza in ce tara traim, ci in ce fel de tara am dori sa traim

sua,anglia au partea lor de socialism: partidul democrat la usa,laburistii in anglia,
o definitie proprie a socialismului:capitalism cu fata umana

cat despre carti in curand ar sa le postez la BIBLIOTECA ECONOMICA

intr-adevar clasici considerau :pamantul,capitalul, munca factorii de productie,nai nou mai apar:informatii,antreprenori,etc
iar Actionmedia folseste resursa pamat care de altfel e rara (nu degeaba exista arendasi)

dead-cat revin:daca in capitalism patentul ,brevetul este protejat pentru 50 de ani, spune-mi cum se disipa aceea tehnologie in societate, parca profesorul(ri) care a(u) inventat internetul nu au cerut drept de proprietate, pe cand daca ar fi cerut poate si in acest moment accesul la www ar fi fost scump, la fel cu medicamentele: se incerca interzicerea medicamentelor generice, spune-mi ce se va intampla cu cei saraci...
capitalismul e bun, cel mia bun pana acum dar implicarea lui in anumite sectoate (invatamant,cultura,sanatate) ar fi si este fatala...

--------------------

cociuba

26 Apr 2005, 05:48 PM

Mesaj #47

Cavalerul nedesavarsit

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 1.548
Inscris: 25 April 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.251

Hai sa complicam discutia

QUOTE

Short Version of the Limits to Growth

Our world model was built specifically to investigate five major trends of global concern – accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources, and a deteriorating environment.

The model we have constructed is, like every model, imperfect, oversimplified, and unfinished.

In spite of the preliminary state of our work, we believe it is important to publish the model and our findings now. (...) We feel that the model described here is already sufficiently developed to be of some use to decision-makers. Furthermore, the basic behavior modes we have already observed in this model appear to be so fundamental and general that we do not expect our broad conclusions to be substantially altered by further revisions.

Our conclusions are :

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability
that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic
material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his
individual human potential.

If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin
working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

All five elements basic to the study reported here--population, food production, and consumption of
nonrenewable natural resources--are increasing. The amount of their increase each year follows a pattern
that mathematicians call exponential growth.

A quantity exhibits exponential growth when it increases by a constant percentage of the whole in a
constant time period.

Such exponential growth is a common process in biological, financial, and many other systems of the
world.

Exponential growth is a dynamic phenomenon, which means that it involves elements that change over time.
(...) When many different quantities are growing simultaneously in a system, however, and when all the
quantities are interrelated in a complicated way, analysis of the causes of growth and of the future behavior
of the system becomes very difficult indeed.

Over the course of the last 30 years there has evolved at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a new
method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The method is called System
Dynamics. The basis of the method is the recongnition that the structure of any system--the many circular,
interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components--is often just as important in
determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. The world model described in this book is
a System Dynamics model

Extrapolation of present trends is a time-honored way of looking into the future, especially the very near
future, and especially if the quantity being considered is not much influenced by other trends that are
occuring elsewhere in the system. Of course, none of the five factors we are examining here is independent.
Each interacts constantly with all the others. We have already mentioned some of these interactions.
Population cannot grow without food, food production is increased by growth of capital, more capital
requires more resources, discarded resources become pollution, pollution interferes with the growth of both
population and food.

sursa:"Limits to Growth" in 1972, one of its main focuses.
click aici (tot acolo gasiti si continuarea)

deci intr-o lume finita(cum e pamantul ) cum putem continua o dezvoltare infinita si exponentiala...? si care dintre cele 2 sisteme cunoscute :socialism,capitalism e mai bun

--------------------

cociuba

26 Apr 2005, 05:50 PM

Mesaj #48

Cavalerul nedesavarsit

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 1.548
Inscris: 25 April 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.251

continuarea raportului:

QUOTE

All levels in the model (population, capital, pollution, etc.) begin with 1900 values. From 1900 to 1970 the
variables agree generally with their historical value to the extent that we know them. Population rises from
1.6 billion in 1900 to 3.5 billion in 1970. Although the birth rate declines gradually, the death rate falls more
quickly, especially after 1940, and the rate of population growth increases. Industrial output, food and
services per capita increase exponentially. The resource base in 1970 is still about 95 percent of its 1900
value, but it declines dramatically thereafter, as population and industrial output continue to grow.

The behavior mode of the system is that of overshoot and collapse. In this run the collapse occurs because
of nonrenewable resource depletion. The industrial capital stock grows to a level that requires an enormous
input of resources. In the very process of that growth it depletes a large fraction of the resource reserves
available. As resource prices rise and mines are depleted, more and more capital must be used for obtaining
resources, leaving less to be invested for future growth. Finally investment cannot keep up with
depreciation, and the industrial base collapses, taking with it the service and agricultural systems, which
have become dependent on industrial inputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, hospital laboratories, computers,
and especially energy for mechanization). For a short time the situation is especially serious because
population, with the delays inherent in the age structure and the process of social adjustment, keeps rising.
Population finally decreases when the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services. The
exact timing of these events is not meaningful, given the great aggregation and many uncertainties in the
model. It is significant, however, that growth is stopped well before the year 2100. We have tried in every
doubtful case to make the most optimistic estimate of unknown quantities, and we have also ignored
discontinuous events such as wars or epidemics, which might act to bring an end to growth even sooner
than our model would indicate. In other words, the model is biased to allow growth to continue longer than
it probably can continue in the real world. We can thus say with some confidence that, under the
assumption of no major change in the present system, population and industrial growth will certainly stop
within th next century, at the latest.

