Bugetul Romaniei: 100%+minim 3% cheltuiti pe nimic, nu s-a construit nici o FABRICA!

[Ion Pop]

În prealabil postat de abaaaabbbb63

Banii sunt facuti sa fie cheltuiti.

Valoarea banilor este data de cantitatea de bunuri pe care poti sa o cumperi cu ei. Daca toata lumea face economii de bani, numarul bunurilor cumparate scade,

deci venitul firmelor scade,

oamenii sunt dati afara, pretul produselor creste.

Intr-un final, economiile isi pierd valoarea daca toata lumea o face. Asa functioneaza aceast sistem numit "economie" pe care l-am creat.

"economia" aceasta pe care "a-ti" creat-o... la ce serveste?

Sa cheltuie banii?

Sa cumpere "iobagii" cat mai multe produse?

Sa nu scada venitul firmelor?

Oamenii dati afara-....alta denumire pentru: "condamnati la moarte "

Economiile in bani de hartie isi pierd mai tot timpul din valoare.



In "Economia" aceasta unde este "Omul".

Da Omul este cel care a cazut in afara sistemului.

Trebuie sa producem ieftin pentru ca sa marim venitul firmei. Deci orice "otrava" in produsele noastre este binevenita....

Agricultura anilor 60-90 se baza pe lucrul mecanizat al tractoarelor si utilajelor agricole care consumau motorina.

Agricultura din 90 pana acum se bazeaza pe substante chimice. Care doar trebuie imprastiate pe camp. Nu mai este nevoie de sapa! de prelucrare mecanica a pamantului! Si nici de oameni ai satelor!

Este nevoie doar de consumatori!

[Florinvs]

Problema nu este ca se cheltuie bani- ci cum si pe ce se cheltuie!

In Romania dupa 1990 , pe langa furtul si jaful masiv al banului public, se fac si foarte multe cheltuieri inutile, pe lucruri neproductive, care nu produc plus-valoare.

[AlinB]

From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared.

If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ...

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a hierarchical society. ... the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared.

If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice such a society could not long remain stable.

For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.

In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. ... Ignorance is Strength"