Quick Wealth Network

What would you like to learn at a Wealth Creation Seminar? If you attend many seminars and still haven't achieved success, what key things would you like to learn at wealth creation seminars? List topics in order of priorities.

What policies do Liberals support that lead to wealth creation? Is it the high taxes or the huge entitlement programs? Seems to me liberals don't give a damn about wealth creation.

What are the best, most inspiring books to read about wealth creation? I am 24 years old and looking to do more with my savings than let it sit in an account and achieve returns of 5% if i'm lucky. Does anyone know of any good books to read about investing that someone with little knowledge of the industry will understand? thanks!

What liberal policies or ideas actually lead to wealth creation? Is it the high taxes, big government, socialized medicine, no drilling, gay marriage, or terrorists rights that is supposed to lead me to the "American Dream"? Or don't you liberals actually give a damn? Oh yeah, helping a bunch of bums get liberal arts degrees is money well spent. Try again. Oh, and for the jerk who said that investing is "doing nothing", if it's so damn easy, why don't you become a millionaire?

What are the contributions of marketing to employment and wealth creation in the US?

What is the secret of wealth creation? Who, in your eyes, is truly wealthy ( not in dollar-value but in happiness value, too ). When do you reach your next financial goal? Where is the one city on earth catering to the creation of wealth? Why do you even want to fight poverty?

What are the FAQ on wealth creation? Wealth creation can also be referred to as financial freedom, financial independence, prosperity

Wealth Creation Advice? I am looking for sources of information for wealth creation - advice , tips , contacts etc.

Capitalistic net wealth creation? On capitalism, people will talk about individual producing goods with $0.5 and selling it for $1, for example, thus earning a profit of $0.5 (some sort of wealth creation, or is it really?) and we all start assuming everyone is a winner. If that's the general understanding, then let me give an example. Suppose India suddenly becomes so effective and efficient that it becomes a net producer, that 1 billion of the population each spend $0.5 and produce $1 worth of goods. Suppose the Indians spent $0.5 billion ($0.5 x 1 billion Indians) on Country A's human labor to produce the goods. Suppose the people of Country A, feeling grateful for the employment, spend all of their $0.5 billion worth of salary/wages on the Indians' finished goods of $1 billion. Now that the people of Country A only has $0.5 billion, so where should the other $0.5 billion comes from to buy the other half of the Indians' finished goods? Assume there's no other buyer from other countries other than the people of Country A, then the Indian economy will have 0% (zero) growth. Now we all know that the more money is introduce into the market, the higher will be the inflation rate. Since the global economy recorded net growth every year, where in the world does the extra surplus of $0.5 billion, in this case, comes from? Note: 1. Assuming this extra $0.5 billion is net wealth after taking into consideration the inflation. 2. We all know in reality no country can be as effective and efficient as India in this simplified story-telling example, so the equation will be far more complex. 3. This country of India and Country A can be substituted with individuals, small companies, big corporates, government, etc. The actual equation will also involve human labor being substituted with automated machineries (to save costs and increase shareholders' value) and consumer credit that officially make the credit card holder a debtor.

Trump Wealth Creation Celebrity Conference - Worth my time? I received an invitation in the mail to be a "VIP guest" to hear Donald's story from his daughter Ivanka and 4 self made experts that will discuss wealth creating secrets and strategies. And receive a copy of "TRUMP - THnk LIke a Billionare". Says the conference will talk about real estate investing, slashing capital gains, protecting assets, etc. It is free to attend, but is it worth going? I am interested in buying investment property. Will I be a captive audience for them to pitch me buying something or will I get immediate value? The seminar is free to attend and even includes lunch.

Any Alternative Strategy for Wealth Creation If the Market goes into a recession? Petrol prices have just shot up by 40%! But the worst is yet to come…GLOBAL MARKET CRASH IN 2009! In 2006, oil prices will exceed USD100 per barrel! IT CAME TRUE! In 2007, global market crash in 2009! With the US now plunging into a recession, the sign is already there: THE US MARKET WILL CRASH FROM 2009 ONWARDS! WHO WILL YOU CHOOSE ? Just go here - http://awesome5201.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/08/1646939-alternative-strategy-for-wealth-creation-if-the-market-goes-into-a-recession - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't work. ----- What am i doing? twitter me here... http://twitter.com/tanminchun

wealth creation mystery -- you win, i win, everyone wins, who then is the loser?

what is wealth creation? research methods

What are the basic ethics to be followed to create wealth? If real estate is going to be one of the choice, How could land in remote areas would facilitate the creation of wealth? That would sure take years to realize a decent price.