To test the model assumption about available resources, we doubled the resource reserves in 1900, keeping
all other assumptions identical to those in the standard run. Now industrialization can reach a higher level
since resources are not so quickly depleted. The larger industrial plant releases pollution at such a rate,
however, that the environmental pollution absorption mechanisms become saturated. Pollution rises very
rapidly, causing an immediate increase in the death rate and a decline in food production. At the end of the
run resources are severely depleted in spite of the doubled amount initially available.

Is the future of the world system bound to be growth and then collapse into a dismal, depleted existence?
Only if we make the initial assumption that our present way of doing things will not change. We have ample
evidence of mankind's ingenuity and social flexibility. There are, of course, many likely changes in the
system, some of which are already taking place. The Green Revolution is raising agricultural yields in non
industrialized countries. Knowledge about modern methods of birth control is spreading rapidly.

Although the history of human effort contains numerous incidents of mankind's failure to live within
physical limits, it is success in overcoming limits that forms the cultural tradition of many dominant people
in today's world. Over the past three hundred years, mankind has compiled an impressive record of pushing
back the apparent limits to population and economic growth by a series of spectacular technological
advances. Since the recent history of a large part of human society has been so continuously successful, it
is quite natural that many people expect technological breakthrough to go on raising physical ceilings
indefinitely.

Will new technologies alter the tendency of the world system to grow and collapse?

Let us assume, however, that the technological optimists are correct and that nuclear energy will solve the
resource problems of the world.

Let us also assume a reduction in pollution generation all sources by a factor of four, starting in 1975.

Let us also assume that the normal yield per hectare of all the world's land can be further increased by a
factor of two.Besides we assume perfect birth control, practiced voluntarily, starting in 1975.

All this means we are utilizing a technological policy in every sector of the world model to circumvent in
some way the various limits to growth. The model system is producing nuclear power, recycling resources,
and mining the most remote reserves; withholding as many pollutants as possible; pushing yields from the
land to undreamed-of heights; and producing only children who are actively wanted by their parents. The
result is still an end to growth before the year 2100.

Because of three siumultaneous crises. Overuse of land leads to erosion, and food production drops.
Resources are severly depleted by a prosperous world population (but not as prosperous as the present US
population). Pollution rises, drops, and then rises again dramatically, causing a further decrease in food
production and a sudden rise in the death rate. The application of technological solutions alone has
prolonged the period of population and industrial growth, but it has not removed the ultimate limits to that
growth.

Given the many approximations and limitations of the world model, there is no point in dwelling glumly on
the series of catastrophes it tends to generate. We shall emphasize just one more time that none of these
computer outputs is a prediction. We would not expect the real world to behave like the world model in any
of the graphs we have shown, especially in the collapse modes. The model contains dynamic statements
about only the physical aspects of man's activities. It assumes that social variables--income distribution,
attitudes about family size, choices among goods, services, and food--will continue to follow the same
patterns they have followed throughout the world in recent history. These patterns, and the human value
they represent, were all established in the growth phase of our civilization. They would certainly be greatly
revised as population and income began to decrease. Since we find it difficult to imagine what new forms of
human societal behavior might emerge and how quickly they would emerge under collapse conditions, we
have not attempted to model such social changes. What validity our model has holds up only to the point in
each output graph at which growth comes to an end and collapse begins.

The unspoken assumption behind all of the model runs we have presented in this chapter is that population
and capital growth should be allowed to continue until they reach some "natural" limit. This assumption also
appears to be a basic part of the human value system currently operational in the real world. Given that first
assumption, that population and capital growth should not be deliberately limited but should be left to "seek
their own levels", we have not been able to find a set of policies that avoids the collapse mode of behavior.

The hopes of the technological optimists center on the ability of technology to remove or extend the limits to
growth of population and capital. We have shown that in the world model the application of technology to
apparent problems of resource depletion or pollution or food shortage has no impact on the essential
problem, which is exponential growth in a finite and complex system. Our attempts to use even the most
optimistic estimates of the benefits of technology in the model did not prevent the ultimate decline of
population and industry, and in fact did not in any case postpone the collapse beyond the year 2100.

Unfortunately the model does not indicate, at this stage, the social side-effects of new technologies. These
effects are often the most important in terms of the influence of a technology on people's lives.

Social side-effects must be anticipated and forestalled before the large-scale introduction of a new
technology.

While technology can change rapidly, political and social, insitutions generally change very slowly.
Furthermore, they almost never change in anticipation of social need, but only in response to one.

We must also keep in mind the presence of social delays--the delays necessary to allow society to absorb or
to prepare for a change. Most delays, physical or social reduce the stability of the world system and
increase the likelihood of the overshoot mode. The social delays, like the physical ones, are becoming
increasingly more critical because the processes of exponential growth are creating additional pressures at a
faster and faster rate. Although the rate of technological change has so far managed to keep up with this
accelerated pace, mankind has made virtually no new discoveries to increase the rate of social, political,
ethical, and cultural change.

Even if society's technological progress fulfills all expectations, it may very well be a problem with no
technical solution, or the interaction of several such problems, that finally brings an end to population and
capital growth.

Applying technology to the natural pressures that the environment exerts against any growth process has
been so successful in the past that a whole culture has evolved around the principle of fighting against limits
rather than learning to live with them.

Is it better to try to live within that limit by accepting a self-imposed restriction on growth? Or is it
preferable to go on growing until some other natural limit arises, in the hope that at that time another
technological leap will allow growth to continue still longer? For the last several hundred years human
society has followed the second course so consistently and successfully that the first choice has been all but
forgotten.

There may be much disagreement with the statement that population and capital growth must stop soon. But
virtually no one will argue that material growth on this planet can go on forever. At this point in man's
history, the choice posed above is still available in almost every sphere of human activity. Man can still
choose his limits and stops when he pleases by weakening some of the strong pressures that cause capital
and population growth, or by instituting counterpressures, or both. Such counterpresures will probably not
be entirely pleasant. They will certainly involve profund changes in the social and economic structures that
have been deeply impressed into human culture by centuries of growth. The alternative is to wait until the
price of technology becomes more than society can pay, or until the side-effects of technology suppress
growth themselves, or until problems arise that have no technical solutions. At any of those points the
choice of limits will be gone.

Faith in technology as the ultimate solution to all problems can thus divert our attention from the most
fundamental problem--the problem of growth in a finite system--and prevent us from taking effective action
to solve it.

On the other hand, our intent is certainly not to brand technology as evil or futile or unnecessary. We
strongly believe that many of the technological developments mentioned here--recycling, pollution-control
devices, contraceptives--will be absolutely vital to the future of human society if they are combined with
deliberate checks on growth. We would deplore an unreasoned rejection of the benefit of technology as
strongly as we argue here against an unreasoned acceptance of them. Perhaps the best summary of our
position is the motto of the Sierra Club : "Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress".

We would hope that society will receive each technological advance by establishing the answers to three
questions before the technology is widely adopted. The questions are:

- What will be the side-effects, both physical and social, if this development is introduced on a large scale?

- What social changes will be necessary before this development can be implemented properly, and how
long will it take to achieve them ?

- If the development is fully successful and removes some natural limits to growth, what limit will the
growing system meet next? Will society prefer its pressures to the ones this development is designed to
remove?

We are searching for a model that represents a world system that is:

1. sustainable without sudden and uncontrollable collapse; and

2. capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all of its people

The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent
phenomenon, a result of mankind's very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling
negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint.
There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to
equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again. All of the "natural" constraints to
population growth operate in the second way--they raise the death. Any society wishing to avoid that result
must take deliberate action to control the positive feedback loop--to reduce the birth rate.

But stabilizing population alone is not sufficient to prevent overshoot and collapse; a similar run with
constant capital and rising population shows that stabilizing capital alone is also not sufficient. What happens
if we bring both positive feedback loops under control simultaneously? We can stabilize the capital stock in
the model by requiring that the investment rate equal the depreciation rate, with an additional model link
exactly analogous to the population-stabilizing one.

The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other
changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial
output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the
temporily stable state degenerates. However, we can improve the model behavior greatly by conbining
technological changes with value changes that reduce the growth tendencies of the system.

Then the stable world population is only slightly larger than the population today. There is more than twice
as much food per person as the average value in 1970, and world average lifetime is nearly 70 years. The
average industrial output per capita is well above today's level, and services per capita have tripled. Total
average income per capita (industrial output, food, and services combined) is about half the present average
US income, equal to the present average European income, and three times the present average world
income. Resources are still being gradually depleted, as they must be under any realistic assumption, but the
rate of depletion is so slow that there is time for technology and industry to adjust to changes in resource
availability.

If we relax our most unrealistic assumption--that we can suddenly and absolutely stabilize population and
capital, replacing them with the following:

1. The population has access to 100 percent effective birth control.

2. The average desired family size is two children.

3. The economic system endeavors to maintain average industrial output per capita at about the 1975 level.
Excess industrial capability is employed for producing consumption goods rather than increasing the
industrial capital investment rate above the depreciation rate.

We do not suppose that any single one of the policies necessary to attain system stability in the model can or
should be suddenly introduced in the world by 1975. A society choosing stability as a goal certainly must
approach that goal gradually. It is important to realize, however, that the longer exponential growth is
allowed to continue, the fewer possibilities remain for the final stable rate.

