On Sun, 8 Aug 1999, Milutin wrote: > >> The average income is now 10.2 dollars(it improved!) but the condition of > them, as a group, is worst. > >Care to explain further?? > > One person is better off while 9 others are worse off. > 1) Does this assume that they people gain no value in the things that they acquire. 2) It also assumes that the goods and/or services purchased by the nine (9) individuals will not lead to future income. 3) It assumes that the one person is an island and does not need to trade/exchange items/goods/services of value for money. In short, the example that you have created does take into consideration the "theory of movement," "barriers," and "value exchange." > >If the nation-state is able to provide services through the taxation of the > population, then the entire group is better off, providing the services are > in fact provided. Your economic argument is not sound. > > my simple argument is one for a nation-state. Also, it isn't a FACT that > services will be provided(my country, UN says is "the best country to live > in", ain't close to my ideal). Helping the less fortunate seems like a > radical principle, but is a humane and moral one. There is much complicated confusion in the above statement. Best in the sense of what? --Consumption? That is being able to consume more? Best in the sense there is not domination? Best in the sense there are no barriers? [ [ TEXT CUT ] ] F. Leon