Why is intelligence and wealth inversely proportional to our evolutionary development? When I consider the genetic improvement of our race in the areas of intelligence, success, wealth creation, and wisdom (advanced traits), I would prefer to see the evolutionary domination of the genes of those individuals who best exemplify those traits. Now I'm not talking about any kind of government intervention, but instead about the nature of people to have fewer children (0-2) with more advanced traits, while those of less-advanced traits seem inherently more interested in creating large families (5-12 children). This trend seems to inherently be inversely tied to the level of advancement of these good traits. If this continues, evolution dictates that our species will not evolve any further with the protection of the lives of the genetically less-advanced or problematic because their genes will dominate. So I ask you, if our species is to advance evolutionarily, should not our best people have large families? Yet nature seems to bring us to act contrary to evolution. Why? I'm not saying that society should do anything to affect the sizes of families .. that's very wrong to me. All I'm saying is that I typically see college graduates and more wealthy people marry later in life and have very few children, while those in the ghettos and those with little education or financial wisdom seem to propagate like there is no tomorrow (sometimes without regard for the institution of marriage). In the end, the genes and training (nature vs nurture) of the more-successful is dwarfed by the less-sucessful, and evolution prefers the continuation of the latter. I'm assuming that the traits of the parents are passed on to their children, if not through genes (which seems to me to be a large part of our intellectual evolution), then at least through training and development.

Obama plans are about redistribution of wealth. Not creation. Agree?

Which tribe in Nigeria is the most virile in terms of wealth creation? chosee from Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba

Production Management entains creation of wealth, discuss?

Who really bears the burden of increased taxes to redistribute wealth to poorer Americans? Isn't it the middle and upper-middle classes who get hurt? The rich simply hedge their wealth, relocate it, and cease corporate / job creation ventures when further taxed. And yet people side themselves with tax raising candidates. Do we not know the facts that lowering taxes (including on the wealthy) ALWAYS results in economic stimulation for all. We'll always have bums and lazy folk. Citizens should NEVER be forced to provide for them.

What is the very basic source of wealth in this world? How the wealth is being created in this world like, farming, minning, manufacturing etc, and who can be credited with this creation as a primery and/or secodary source

How can some people turn illegal immigration into a human rights issue? Because it isn't about human rights at all. There is no human right to help yourself to the wealth of your neighbor. This nation is wealthy because the citizens of this nation have built a system that is conducive to the creation of wealth. The illegals, and the citizens of Mexico who actully do have the national pride to remain in their country, have every right, however, to change their system to make it more friendly toward wealth creation. That means the rule of law, an independent judiciary, an end to corruption, respect for individual rights, a strong system of property rights, and express limits on government power. Until they realize that, and implement those elements of good government, they will remain poor. They have so right, however, to take from others what they are not willing to make for themselves. Justme: That's what revolutions are for. It worked wonders for us. Bridget: Being human doesn't resolve root causes. Sure, it's great to put water in the desert, squirrel illegals away in strip-mall churches, and hand out free food, but does that ever address the root cause? No, that only prolongs it and makes it more entrenched. Alleviating the effects of the problems in Mexico only does a greater disservice to those still there. Humanitarianism is great, but blindly committed, it can be more harmful than good. Just look at the negative effect that indiscriminate "aid" has had on the development of Africa.

Which of the following statements about factors of production is the most accurate? A.The five factors of production are energy, capital, labor, leadership and money. B.Wealth creation in poor nations is slowed by chronic shortages of labor. C.Each of the factors of production is equally important in creating wealth. D.Entrepreneurship and knowledge are the most important in creating wealth.

How do you tell what is newly created value within a country? When looking at economic statistics for the world how do you tell between new wealth created in a country and wealth that is simply a result of exchange disparities? Like, some amount of a countries gdp is going to be from actual wealth creation, but some amount will be from wealth that was created somewhere else but comparitivly undervalued that is treated as its full value in the country so it appears new value was created, but really it was just the result of it being undervalued before entering the country.

We often criticize dictatorships for having only one name on the ballot. Even if theres two, is that a choice? With two socialist candidates on the ballot, isn't that tantamount to a one-party election with two candidates? Has the GOP been silently murdered? Does America no longer have a choice to vote for a candidate offering smaller government, fewer government programs, a return to Constitutional government, greater wealth-creation opportunity for the individual and a return to common sense governance? Have "WE" become "THEM"?

Elected members for the House of Lords, Is it a good Idea? There are lots of experienced Lords,Law, Military, Industrialists,Trailblazers in Education, Sport, wealth creation ,Respected Trade Union Leaders, and many more experts. Perhaps with the proposed new system we wil get more experts in Post delivery, Ships stewards, Bakers,Labourers , Shop Stewards, and unskilled workers, The old system has served us well.

Are you satisfied with what you accomplished in life so far? I think many of us expected we would be further along in our lives as of today. I am not just talking about career success but other things like: travel, personal relationships, maturity, wealth creation, friendships, etc. How far along are you in your life goals in comparison to how you expected things would be by now?

Must trade deficits be funded by imported capital? Everyone knows wealth is created and money is created. So why do so many people repeat the mantra that foreigners must fund the trade deficit (or current account deficit)? Isn't that an obsolete zero-sum mentality? Why can't it be funded by internally-created money based on real productive wealth-creation? Wrong Meg. The supply of US dollars held outside the US by foreign entities has grown over time (immensely, over the long term), which necessarily means that not all dollars are repatriated, which I suspect proves my point.

Creating Wealth? Has anybody visited http://www.free-dvd.com.au and ordered the Free DVD. If so what strategies have you put in place that worked for you. There are so many options it can be hard knowing where to start creating wealth. 21st century Academy and Jamie McIntyre seem to be pretty dominant on the web for all manner of wealth creation topics

Is the level of wealth the same all over Croatia, or are there pockets of greater wealth? Give 2 reasons? another question: What do people of the smaller communities in Croatia do to help themselves in regard to work or job creation?

Would Obama take the Democrats backwords in economic policy? Like him or not, Bill Clinton was a centrist economically. In his speeches prior to becoming President Clinton highlighted the need for the party to embrace many "supply side" policys. Clinton led the charge for a balanced budget, and free trade agreements, which spelled prosperity and wealth creation during his tenure. None of this is heard from Obama. In fact, he has spoken out against free trade agreements, and, has offered little by way of knowing how many pro business growth initiatives he would support if President. So, is Obama going to take the Democrats back a generation?

What are some effective avenues for poverty eradication in Africa, Asia or South America? What are effective wealth creation prorgams for the very poor?

Do liberals honestly believe that the rich only got that way by hurting the poor? capitalism is not zero-sum. if it were, why do we have cities, roads, technology, and other enduring testaments to wealth creation?

Can a animal? say a moose every learn calculus or is our education failing to teach in the new millennium? and if not are Canadian educators ashamed of this dreadful statistic or are they just left wing ideologues that hate progress and wealth creation..and the Reganommics(what ever that is)

Who many college educated workers are interested in a government job ?? thank god not too much : take a look? , the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media.

Am a retired Supply Chain Specialist with 25 years working experience.How do I use my skills to make big money I want to use my skills to start my own business in procurement,logistics,outsourcing, internet blog,training,assisting in procrement contract disputes,tender evaluation. Am available to work in any English speaking country. My vision is to be aword-class,added-value investor hereby facilitating wealth generatin,job creation and economic empowerment for myslef and other people.

Does the success of a society depend on economics or ethics? One of the most authoritative theories about the constitution of society in the modern world is that economics and economic relationships define the fundamental structure of all social relationships, indeed of society itself. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, in their very different ways, either asserted or implied the primacy of economics and economic relationships as fundamental to the existence and evolution of nations and to the creation of wealth. But these views displaced an older conception of society which considered ethics and ethical codes as the fundamental bedrock of societies. In that older view, the success of a society was judged by its adherence to the ‘good’ rather than to its store of accumulated wealth. Ethical codes may have had a religious dimension, but it was the way conduct and behavior were regulated by or referred to ethical judgement that allowed for the stability, maintenance, and success of social relationships and, hence, of society as a whole. this came from an essay topic for the 2007/2008 national Humanitaries essay competition at UBC...

