![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() ![]() |
|
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
The Hustler
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,993
|
War is $$
Here's something I posted in another forum earlier this week.. I can't believe I forgot about GFY when writing this
![]() Ok, this post doesn't have any sly catchy joke or anything.. Just real facts and data about this whole Isreal / Lebanon situation. There were a lot of Americans in Lebanon, anyone with a television has seen them seek refuge in the masses a few weeks ago. Obviously there was some investment capital setup there, do you agree? With that in mind you lets look at some real facts about economic and investment life cycles and growth. The one I'd like to point out is the Solow-Swan growth model theorized by Robert Solow, here's a quote from a write up based on this model that I've found known as `The Solow Paradox': "If, and this is a big if, everyone in the economy could somehow collectively decide to decrease the savings rate from s2 to s1, then per capita consumption could increase permanently from c2* to c1*. Of course we obtain this because of the way we drew our diagram. It is conceivable that decreasing s might lead to lower c, for instance. But the principle should be clear: it is quite possible that the steady-state we end up at will be consumption inefficient in the sense that somehow changing the propensity to save will improve consumption per capita permanently." Here's a diagram which in reference to this quote: ![]() OK.. If you can comprehend what that above quote is getting at, let's have a look at a real life depiction of economic gain. Goto http://finance.yahoo.com and then click on `Currency' which is located under `International'. Or if you're lazy, click here: http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/co...submit=Convert This will take you to a form that will enable you to convert and compare different currencies all over the world. Try converting 1,000 US dollars into Lebanese pounds, this is what you will get: ![]() (this image was downloaded in real-time as I was typing this post) Notice the increase in the Lebanese Pound since the beginning of July, It has has more than doubled and it's only been 1 month. Now, what do you think may have caused this little increase? What happened in Lebanon in early July 2006? I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, but I think it's obvious. Basically, consumption-inefficiency makes growth theory amenable to government policy in most cases and economic gain in others. To invoke any kind of inefficiency to be largely beneficial by any government; what better way than war? References: The Solow Paradox - http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays...lowparadox.htm |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 181
|
dude, the world is about money, not only war
__________________
ICQ:346111087 Email: ronad231 AT hotmail D0T com |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |