9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage as 9% of a bag of Oranges.
9% is 9%.
|
9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage as 9% of a bag of Oranges.
9% is 9%.
9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage and 9% of a bag of Oranges.
9% is 9%.
Doesn't matter if it a bag, trucload or Trainload. 9% is still 9% of something.
Apples and oranges may be fruit, but you can't compare them to each other.
MATH 101, Never compare apples and oranges.
Apples are different in color, content, and price, so how are they equal? You would have done better with two shoes being equal, but that would be awkward since your feet are not, one is left the other is right, but they come as a set don't they?
Never mind, if you don't understand simple math then Geometry would be really impossible, and forget algebra and physics.
Enjoy your fruit and try not to understand them. Eat your PEAS!!
Percentages of anything are the same no matter what you compare.
9% of any one thing is still the same percentage of 9% of anything else.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/percentage
Per·cent·age (pr-sntj)
n.
1.
a. A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98.
b. The result obtained by multiplying a quantity by a percent.
2. A proportion or share in relation to a whole; a part: The hecklers constituted only a small percentage of the audience.
3. An amount, such as an allowance, duty, or commission, that varies in proportion to a larger sum, such as total sales: work for a percentage.
4. Informal Advantage; gain: There is no percentage in work without pay.
Usage Note: When preceded by the, percentage takes a singular verb: The percentage of unskilled workers is small. When preceded by a, it takes either a singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the noun in the prepositional phrase that follows: A small percentage of the workers are unskilled. A large percentage of the crop has spoiled.
Well, there you have it. A 10 point plan for a classLESS society.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You said you don't believe in classes.
You can't have it both ways
I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into .
I don't group people into collectives .Marxism may have defined his utopia by a classless society . But his remedy was to lock the proletariat into a state dependency funded by the destruction of the bourgeoisie.In the end there is still 2 classes... the dependent class ;or serfs ;and the government elites and the people they choose to be winners .
Anyone who believes in any degress of self determination would find that an abomination... an evil. Marx in truth longed for the days before capitalism elevated people beyond the "classes" of preindustrial feudalism where class was preordained and irrevocable.
That is the true goal of Marxism and it has never achieved anything less.
WRONG! This creates two classes, Haves, who succeeded, or have not who have failed. Further evidence, the haves can give their kids a silver spoon to suck on, the have nots give theirs food stamps. And the game is rigged so the haves will always have, and get more, and the have nots never will, and will lose what they do have.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sure some of the have nots escape, but they seldom go far.
You said you don't believe in economic, social or racial classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Marx and all of the other 18th and 19th political economists are where they should be; in the archives. They are only of curiosity value in modern society.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder
No one with any idea of history believes what Marx said. Marx was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder
What?? Are you saying Marx was a closet feudalist.
It has nothing to do with being preordained and it certainly not irrevocable. Where do you get this from?
It is the result of the social relations that existed at the time. His dialectic explains the relations of production and the resultant classes. It is a dialectic account of class struggles throughout history.
Its not rigged... being born to parents with some money is no guarantee of success in life... and being born poor is no excuse to be lazy and not try or a guarantee you won't succeed.
I grew up a lot more poor than I am now... my parents were born dirt poor and did very well for themselves. Just not as well a I have managed due to no small amount of hard work and luck. I still am not wealthy.
I know more than a few people born into money that are far from being well off much less rich or successful.
Now of course, the liberals have a vested interest in keeping the poor, poor, and teaching them to play the victim rather than getting off their butts and working their way to success. They want to make them dependent on handouts so they can keep their vote.
If you are calling the game rigged then you are proving my point about the government determining winners and losers.Quote:
And the game is rigged so the haves will always have, and get more, and the have nots never will, and will lose what they do have.
I know many people in my industry who follwed a model similar to Steve Jobs... start up on a shoe string budget in a garage.
Jobs himself was the son of Syrian refugees . The Horatio Alger story is alive and well and it doesn't require government subsidies to determine winners and losers in a rigged system.
If the system is rigged you can point a finger at government socialist policies and not capitalism .
Tom isn't that the very point of government? I think you are a basic anarchist at heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You are suggesting that the system isn't rigged in favour of capitalists. That is certainly a long bow. The government policies are meant to bring balance into the system. To enable some people to attain the basic necessities they cannot otherwise gain for themselves because they have no access to capital. Tell me Tom, how is this capitalist utopia working out for you? From the reports I hear there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the inequalities.Quote:
I know many people in my industry who follwed a model similar to Steve Jobs... start up on a shoe string budget in a garage.