One factor that enabled the growth of independent colonial government in British North America was the --? A. lack of social and economic provisions in the charters B. creation of wealth through the development of industry C. difficulty of exercising governmental control from a distance D. extensive cooperation between native peoples and settlers WHOEVER ANSWERS MY ANSWER RIGHT AND WITH A SOURCE SO I CAN SEE WHERE YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER WILL GET 10 POINTS!!!

What do Libs fail to understand about simple concepts? Ayn Rand clarified the issue crystal clear when she wrote..... Wealth creation MUST come before Distribution and there MUST be a motivation for wealth creation. What better motivator than a person's self interest? In short the poor, the lazy, the stupid, do NOT create wealth to be shared by the employees, the customers, and the government. What is so hard to understand about that concept? If you take away the rewards of entrepreneurs, then you creat poverty. Yes, I have been poor and I didn't like it. I am not "rich" now, but comfortable. The reason is that I worked hard as did my wife. We sent her to college and law school. We did NOT get any government assistance for that either. I had a decent job because I went into the service and learned a skill. But, I went into a part time business and worked for yet another business on the weekends and when I could. No government has EVER created any wealth, they only consume wealth. Oh, Ok, society creates that wealth rather than individuals, huh? You mean society created Microsoft? I guess it was society instead of Henry Ford that started the first assembly line car manufacturing, huh? And, society created the Salk vaccine, not Jonas Salk? What do you people have for brains? Sawdust?

Growth of Sovereign Wealth Funds & Implications? Feedback please- these Funds are exploding in popularity. With Merrill Lynch raising $6.6 billion from preferred shares to investors that include Kuwait Investment Authority, and Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed and the Singapore government injecting $7.5b into Citigroup (4.9% stake to Abu Dhabi), not to mention UBS obtaining $9.75b from Singapore's largest sovereign wealth fund... is this potentially the creation of the next bubble? With banks all across the board getting a good shelacking from subprime, what are the implications of these magical funds? I am skeptical of the nature of these funds... what's your prediction?

Will india always remain a developing country or ever become a developed country? Due to the big population, excessive democracy, poor political, legislative and judicial will, india seems to be lagging behind in terms of wealth creation. Wealth is being polarised and is not spread to the people accross the geographical spread.

Has Nancy Peloski spoken of redistributing the wealth in America? She gives no credit to the good economy, job creation, the fact that, in spite of Iraq and the money being spent, America is doing well. She downplays everything good the present administration has done and is doing. She speaks of taxing the wealthy 100% and of controlling the stock market. Has she spoken in this manner?

Bangalore, Karnataka region any investor is looking for Investing in ICICI Priority circle? Hello All, If Bangalore, Karnataka region any investor is looking for Investing in ICICI Priority circle Kindly let me know i.e., Life Insurance Plans: Under Life insurance plans, ICICI Prudential offers plans under the following major need categories: Education Insurance Plans,Wealth Creation Plans Premium Guarantee plans, Protection Plans Retirement Solutions: The primary objective of a retirement plan is to help you provide for your financial needs in your post retirement years. ForeverLife, LifeTime Super Pension, LifeLink Super Pension Health Product Suite: Under Health Product Suite, ICICI Prudential offers plans under the following major need categories: HealthAssure Plus,Hospital Care,Cancer Care, Cancer Care Plus,Crisis Cover,Diabetes Care,Diabetes Care Plus Shocking Truths: 18% of the urban population suffers from hypertension & Almost 3.5 million Indians suffer from diabetes. Kindly call me on 9972533020 for one stop solutions in Insurence & Investments

