Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (182631)	2/28/2006 5:35:12 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I'd say about 95% in New Zealand. I'm 95% certain your estimate is out to lunch, but I'll have to dig a bit to get numbers. Actually, I'll dig in my own region first, and if I'm surprised by numbers higher than I think, I'll consider looking for NZ numbers. When I say "poorly", nearly everything we do is "poorly" in absolute terms, that is compared with perfection. Then choose a more reasonable term, and spare the rest of us the renormalization step. Thats what language is for. Poorly in this case means compared with capitalist free market competition. Maybe child protection could be privatized. I haven't figured out how. If you have ideas, they might be worth considering. How can the first case be poor compared to the second, if you can't even articulate how the 2'nd might work? Damn, you failed again. This is harder work than getting a dole-bludger back to work [without cutting their dole]. Stop producing the problem, then the oversight wouldn't be necessary. As I pointed out to you, and you have entirely failed to acknowledge, unwanted babies are and will be born as long as sex is attractive. This is what causes a steady supply of children needing welfare assistance, either in their original home, or with care providers. The fraction of babies intentionally produced, so someone can collect a welfare check is small by comparison. Once again, you are banging the 10% drum. It's a question of precision. I'm happy with even an order of magnitude. You might recall Enron and the 'value' of cyber energy trading. A stellar example of how well the free market system assigns value to human activity. You will bump into the problem "Is consciousness continuous" Uh? or is a quantum theory of consciousness only if you are very confused about biological systems, which is pretty clear that you are needed and what is the $ value of one quanta of consciousness? human or ant? Does it matter?