Many people will think that the changes we have introduced into the model to avoid the growth-and collapse
behavior mode are not only impossible, but unpleasant, dangerous, even disastrous in themselves. Such
policies as reducing the birth rate and diverting capital from production of material goods, by whatever
means they might be implemented, seem unnatural and unimaginable, because they have not, in most
people's experience, been tried, or even seriously suggested. Indeed there would be little point even in
discussing such fundamental changes in the functioning of modern society if we felt that the present pattern
of unrestricted growth were sustainable into the future. All the evidence available to us, however, suggests
that of the three alternatives--unrestricted growth, a self-imposed limitation to growth, or a nature-imposed
limitation to growth--only the last two are actually possible.

Achieving a self-imposed limitation to growth would require much effort. It would involve learning to do
many things in new ways. It would tax the ingenuity, the flexibility, and the self-discipline of the human
race. Bringing a deliberate, controlled end to growth is a tremendous challenge, not easiliy met. Would the
final result be worth the effort? What would humanity gain by siuuch a transition, and what would it,lose?
Let us consider in more detail what a world of nongrowth might be like.

We have after much discussion, decided to call the state of constant population and capital, by the term
"equilibrium". Equilibrium means a state of balance or equality between opposing forces. In the dynamic
terms of the world model, the opposing forces are those causing population and capital stock to increase
(high desired family size, low birth control effectivness, high rate of capital investment) and those causing
population and capital stock to decrease (lack of food, pollution, high rate of depreciation or obsolescence).
The word "capital" should be understood to mean service, industrial, and agricultural capital combined. Thus
the most basic definition of the state of global equilibrium is that population and capital are essentially stable,
with the forces tending to increase or decrease them in a carefully controlled balance.

There is much room for variation within that definition. We have only specified that the stocks of capital
and population remain constant, but they might theoretically be constant at a high level or a low level--or one
might be high and the other low. The longer a society prefers to maintain the state of equilibrium, the lower
the rates and levels must be.

By choosing a fairly long time horizon for its existence, and a long average lifetime as a desirable goal, we
have now arrived at a minimum set of requirements for the state of global equilibrium. They are:

1. The capital plant and the population are constant in size.The birth rate equals the death rate and the capital
investment rate equals the depreciation rate.

2. All input and output rates--birth, death, investment, and depreciation--are kept to a minimum.

3. The levels of capital and population and the ratio of the two are set in accordance with the values of the
society.They may be deliberately revised and slowly adjusted as the advance of technology creates new
options.

An equilibrium defined in this way does not mean stagnation. Within the first two guidelines above,
corporations could expand or fail, local populations could increase or decrease income could become more
or less evenly distributed. Technological advance would permit the services provided by a constant stock of
capital to increase slowly. Within the third guideline, any country could change its average standard of living
by altering the balance between its population and its capital. Furthermore, a society could adjust to
changing internal or external factors by raising or lowering the population or capital stocks, or both, slowly
and in a controlled fashion, with a predetermined goal in mind. The three points above define a dynamic
equilibrium, which need not and probably would not "freeze" the world into the population

Capital configuration that happens to exist at present time. The object in accepting the above three
statements is to create freedom for society, not to impose a straitjacket.

What would life be like in such an equilibrium state? Would innovation be stifled? Would society be locked
into the patterns of inequality and injustice we see in the world today? Discussion of these questions must
proceed on the basis of mental models, for there is no formal model of social conditions in the equilibrium
state. No one can predict what sort of institutions mankind might develop under these new conditions.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the new society would be much better or even much different from
that which exists today. It seems possible, however, that a society released from struggling with the many
problems caused by growth may have more energy and ingenuity available for solving other problems. In
fact, we believe, that the evolution of a society that favors innovation and technological development, a
society based on equality and justice, is far more likely to evolve in a state of global equilibrium than it is in
the state of growth we are experiencing today

Population and capital are the only quantities that need be constant in the equilibrium state. Any human
activity that does not require a large flow of irreplaceable resources or produce severe environmental
degradation might continue to grow indefinitely. In particular, those pursuits that many people would list as
the most desirable and satisfying activities of man--education, art, music, religion, basic scientific research,
athletics, and social interactions--could flourish.

All of the activities listed above depend very strongly on two factors. First, they depend upon the availability
of some surplus production after the basixc human needs of fod and shelter have been met. Second, they
require leisure time. In any equilibrium state the relative levels of capital and population could be adjusted to
assure that human material needs are fulfilled at any desired level. Since the amount of material production
would be essentially fixed, every improvement in production methods could result in increased leisure for
the population--leisure that could be devoted to any activity that is relatively nonconSuming and
nonpolluting, such as those listed above

Guvernatorul B.N.R. Mugur Isarescu E membru al CLUBULUI DE LA ROMA.

--------------------

dead-cat

26 Apr 2005, 06:34 PM

Mesaj #49

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.203
Inscris: 6 April 04
Din: On the Rhine
Forumist Nr.: 2.942

QUOTE

nu cred ca au penetrat , dar totusi daca socialismul ar functiona (desi se pare ca nu functioneaza) ar fi mai eficient deci capitalismul, am sa ma explic in alt post...
te invit sa citesti articolul asta:

nu ar functiona economic, din cauza idiotenii de concept de centralizare cu cincinale cu tot, ceea ce inseamna dinamica masivului himalalya.

QUOTE

ai mai dat niste informatii legat de nmarul sindicalistilor, te rog sa-mi oferi o resursa , si daca se poate in legatura cu germania nr locuitorilor,mortalitate/rata nasterilor,pib/locuitor...,mersi

sper ca stii nemteste:
http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/217.0.html

sursa: Auswärtiges Amt ("Biroul" Afacerilor Externe)

detalii despre alte demografice gasesti in CIA World Facbook 2005

de unde:

Population: 82,424,609 (July 2004 est.)
Mortalitate: 10.44 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Natalitate: 8.45 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
PIB: $2.271 trillioane (2003 est.)
PIB/capita: $27,600 (2003 est.)

Acest topic a fost editat de dead-cat: 26 Apr 2005, 06:41 PM

--------------------

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

nefertiti-old Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 06:35 PM Mesaj #50
Coffee woman Grup: Membri Mesaje: 8.981 Inscris: 7 September 03 Din: Timisoara Forumist Nr.: 721	Cociuba, nu mai posta kilometraje din aleaaaa. -------------------- "Libertatea de a respinge e singura libertate." (Salman Rushdie)

cociuba Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 06:42 PM Mesaj #51
Cavalerul nedesavarsit Grup: Membri Mesaje: 1.548 Inscris: 25 April 04 Forumist Nr.: 3.251	dead-cat cunosc problemele cu care s-ar confrunta socialism, din care cea mai important e formarea preturilor, dar daca in capitalism ar exista o reducere a duratei drepturilor de proprietate a patentelor,inventilor, etc ar creste (cred) penetrarea noilor tehnologii... nefertiti, am postat continuarea respectivului articol in ideea ca poate nu aveti chef sa dati download (oricum scuze,daca am gresit ) edit:nu stiu germana, dar am sa ma uit pe cia world, mersi (desi trebuia sa ma gandesc si eu la a da un search ) din cate vad in cazul germaniei nu se inlocuieste populatia, deci are un ritm demografic descendent...am sa verific si restul tarilor europene dar cred ca la toate exista o scadere a populatie, spre deosebire de asia, o sa revin pe aceasta tema... Acest topic a fost editat de cociuba: 26 Apr 2005, 06:46 PM --------------------

dead-cat

26 Apr 2005, 06:47 PM

Mesaj #52

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.203
Inscris: 6 April 04
Din: On the Rhine
Forumist Nr.: 2.942

QUOTE

dead-cat cunosc problemele cu care s-ar confrunta socialism, din care cea mai important e formarea preturilor, dar daca in capitalism ar exista o reducere a duratei drepturilor de proprietate a patentelor,inventilor, etc ar creste (cred) penetrarea noilor tehnologii...

a investi in research intr-o tehnologie noua trebuie sa se merite financiar. altfel nimeni n-ar face-o. de aceea exista patente. daca patentele expira prea devreme, singurii care pierd sunt cei care au investit in research. ca urmare, nu va mai investi nimeni si ai exact efectul contrar.

--------------------

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

cociuba Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 06:50 PM Mesaj #53
Cavalerul nedesavarsit Grup: Membri Mesaje: 1.548 Inscris: 25 April 04 Forumist Nr.: 3.251	ce zici de universitatile de stat? in sua cele mai importante universitati sunt de stat sau private? --------------------

dead-cat Vizualizare profil forumist	26 Apr 2005, 06:55 PM Mesaj #54
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 3.203 Inscris: 6 April 04 Din: On the Rhine Forumist Nr.: 2.942	ce are una cu alta? doara nu crezi ca universitatiile fac research asa de capul lor, fara finantari externe? care vin de regula, guess what, ...diferite firme care se asteapta la cistiguri financiare pe urma acestor rezultate, in care au investit bani. nu-s avocat, deci nu stiu cine are proprietatea unui astfel de patent. oricum numarul cel mai mare de patente nu provine din universitati ci din "economie". -------------------- Black holes are where God divided by zero.