The South African ideologies behind their FIFA World Cup preparations? I recently read an article regarding the Summer Olympic Games to be held in Beijeng, China this year. What struck me as an interesting topic was their approach to that event when compared to the South African approach to the FIFA World Cup 2010 and the the completely differing ideologies behind preparations. The Chinese have had over 100 000 unpaid volunteers to aid in preparations and have all been groomed in foreign languages, etiquette and basic manners. The SA's on the other hand have said or done nothing other than making plans for cash flow's into the country, get rich quick planning and I have yet to hear of any volunteers aiding in preparation without remuneration. Does the S.A. belief that their event is little more than an opportunity for wealth creation and a cash cow rather than an opportunity to create national pride and practise nation building display a clear misdirection in S.A. priorities and how can they be expected to make a success of that event under such beliefs? Marrs - Is it ignorant for me to ask a question I do not know the answer to? I think it more ignorant for you to attack me based on such. You could have politely informed me of your opinion, yet, again you chose the path of agravation and unecessary aggressiveness, I pity you, your wife must surely have you on an extremely tight lead to result in such frustrations and an out of control inferiority complex.

At the going growing price of electricity, how long before even an electric car will cost too much to operate? Looks like this is all about energy, right? Isn't this why people are buying up commodity rights and commodities, because they have figured out that this is how we drain society of all the wealth. This is, this pricing of energy is, the new control of the masses. People will not have to attend churches anymore, just give to the energy pumps and you have worshipped enough. The right God for our time, eh? The Creation Energy God!

Inflation, Taxes, the Economy and the Fed - For Dummies? The economy works the way Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.B. Say and Josef Schumpeter said it does. Private enterprises generate profit by allocating resources the way consumers want - the price of the resources is driven by other uses, thus if you can generate a greater profit from one use than from another, that means the consumers, in the aggregate, want them put to that use. Profits tell producers what to produce. They tell investors where to invest capital. Reinvestment of profits is the most efficient way to fuel growth / wealth creation. The more you tax profits, the less reinvestment, the less 'natural' growth, the more the Fed, politically, must fuel growth artificially and temporarily via monetary means, ultimately producing inflation (1930s-1970s). Tax cuts allow the economy to reinvest its own earnings and grow naturally, allowing the Fed to focus solely on inflation and maintain stable prices, thus creating long expansions (1980s-Today). Gotta be the Lib quote of the week - "who the heck is Josef Schumpeter" - - - - while posting an opinion on economics...... Kind of like spouting off about baseball and then asking "who the hell is George Brett?"

Wanna Raise Taxes on the Rich? without destroying the economy? Wanna Raise Taxes on the Rich? Reduce the marginal tax burden on success. In an excellent column featuring just a few of the many silly predictions made by mainstream economic thinkers of days past, Forbes’s Rich Karlgaard noted the back-cover description of MIT economist Lester Thurow’s 1980 book, The Zero-Sum Society: “the American economy will not solve its most trenchant problems — inflation, slow economic growth, the environment — until the political economy can support, in theory and in practice, the idea that certain members of society will have to bear the brunt of taxation and other government-sponsored economic actions.” Just as the U.S. was about to begin an almost uninterrupted economic expansion that continues to this day, by way of marginal tax cuts that stimulated the growth that licked inflation, Thurow proposed an economic plan that would have set growth back, reduced money demand, and made environmental projects less pressing (as they would have been difficult to introduce amidst sub-par growth). However, while his assumptions were proven wildly incorrect, economic history in a strange way has proven him right for the wrong reasons. What Thurow misunderstood was a basic truth showing that the best way to raise taxes on the rich, or to get the rich to foot more of the federal government’s spending, is to reduce the marginal tax burden on their success. In short, you raise taxes by cutting the marginal rate of taxation, not by increasing it. Ahead of the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s, a New York Times editorial put it this way: Treasury Secretary Mellon “wants in reality to get more money out of [the rich] than they are now paying. But he proposes to do it by making their rate of taxation lower.” The next few years greatly vindicated the assumptions made by the editorialists at the New York Times. While the percentage of federal taxes paid by earners in the $100,000-plus category was 28 percent in 1921, by 1928, when the top rate was 25 percent, the $100,000-and-over earners accounted for 61 percent of all federal tax receipts. Conversely, those who earned $10,000 and less saw their share of the federal tax burden decline from 22.5 percent to 4.5 percent. As the late Warren Brookes pointed out, the Mellon tax cuts that set the stage for the Roaring ’20s were “the most ‘progressive’ in history.” Moving to the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson pushed through tax cuts proposed by President Kennedy that lowered the top tax burden from 90 to 70 percent. Walter Heller (chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Kennedy) later admitted that the lower rate on top-earners similarly proved progressive when it came to the “rich” increasing their contribution to federal revenues. When Thurow’s book debuted, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the top 1 percent of earners delivered 15 percent of federal revenues. Fast forward twenty-seven years: With the top rate at 35 percent, the top 1 percent provide 34 percent of federal income-tax receipts. The simple reality behind wealth creation is that it occurs when society’s most productive members are left to innovate as freely as possible from governmental roadblocks to growth. With tax rates well down from their 20th century highs, there are far greater incentives today to attempt new ideas that lead to new products and higher paying jobs. On the inflation front, products and jobs, at the core, are money demand — which means growth-stimulating tax cuts are the single best antidote to inflationary pressures. Thurow, alas, was wrong all over. However, he should be given his due for noting that improvements to society will only occur in an economic environment where the “rich” are paying far more than their fair share. It simply comes down to how they pay it. For one, high incomes rarely reveal themselves when the penalty for doing so is excessive expropriation. And the idea of increasing the tax revenues supplied by America’s rich is incomplete absent the basic understanding that marginal tax cuts are the best way of achieving this goal.

