Re: Economist article on mobility

"jrw" <jrwilmott@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122293185.532956.7520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Trucker,
>
> Your sums don't make sense, shock, if so many people are doing so
> badly, why then is owner/occupier rates at 70%? This doesn't look like
> a poor country to me.

It would be really appropriate to leave the context.
That way I and others might know what you are
attempting to address.

And if you are talking about BUYER occupiers then
you are right. These people do not _own_ the
real estate and they refiinance every year so as to
support the GDP. They will _never_ own their
homes and in this case the rentier is the lender.

> And what is wrong with ebay, there are over 100,000 businesses now in
> existence because of this corporation. These companies create wealth.
> Who are the losers in the ebay model? Who lost because of hotmail?
> What do you have against Bill Gates, he has made over 10,000 of his
> workers millionaires, ordinary working guys, such as PA's and
> programmers. And he has given more money to charity than anyone else.
> And isn't he a democrat as well?

This is the typical neocon diatride: We will simply leave out
all the "data" we don't like and trumpet the few positives very
loudly. Microsoft CURRENTLY makes big bucks by
PREVENTING new technology where Microsoft does not
have an ownership share. Gates has given more to charity
because he HAS a lot more. Percentage wise he has a
lot of contenders that would rate a lot higher. But your
statements/questions are quite typical of the latter day
neoconomist. You sure your name isn't Jim Blair?

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.