Jobs himself was the son of Syrian refugees . The Horatio Alger story is alive and well and it doesn't require government subsidies to determine winners and losers in a rigged system.
If the system is rigged you can point a finger at government socialist policies and not capitalism .
Hi Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Exactly right.
Under Capitalism two realms of authority have always existed. To suggest otherwise is to promote Capitalism as a utopian.
Tut
Nope the government can of course make laws so long as they are universally applied. The OP I started yesterday however is an example where crony socialism picked an electric car company and gave it an advantage over it's competitors.Quote:
Tom isn't that the very point of government? I think you are a basic anarchist at heart.
Don't get hung up on a scam Tom
The repubs did the same thing when they were in power, helped their friends. That's why they all want power. Wouldn't you, when it was your turn? That doesn't make it right, but this is the system we have allowed to be built. You think Wall Street will change it? Or a rich guy that profits from it? Green has no loyalty to left or right, just a proclivity to multiply, and enrich whoever it touches.
Tom is complaining that the system has enriched someone outside the US, but the US has been subsidising the export of its industries for years. Capital doesn't care who does the work so long as it gets the profits. This is a lesson those who like the capitalist system of open borders and the free market don't like, they don't like the market to be that free
It's not up to Wall Street to change it . It's up to the elected officials . And tal for the record . I never defended the Repubics for playing that game ;nor did I say hehehe... the Repubics are in so it's their turn to suckel at the public teat .Quote:
You think Wall Street will change it? Or a rich guy that profits from it? Green has no loyalty to left or right, just a proclivity to multiply, and enrich whoever it
Correct... more bad policies out of Washington like intrusive over regulation and taxation ;and the silly devaluation of the currency.Quote:
US has been subsidising the export of its industries for years.
Keep it up guys. You prove my point with every paragraph.
Maybe we all have been saying the same thing in different ways since people do see what they can see, from wherever they are sitting.
And you prove mine. Now that statement you just madeQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That is the same as saying the government, or is the government that inconvenient thing called the administration, I find it confusing as to what you actually mean when you say elected officials, is that the President but excluding his cabinet? Or some high and mighty Senator? Or some lowly representative? But certainly not a sepreme court justice.Quote:
It's up to the elected officials
So Tom you are in favour of government changing things, that's is a flip flop from you.
Hello:
I agree with tom. He calls it crony socialism, and I call it crony capitalism. Whatever you want to call it, it's the same thing. The government starts picking winners and losers...
Although tom will point out the subsidy to Solyndra as an example of how right he is, I point to the BILLIONS we give to the oil companies, who had a VERY GOOD QUARTER, I might add.
It's ALL based on the same thing.. Some businessmen found out they could get their congressman to tilt the market in their favor so they could make money WITHOUT having to COMPETE for it. BOTH sides do it, and it must stop.
To solve it, my FIRST thought would be to get RID of money in politics. Tom of course, thinks the solution is MORE money in politics.. He's wacked, isn't he?
excon
Not at all. I'm the 1st one to say let the market decide winners and losers and would be more than willing to end oil company subsidies yesterday.
You however are constantly calling for money in politics . But you want it to be taxpayer's money . You want the taxpayer to pay for campaigns (public financing) . You want the taxpayer to fund "wacked" projects like high speed rail . You want the government to invest in all types of things on the hope that at some future day it will pay off .
Hello again, tom:
I want those things, NOT because they're GOOD places to spend money, but to REALIGN the playing field AFTER the politicians have been bought.
I'm a BELIEVER is a free marketplace.. But, when the FIRST businessman got a favor, it was the FIRST time the government needed to COUNTER it. If he NEVER got a favor, then there would be nothing to counter, and our markets WOULD be free.
Having said that, there ARE places in the economy where it IS appropriate for the government to spend. That would be where the commons are involved. Things like roads, and the water supply should be owned by EVERYBODY.. The defense of our land, and maintenance of our wilderness should not be contracted out.
If there were a truly free market place here, there would already BE bullet trains, and the government wouldn't have had anything to do with it.
excon
No there wouldn't because there is no sufficient demand. Everyone touts the Chinese building them even though their trains run empty and the primary reason for their investment is to bring troops to their frontier in Tibet .Quote:
If there were a truly free market place here, there would already BE bullet trains, and the government wouldn't have had anything to do with it.
No nation is more suited to bullet trains than Japan ;and yet... only the Tokyo -Osaka line runs at anything close to a profit. Their rail system has been a drain on the government since 1964.
Not only that ;but high speed rail in Japan and Europe has done nothing to change commuting habits... oh wait... in Japan FEWER passagers use rail than before .
The nation would get better bang for the buck with subsidizing freight rail .
Hello again, tom:
You miss my point.. I'm not a believer in bullet trains, per se.. I'm a believer in the FREE marketplace delivering bullet trains, if and when they're wanted and needed.
excon
Then we agree... end the subsidies to bullet trains and phony green technology. Another subsidized green energy company went belly up .
Second Energy Department-backed company goes bankrupt - The Hill's E2-Wire
More taxpayer money wasted.
I wonder what herman's plan is now he has again been accused of being a naughty boy
Not to worry . Bubba Clintoon set the bar so low an ant could hurdle it.
This high tech lynching of Cain is the worse of American journalism . As of now there is nothing but unsubtantiated rumors . He was in an executive position for years . If what is being said of him were true there would be many women from his various places of leadership that would've come forward long before now.
Cains problem is that he doesn't have a bunch of slug advisors like James Carville to go on the TV talk show circuit and attack the women. He doesn't have a staff to handle "bimbo eruptions". He doesn't have a wife claiming a "vast left wing conspiracy " is attacking him.
Why can't Cain keep his stories straight?
Why does he have to reply at all ? Wasn't there a confidentiality agreement ? Who violated it ?
Why is he being attacked ? Why was Edwards allowed to run a whole campaign with the press covering up an affair while his wife battled cancer ? Why did it take the National Enquirer to reveal his love child ?
Joel P. Bennett the women's lawyer said a statement would be released by him but the women won't go public ? What does that mean ?
But you hit on an important point . The question is not what Cain did... it's how he responds to unsubstantiated smears by unnamed sources. That's really politics at it's lowest form.
Well he could handle it better than he does the foreign policy questions.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
He remembered a settlement.. Looks substantiated to me.. There were TWO payoffs. Looks substantiated to me. He remembers the incidents.. Looks substantiated to me.
excon
$70,000, that's a nice size rumor.
That is the real issue to consider. His responses to foreign policy questions are lame .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Like I said... short rape (Clinton: "better put some ice on that lip") I see nothing Cain might've done that disqualifies him.
Executives in this country are very vulnerable to such charges ;and settlements are a matter of convenience . One cannot infer guilt because the lawyers get together at the bar and hatch out a deal to make the charges go away. That's why confidentiality terms are part of the deal.
But this is indictment by innuendo ;Guilty until proven innocent. Another attempt to take down a conservative black man who has strayed from the Washington DC plantation.
Sounds an awful lot like what the conservatives did to Obama, but that's all forgotten now.
I don't recall any sexual harassment charges against Obama.
Probably because he isn't even an American citizen.
I don't know about anyone else ,but I never took that seriously and frequently stated why they were wrong.
It remains to be seen if there is any basis to these charges against Cain.
It's the lynching of a black man... by cowards that don't even have the courage to show their faces...
I'd love to see these spineless sluts sued for slander and defamation... Its every persons right to face their accusers... if the accusers are too cowardly to show their faces and be named publicly... they should keep their mouths shut.
This is likely all about gold diggers that had their advances refused by a man that didn't want anything to do with them. SO they dreamed up false charges.
After all, they could open their mouths... they already breached their confidentiality agreement... and there is no proof that this ISN'T exactly what happened
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Dude, you got it backwards.. The women are the ones who SUED Cain. HE'S the one who caved and paid them so he didn't have to face his accusers.. That's what the settlement/agreement is about. He ran away from it...
excon
Really.. got a court docket where a trial actually took place and a verdict was issued? When you are sued... its heard by a judge and a ruling is made...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But oh... there wasn't any was there... since real cases get would get 6 to 7 digit awards... not a few months pay worth if they had any merit.
What never heard of scorned women dreaming things up before? Talk to any divorced guy. It happens on the west coast at least as much as it happens on the east... and everywhere in between.
Cases that don't have merit the people take a few bucks to just go away, because they know they won't win in court. These were just a few bucks... and at least one was brought up a month AFTER Caine had already left that job... seem rather odd the timing on that?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 PM. |