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

Where can I find academic journal articles about writing handbooks? I have a project for english class involving the creation of my own writing handbook for students of philosophy, and I need to write an intermediary paper that requires the citing of three academic journal articles on the subject. I have had NO luck finding said journal articles, and any help would be immensly appreciated. More specifically, the assignment is to write a paper providing the rationale for the arrangement of my handbook, that is, justification for what I choose to include and what I decide can be excluded. Apparently there is a wealth of research that has been done on the subject, I just need guidance finding it.

How many Palestinians sold their land to Israel? In a previous question I have learned that The years immediately following the state's creation in 1948 were difficult for the Israeli economy. The new state possessed no natural or financial resources, no monetary reserves, little economic infrastructure, and few public services. A sizable portion of the existing Arab population fled the new state, while impoverished and afflicted Jewish refugees poured in from the European displaced persons camps and, later, from the Arab countries. In contrast to the 1930s, when Jewish immigrants to the Yishuv (or prestate Israel) had arrived with ample financial and human capital, after 1948 most immigrants lacked the wealth and skills needed by the new state. If a sizable portion of Arabs fled the state, and if Israels economy was basically flat. How did the gov of Israel have the means to buy the land from so many as its been told here? http://countrystudies.us/israel/65.htm Source taken from the U.S Library of Congress. Isadora I am aware that some sold their land before 1948 as you say, and that others after 1948 sold by force. I ask this question because my husbands family sold by force after 1948, and I have always gotton thumbs down because some seem to think that all Palestinians sold their land. Diana: Now , now, remember plz that Israel is a democracy. Cheers! Isadora, its 5:43 am here, My husbands family was forced out! Not sold out by force.....to this day they have the deed and the key to their home. Sorry for the confusion. And you Diana are using an American website where there is Democracy, learn how to be a polite woman. Cheers!

Is "Good Old Boy Politics" good for South Carolina?

21st Century Socialism Is 18th Century Capitalism. Michael Rowan. Special for El Universal www.eluniversal.com Because of the world price of oil - an essential cog in the global wealth creation machine - Chavez has received a $35 billion windfall profit in the last year, which added to the $15 billion from a year earlier he has used to destabilize Bolivia and other country targets on his list. As long as the price of oil is very high, he will apply 18th century savage capitalism under the rubric of 21st century state socialism. Karl Marx accurately criticized the failure of capitalism for creating private monopolies and magnates along with a mass of proletariat - property-less - workers. If Marx was alive today, what would he see in Venezuela? The magnate Chavez owns a personal, private monopoly of greater wealth and power than anything that existed in the 18th century, while a majority of Venezuelans are poor, property-less and under-employed. Adam Smith might laugh at Chavez as an aberration, but Karl Marx would be enraged by what Chavez is doing in the name of socialism. Any comment?