cociuba Vizualizare profil forumist	27 Apr 2005, 05:45 AM Mesaj #55
Cavalerul nedesavarsit Grup: Membri Mesaje: 1.548 Inscris: 25 April 04 Forumist Nr.: 3.251	dead-cat deja discutam in necunostiinta de cauza (cel putin eu) caci nu am informatii privitoare la numarul patentelor, si cine sunt cei care le-au inregistrat,si care e durata pentru care ele functioneaza... totusi daca analizezi logic in socialism nu ar trebui sa fie patente, deci imi mentin parerea ca ar putea (nu ca ar fi putut ) sa aiba o dezvoltare mai rapida noile tehnologii... sunt curios sa-ti aud parerea legata de medicamentele generice...?! in capitalism brevetele, know-how sunt o marfa , insa avand un caracter mai special, nimeni nu le poate copia fara acceptul proprietarului (lucru care de altfel nu e valabil pentru alte bunuri ) deci eu vad dreptul de proprietate ca un cost de monopol, caci numai tu detii respectivul produs pe care toti ceilalti il vor... Vin cu o completare la definitia capitalismului: schimbul se face prin intermediul unei piete,care stabileste preturile si alocarea resurselor toti marii economisti utilaristi, definesc piata in felul urmatoate:locul de intalnire a cererii cu oferta, avand caracteristica atomicitatea perfecta, adica ofertanti si cumparatorii sunt in numar mare si de putere economica mica... IN care din economiile lumii moderne se intampla acest lucru? economiile in care traim sunt in general monopolistici, adica sunt cativa producatori care isi impart marea parte a pietei si milioane de cumparatori (ex telecomunicatiile mobile,producatorii de masini,electronice,bauturi alcoolice si carbogazoase, comercianti) O alta problema a capitalismului contemporan este neconvertibilitatea monedei, propriu-zis banii care sunt in circulatii sunt fara acoperire, avand valoare doar prin lege, etalonul-aur a disparut de mult, asa ca bine_ai_venit inflatie... ,subliniez moneda emisa de stat, deci intreb inca o data in ce fel de economie credeti ca traiti? --------------------

nefertiti-old Vizualizare profil forumist	27 Apr 2005, 07:09 AM Mesaj #56
Coffee woman Grup: Membri Mesaje: 8.981 Inscris: 7 September 03 Din: Timisoara Forumist Nr.: 721	[QUOTE]adica ofertanti si cumparatorii sunt in numar mare [QUOTE] Pai, depinde ce intelegi prin numar mare, ca asta e generic spus, fiind vorba de o definitie. [/QUOTE]economiile in care traim sunt in general monopolistici, adica sunt cativa producatori care isi impart marea parte a pietei si milioane de cumparatori [QUOTE] Apoi, numarul producatorilor nu va putea fi niciodata egal cu al cumparatorilor sau sensibil egal macar, ca atunci dispar conceptele astea. -------------------- "Libertatea de a respinge e singura libertate." (Salman Rushdie)

dead-cat

27 Apr 2005, 07:24 AM

Mesaj #57

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.203
Inscris: 6 April 04
Din: On the Rhine
Forumist Nr.: 2.942

QUOTE

totusi daca analizezi logic in socialism nu ar trebui sa fie patente, deci imi mentin parerea ca ar putea (nu ca ar fi putut ) sa aiba o dezvoltare mai rapida noile tehnologii...

si cine dezvolta atunci noiile tehnologii, daca nu se renteaza?

QUOTE

in capitalism brevetele, know-how sunt o marfa , insa avand un caracter mai special, nimeni nu le poate copia fara acceptul proprietarului (lucru care de altfel nu e valabil pentru alte bunuri ) deci eu vad dreptul de proprietate ca un cost de monopol, caci numai tu detii respectivul produs pe care toti ceilalti il vor...

adica care bunuri ai voie sa le copiezi fara accordul proprietarului?

o dezvoltare e proprietatea aluia ce-a dezvoltat-o. o vrei o cumperi. nu vrea s-o vinda? tough luck. desi, in afara de siutatii in care politica dicteaza embargouri, pentru pretul potrivit ti se vinde cam orice.

QUOTE

sunt curios sa-ti aud parerea legata de medicamentele generice...?!

nu am inteles

QUOTE

IN care din economiile lumii moderne se intampla acest lucru? economiile in care traim sunt in general monopolistici, adica sunt cativa producatori care isi impart marea parte a pietei si milioane de cumparatori (ex telecomunicatiile mobile,producatorii de masini,electronice,bauturi alcoolice si carbogazoase, comercianti)

economia este signifiant mai mult decit piata de retail a bunurilor de consum.
exista firme cu care "millioanele de cumparatori" n-or sa aiba in viata lor contact, deoarece opereaza doar B2B. de fapt, toti furnizorii de componente in industria automotiva se incadreaza in B2B.

QUOTE

O alta problema a capitalismului contemporan este neconvertibilitatea monedei, propriu-zis banii care sunt in circulatii sunt fara acoperire, avand valoare doar prin lege, etalonul-aur a disparut de mult, asa ca bine_ai_venit inflatie...

asta nu-i o problema a capitalismului contemporan ci e de cind s-au inventat banii de hirtie. intotdeauna bancile s-au bazat pe idea ca niciodata toti detinatorii de bancnote nu vor veni in aceeasi zi sa ceara aur in schimbul bancnotelor.

iar in general, in economiile dezvoltate nu ai probleme de inflatie, pe cind in ex socialism situatia era alta. degeaba era pretul fixat de stat daca erau bunuri insuficiente. de unde si piata neagra.

--------------------

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

ilie Vizualizare profil forumist	27 Apr 2005, 11:15 AM Mesaj #58
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 2.816 Inscris: 16 March 04 Din: Bucuresti Forumist Nr.: 2.605	- In SUA brevetele sunt protejate 17 ani. Eu cred ca daca cineva a creat ceva, e normal sa beneficieze de ce a creat. - Teoria cu comercianti/producatori mici , dar multi- apartine lui Adam Smith aparuta in Avutia Natiunilor acum 200 de ani. Asta e intr-adevar cazul ideal. Intre timp au aparut manufacturile, fabricile, transnationalele, practicile de monopol si globalizarea. Ce-i de facut pentru a avea si o anumita "dreptate sociala" sau mai degraba economica? Acum in Germania economia e dominata de firmele mari, in Italia de firmele medii si mici

cociuba

27 Apr 2005, 01:59 PM

Mesaj #59

Cavalerul nedesavarsit

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 1.548
Inscris: 25 April 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.251

hai ca deja o dam in derizoriu, tuturor celor care va place atat de mult proprietatea intelectuala va sugerez sa nu copiati ilegal muzica

, filme

sau programe (cum ar fi windows)

...
dead-cat

QUOTE

si cine dezvolta atunci noiile tehnologii, daca nu se renteaza?

cine dezvolta linux ?

Freeman

QUOTE

Asta e intr-adevar cazul ideal.

din contra asa ar trebui sa fie normal...

un link interesant wal-mart

propun sa revenim la subiectul principal, deci cum vedeti economia viitorului tinand cont si de o dezvoltare sustenabila care sa nu distruga mediul inconjurator ?

--------------------

dead-cat

27 Apr 2005, 03:25 PM

Mesaj #60

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.203
Inscris: 6 April 04
Din: On the Rhine
Forumist Nr.: 2.942

QUOTE

cine dezvolta linux ?

deocamdata SUSE, Redhat, etc. care vor bani pentru produsul lor, sau mai bine zis pentru bundle ce-l ofera.

iar linux, este un produs, nu un patent.

QUOTE

hai ca deja o dam in derizoriu, tuturor celor care va place atat de mult proprietatea intelectuala va sugerez sa nu copiati ilegal muzica , filme sau programe (cum ar fi windows)

tu de unde vrei sa stii ce soft folosesc eu si daca l-am cumparat sau nu?

creatia intelectuala e proprietatea aceluia care a creat-o si e numai drept si cinstit sa poata beneficia de pe urma efortului depus.
nu-i nimic derizoriu in asta, lucru care nu-l pot spune despre o atitudine de genul "totul este si al meu".

Acest topic a fost editat de dead-cat: 27 Apr 2005, 03:39 PM

--------------------

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

ilie Vizualizare profil forumist	29 Apr 2005, 07:57 AM Mesaj #61
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 2.816 Inscris: 16 March 04 Din: Bucuresti Forumist Nr.: 2.605	E totusi o viziune idealista...The Wealth of Nations a aparut in 1776 totusi...si oricat ai fi de vizionar... Nu poti opri o firma sa se dezvolte, sa devina mare...dar poti aplica procedurile antitrust foarte dur... Cine credea ca o firma deschisa de un pustan intr-un garaj ajunge in 20-25 de ani cea mai tare din lume?!(Microsoft mai tare ca GMC, GEC; in timp ce Krupp AG a dat faliment si a zburat in Thyssen). Sau ca un site(!!!!) ca AOL cumpara pe Warner Bros.?( cu atatea active, etc). Sau ca daca vinzi apa colorata (cola) esti mult mai tare decat Boeing, Bank of America, Daimler C, etc?

cociuba

29 Apr 2005, 07:53 PM

Mesaj #62

Cavalerul nedesavarsit

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 1.548
Inscris: 25 April 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.251

QUOTE

Sau ca daca vinzi apa colorata (cola)

mi-a placut asta...

later edit :
un comentariu la raportul clubului de la roma:
click aici

Acest topic a fost editat de cociuba: 29 Apr 2005, 09:09 PM

--------------------

MIA

3 May 2005, 10:31 AM

Mesaj #63

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.320
Inscris: 21 April 04
Din: Timisoara, Romania
Forumist Nr.: 3.188

Nu ma pot abtine - daca tot l-am criticat pe cociuba

- sa nu reproduc aici definitia capitalismului "de teorie" ( sau pur ).

QUOTE

Capitalismul este un sistem socio-economic care :

1) Aplica in mod constant si pe scara larga ( preferabil in totalitate ... ) calculul rational si inovatia.
2) Marea majoritate ( daca nu chiar totalitatea ... ) mijloacelor de productie, resurselor, fortei de munca s.a.m.d. sunt proprietate privata ( adesea am intilnit mentionat explicit "proprietate privata individuala"

) a diversilor agenti/actori economici.
3 ) Marea majoritate ( daca nu totalitatea ...

) produselor si serviciilor se realizeaza si se tranzactioneaza prin acorduri liber-consimtite, intr-un cadru ( legislativ si socio-cultural ) favorabil, intre agenti/actorii economici conform cerintelor pietei.

