 |
|
Moderator: Vikings
  PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." Mod: Toatã lumea poate afişa
6. Iulie 2009, 19:26:39 Subiectul: Re: This is your theory, maybe, but you have no proof, or historical record to back that up!  (V): "And AD's example is not relevant, it was not caused by a depression but a change in competition rules. If you cannot understand the difference then study economics" The CAUSE is not relevant but the effect is. Therefore my example is more than relevant. We are talking about the effects of policy change. And in the same way ATT was split due to policy, so are the big car companies being bailed out due to policy. You can argue that the bailout policy is due to depression and you can also argue that the ATT split is due to a depression of sorts: smaller companies were economically depressed (or suppressed) by the big monopoly. It's a relevant argument. |
Data şi ora
Prieteni în direct
Jocurile favorite
Frãţiile
Ştirea zilei
|
|
Drept de copiere © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, toate drepturile rezervate. Înapoi la Început de paginã |