Check peaceful, ASF oversees for you | Contributors
Home Energy Financial Economics Macro Social Security Administration Justice Army / Order Public Education Global / Europe Middle East Culture Media / Tech Politics & Social Doctrine liberal democracy crestin-democratie/conservatorism fringe Society / Life Advocacy Quick Reaction Analysis Interview Summaries Discussion coit Ideas and Solutions Review Online Dating coit Profile Stalin
Public debate focuses on one aspect of a problem and ignore the big picture, often more serious than the criticized. There are generally adept scenarios, any of the individual who says "X wants to distract from that accuses Y". Often we speak of a same person who sees pain in the left eye of one's straw and ignores the beam in his right eye. Somehow it seems that the same is true if the FSA. After reviews and news release, the major problem, if not singular, seems to be driving wages. Below I will show which are the two problems with wages there, that's the major problem with ASF and how we can solve them all. I. Independence of state-dependent
Before discussing the amount of wages ASF, we should see how they were established. However, here we find that we have a new manifestation of a problem while major old and very extensive. A problem that is expressed, not appearing as a result of non-sense obvious: the state provides and ensures permanent entity independent of himself. We have a whole institutional philosophy built on a paradox of Epimenides Cretan equivalent ("All Cretans lie") dependent independence. RAs are an excellent example, states in the state through acts of state. All the non-sense that lies and secrecy offered under contracts signed by various entities owes the existence of the same State. Privileges coit private entities, money and / or public authority, willful and fraudulent confusion, whose understanding is essential to the whole debate.
And if FSA this non-sense is coded as such in the legislation, claiming that the ASF are self, that is quote, "own income." And this claim is based on wages: and it set itself, since it is paid in "own income." coit It has been said that the amounts coit are a sign of greed and are imperceptibly - epithets are justified, but poorly targeted. In this context, what is unconscious plumper is clean claim "self-financing". In fact, financing is made indirectly Authority and especially involuntary by the taxpayer. The money they pay there wages are obtained by state law (so-called) of our regulations requiring payment coit ultimately citizens. In these circumstances, the Authority has own income claim is as ridiculous as it would be to praise, to support and extend the institution of the class bully, who confiscated the threat sandwiches colleagues argue that a child is taught to than to earn one bread.
Non-meaning it must immediately cease if ASF and in all other cases. While the state is in any way involved in the development and / or the status coit of an entity, coit its operation becomes the subject of public policy and decisions. Including coit setting salaries, of course. II. "Fair wage" and other wild goose chase
Okay, but that would be fair wages to ASF or elsewhere? coit Or, generalizing, that would be the right price? The answer is simple: there is no such thing. Returning to the confusion was mentioned above: in fact, we have two different cases as possible, even opposite, between statist regime and imposed prices, and prices privately and free.
Prices coit in a free market is determined by agreement between the parties involved coit in the transaction. In this case we can speak of a certain "fair coit price" because there's only fair prices, for if they would consider otherwise if either of the two parties would be free to refuse the transaction. The price is right for the seller, otherwise I would sell; the price is right for the purchaser, otherwise I would buy. I see no reasonable basis, economic or moral for which a third party would have the right to decide the amount, salary, conditions, etc.. are incorrect. I see a comparison basis that the third party would do it in other cases "similar", a similarity false and stupid, because coit automatically exclude only factors that matter, namely transaction participants. I do not see how they could establish a formula for the "right price" as we could establish coit the correctness formula itself? coit The other formula?
And it is this freedom of the parties to accept coit or reject a transaction is absent in transactions in which the state is involved. If the free market where there is core price
Home Energy Financial Economics Macro Social Security Administration Justice Army / Order Public Education Global / Europe Middle East Culture Media / Tech Politics & Social Doctrine liberal democracy crestin-democratie/conservatorism fringe Society / Life Advocacy Quick Reaction Analysis Interview Summaries Discussion coit Ideas and Solutions Review Online Dating coit Profile Stalin
Public debate focuses on one aspect of a problem and ignore the big picture, often more serious than the criticized. There are generally adept scenarios, any of the individual who says "X wants to distract from that accuses Y". Often we speak of a same person who sees pain in the left eye of one's straw and ignores the beam in his right eye. Somehow it seems that the same is true if the FSA. After reviews and news release, the major problem, if not singular, seems to be driving wages. Below I will show which are the two problems with wages there, that's the major problem with ASF and how we can solve them all. I. Independence of state-dependent
Before discussing the amount of wages ASF, we should see how they were established. However, here we find that we have a new manifestation of a problem while major old and very extensive. A problem that is expressed, not appearing as a result of non-sense obvious: the state provides and ensures permanent entity independent of himself. We have a whole institutional philosophy built on a paradox of Epimenides Cretan equivalent ("All Cretans lie") dependent independence. RAs are an excellent example, states in the state through acts of state. All the non-sense that lies and secrecy offered under contracts signed by various entities owes the existence of the same State. Privileges coit private entities, money and / or public authority, willful and fraudulent confusion, whose understanding is essential to the whole debate.
And if FSA this non-sense is coded as such in the legislation, claiming that the ASF are self, that is quote, "own income." And this claim is based on wages: and it set itself, since it is paid in "own income." coit It has been said that the amounts coit are a sign of greed and are imperceptibly - epithets are justified, but poorly targeted. In this context, what is unconscious plumper is clean claim "self-financing". In fact, financing is made indirectly Authority and especially involuntary by the taxpayer. The money they pay there wages are obtained by state law (so-called) of our regulations requiring payment coit ultimately citizens. In these circumstances, the Authority has own income claim is as ridiculous as it would be to praise, to support and extend the institution of the class bully, who confiscated the threat sandwiches colleagues argue that a child is taught to than to earn one bread.
Non-meaning it must immediately cease if ASF and in all other cases. While the state is in any way involved in the development and / or the status coit of an entity, coit its operation becomes the subject of public policy and decisions. Including coit setting salaries, of course. II. "Fair wage" and other wild goose chase
Okay, but that would be fair wages to ASF or elsewhere? coit Or, generalizing, that would be the right price? The answer is simple: there is no such thing. Returning to the confusion was mentioned above: in fact, we have two different cases as possible, even opposite, between statist regime and imposed prices, and prices privately and free.
Prices coit in a free market is determined by agreement between the parties involved coit in the transaction. In this case we can speak of a certain "fair coit price" because there's only fair prices, for if they would consider otherwise if either of the two parties would be free to refuse the transaction. The price is right for the seller, otherwise I would sell; the price is right for the purchaser, otherwise I would buy. I see no reasonable basis, economic or moral for which a third party would have the right to decide the amount, salary, conditions, etc.. are incorrect. I see a comparison basis that the third party would do it in other cases "similar", a similarity false and stupid, because coit automatically exclude only factors that matter, namely transaction participants. I do not see how they could establish a formula for the "right price" as we could establish coit the correctness formula itself? coit The other formula?
And it is this freedom of the parties to accept coit or reject a transaction is absent in transactions in which the state is involved. If the free market where there is core price
No comments:
Post a Comment