Bruddah IZ
DA
Don’t flatter yourself. Eliminating what is obvi to most is necessary when Bozo’s ride out on the bandwagon.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Ruling clique is right. Now they're getting heat because they all fly private on government money. Even for 100 mile trips they spend 25K.
Hüsker Dü
DA
The hypocrisy stunning and silence from the "small government" types deafening.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Are you suggesting the Obama's should have flown on Hawaiian Airlines?
Bruddah IZ
DA
insert premise hook
Bruddah IZ
DA
Non-litigator. Good luck with that.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Again, why is it you see acting stupid as somehow cute? As a believer in and follower of nono I can see why you may see it that way, but the thing you may not recognize is that with your leader nono, it's for real . . . but you still want to be just like him.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The Broken Window
Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"
Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry,
I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.
And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
Now let us consider James Goodfellow.
On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.
On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.
Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.
From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed,"... "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."
The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction.--Bastiat, Sophisms of.....
Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"
Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry,
I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.
And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
Now let us consider James Goodfellow.
On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.
On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.
Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.
From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed,"... "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."
The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction.--Bastiat, Sophisms of.....
Hüsker Dü
DA
A substitute teacher was fired from a Vermont school on Thursday after giving the Nazi salute in front of third graders.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...giving-nazi-salute-to-third-graders/23219612/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...giving-nazi-salute-to-third-graders/23219612/
Bruddah IZ
DA
From the tower of babble itself.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Yawn
"they all fly private".....All? You sure? Everyone of them? All?
Hüsker Dü
DA
Can't argue the abuse so you go after the wording of the attack, typical, "I got nothing so I'll attack the messenger" response. Argue the abuse or move on, you look like a picky little old lady with your bloomers all a flutter.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I believe he is arguing the abuse by asking you to provide the specificity that you people typically miss. You then post a picture of a rabbit at the other side of a hollowed out log. Lol. You have an empirical argument that is supported by your history of attention to detail that you can understand and explain? Please leave your daff--ology at the door.
Your argument is a lie....not ALL officials abuse the system.
Your problem is you lack the intelligence and your too lazy to be specific, it's so much easier to use words like all, every, always...
You speak and post and think in generalities...ramble Daffy ramble.
Hüsker Dü
DA
I never said "all" and your picking that out as your point of contention instead of attempting to defend the officials that do was the point of my post . . . yet you cling to "all" as if it is the out for not discussing the abuse.
Hüsker Dü
DA
You ignoring what is going on isn't my cross to bear. Educate yourself.
