Anti-economist twaddle.

As far a Fiji goes (remember the actual topic anyone?)

Yes. General Debate 07 November – remember?

As far a Fiji goes (remember the actual topic anyone?). I would rather go to Raro. Much nicer and no low calibre men with high calibre rifles.

My problem with home schooling would be that it would very much depend on the competence of the person doing the schooling.

Actually, that’s my problem with school schooling too

as this:

You said you wouldn’t homeschool (your kids one has to assume) because you considered yourself incompetent,

That on purpose, to have a dig? Or genuine incomprehension?

No ttrue. It is as I said, an expression of agreement with your own damn sentiments you moron. You said you wouldn’t homeschool (your kids one has to assume) because you considered yourself incompetent, and I merely agreed with that opinion. Totally different circumstances to an unprovoked attack from someone who hitherto had had nothing to say on the issue under discussion you silly spiteful desperate little boy. Are you a teacher?

Just a little bemused you used my firstname Russell.

Doesn’t matter though, right back at ya.

That is it indeed, Kimble. Robyn, you do seem to be attaching a negative connotation to those terms when they are simply objects of measurement and not meaningful beyond that.

In a simpler sense.

You could choose to make that lunch. However, by taking the time to make that lunch you have chosen not to spend that time playing with kids at the orphanage or helping out at a rest home or doing volunteer work in a hospital.

Choosing one over the other does not denigrate or devalue either, but everything we do turns out to be a choice amongst multitudes of options. By forgoing the opportunity to do all those other things at that moment we are losing the chance to complete them, thus it becomes a cost to us. Even if it is not in a material or financial sense.

Not a loaded word. Capitalism doesnt value anything either. People do that, not the process. People value things differently, capitalism is about the freedom to do just that.

“Second thing: What about buying no CD at all?”

Exactly, what about it? What about all those other options? You can buy the CD or not buy the CD, but you cant do both. How do you decide which to do?

“How is the decision made that time spent is cost?”

Look at the word you used there. How is it that time SPENT is a cost? Spent?

“There is no such thing as a free lunch” merely points out the existence of opportunity cost. Or more accurately, its purpose is to lead you to that discovery.

Time spent doing one thing is time not spent doing another. The cost of doing one thing is the other thing foregone.

“Isn’t doing things with your time simply living?” But HOW do you spend your life? Making choices is part of life. If you want A and B, and you can have A and B, you will have A and B. But what if you can only have A or B?

The concept of Opportunity Cost doesn’t prescribe a solution, it merely illustrates the problem. Opportunity cost is a universal truth. Perception has nothing to do with it. Either you perceive the truth of the concept, or you are misinterpreting it.

Try and think of a single example involving a choice, that does not have an opportunity cost.

Robyn it seems you are getting stuck on certain words. Money. Cost. Free rider. You attach negative connotations to all these words.

Quoted from Jane’s Navy International

“At this stage it is unclear whether the aircraft will be equipped with a folding rotor head to allow shipboard stowage. It is understood, however, from industry sources that they will not feature a deck lock, which would limit the usefulness of the A109s to the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) as the latter might wish to substitute them occasionally for its Seasprite helicopters or operate them from offshore patrol vessels.”

“Industry sources have expressed surprise that only five A109s are to be purchased by the RNZAF. Given the original stated requirement for eight aircraft, some in the industry feel that even if five helicopters can provide the number of hours required, with such a diverse range of duties the air force may find itself ‘short of tail numbers’ to fulfil all demands.”

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/science_fiction/dispossessed.html

First thing: Do you find “reward” a loaded word? If you do, I won’t use it.

Second thing: What about buying no CD at all? What about downloading the CD? What about learning guiatr instead? I like your analogy though. It is very clear.

I believe that ‘free lunch’ IS an ideological statement, because it is about perception, in the sense that use, as in the use of money, resources or time is percieved as “cost” rather than “doing.” What I mean is this: what else would you be doing other than making that person lunch? How is the decision made that time spent is cost? Isn’t doing things with your time simply living? Because it is percieved as “instead of something else,” it would confirm my thoughts about one-ness + two-ness.
So would what you wrote about the CD.
So basically, we are in agreement.

I appreciate that this may sound full on and crazy to you, but all cliches are, essientially, is packaged ideology. Ideology is, according to Richard Dyer, ”the set of ideas and representations in which people collectively make sense of the world and the society in which they live.” What is “there is no such thing as a free lunch” but an example of this?

To someone who had no concept of our society, they might read it this way: People here view the things they do as work, which requires cost. All things here are an exchange of possessions.

Goodnight, though, and thank you for being patient with me.

It is trite to talk about some fantastical “and/also” world where everything is possible, but in reality we live in a world where “either/or” decisions must be made.

The decision between two options requires people to decide which is the one they think is right for them. Two people can afford one only CD each, they must decide between two band they like. Person A like band Z more so his decision is that purchasing Band Z’s CD is right. Person B likes Band Y’s music more the the right decision for him is that CD.

Same decision, two different decisions on what is right.

What capitalism does is it allows Person A to listen to CDZ for a while, and Person B to listen to CDY for a while and then swap CD’s so they can both enjoy both bands. They are both better off because they can trade.

“Capitalism, as a system, rewards certain kinds of work above others”

No, it doesnt. Capitalism does not reward anyone.

The term “free rider” is not an emotive one. It describes a certain economic situation.

You have to get away from this idea that money is some sort of unnatural thing. Currency is just a medium of exchange.

“Having said this though, re: single mothers et al, isn’t there a concept somewhere that happy, healthy children are beneficial to society as whole? In this, I mean that a mother working inside the home IS valuable to society simply because children ARE society, or will be.”

The payment that mothers get for not raising monstrous children who will steal, rape and murder other people, is that other people will raise children that wont steal, rape and murder other people. Demanding anything more than this, such as income, is extortion.

And Roger, it is no surprise that you agree with that loony tune Hinamanu.