Cam asta ar fi

... eventual mai merge de precizat ca punctul (1) e comun si capitalismului si socialismului.
Aaa - si ar mai fi de precizat ca nu exista ( si e discutabil daca a existat vreodata ) capitalism "pur" ( conform definitiei de mai sus ).

P.S. : Sper sa nu-mi fi jucat memoria feste ...

Acest topic a fost editat de MIA: 3 May 2005, 10:33 AM

cociuba

3 May 2005, 12:58 PM

Mesaj #64

Cavalerul nedesavarsit

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 1.548
Inscris: 25 April 04
Forumist Nr.: 3.251

MIA

QUOTE

si e discutabil daca a existat vreodata ) capitalism "pur" ( conform definitiei de mai sus ).

E posibil sa fi existat la chiar la inceputul capitalismului...ceva pur 100 la 100%

ps: ce parere aveti despre limitele cresterii, cred ca aceasta e zona in care socialismul poate sa-si joace cartea...

--------------------

MIA

3 May 2005, 01:34 PM

Mesaj #65

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.320
Inscris: 21 April 04
Din: Timisoara, Romania
Forumist Nr.: 3.188

QUOTE (cociuba @ 3 May 2005, 01:58 PM)

QUOTE

si e discutabil daca a existat vreodata ) capitalism "pur" ( conform definitiei de mai sus ).

E posibil sa fi existat la chiar la inceputul capitalismului...ceva pur 100 la 100%

La ce anume te referi cind spui "inceputurile capitalismului" ?

P.S. : De ce doar socialismul ? Sau mai exact ... de ce socialismul ? Si el a dat-o in bara rau de tot la faza asta.

cociuba Vizualizare profil forumist	3 May 2005, 01:37 PM Mesaj #66
Cavalerul nedesavarsit Grup: Membri Mesaje: 1.548 Inscris: 25 April 04 Forumist Nr.: 3.251	nu doar socialismul, cum nu doar capitalismul rezolva problemele...preluarea unor idei din socialism, protejarea unor sectoare de capitalism (cum ar fi invatamantul,sanatatea,mediul inconjurator) ar putea sa fie cheia de supravietuire... a societatii moderne. --------------------

MIA

3 May 2005, 01:51 PM

Mesaj #67

Domnitor

Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 3.320
Inscris: 21 April 04
Din: Timisoara, Romania
Forumist Nr.: 3.188

QUOTE (cociuba @ 3 May 2005, 02:37 PM)

nu doar socialismul, cum nu doar capitalismul rezolva problemele...preluarea unor idei din socialism, protejarea unor sectoare de capitalism (cum ar fi invatamantul,sanatatea,mediul inconjurator) ar putea sa fie cheia de supravietuire... a societatii moderne.

Parca era vorba despre o discutie despre economie 100% si nu neaparat despre implicatii socio-globale.

Hai sa-ti spun eu o solutie ... 100% capitalista privind asigurarea resurselor. Sau asa cred ca este ...

Lasi piata sa functioneze 100% libera in domeniu ( asta insemnind inclusiv - sau mai ales

- ca nu te apuci sa sponsorizezi si sa sustii toti agaricii de dictatori/tirani din Lumea a III-a - alterind astfel a treia parte a definitiei si chiar pe a doua - doar pentru ca-ti vind petrolul, fierul, cauciucul, cafeaua s.a.m.d. ieftine, ca forma de "mita" ...

). O sa ai oscilatii de turbeaza pietele la materiile prime, dar na ... probabil totul o sa se stabilizeze la un pret suficient de ridicat pentru o utilizare cu adevarat chibzuita a resurselor.

Aaaa - si uitasem ... asa poti avea o sansa mult mai buna de a lichida si subdezvoltarea cronica a anumitor zone de pe Glob.

Acest topic a fost editat de MIA: 3 May 2005, 01:55 PM

ilie Vizualizare profil forumist	3 May 2005, 08:21 PM Mesaj #68
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 2.816 Inscris: 16 March 04 Din: Bucuresti Forumist Nr.: 2.605	Mia: Esti mare boss! ai gasit solutia globala omule , prieteneste iti recomand sa citesti o cartulie, revista ceva, de popularizare a economiei, macroeconomiei si a atator altora. Esti comic rau! Zau!

MIA Vizualizare profil forumist	4 May 2005, 09:16 AM Mesaj #69
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 3.320 Inscris: 21 April 04 Din: Timisoara, Romania Forumist Nr.: 3.188	Argumenteaza. P.S. : Desi nu intr-un mod asa "explicit", solutia expusa de mine e aceeasi cu a lui Milton Friedman din cartea sa "Liber sa alegi". Ai citit-o ?

ilie Vizualizare profil forumist	4 May 2005, 12:52 PM Mesaj #70
Domnitor Grup: Membri Mesaje: 2.816 Inscris: 16 March 04 Din: Bucuresti Forumist Nr.: 2.605	Mia: omule , tu pari o persoana de treaba, dar la economie...mai ai de fumat serios. Dar daca vrei, poti orice.

« Cele mai vechi · Afaceri si economie · Cele mai noi »