Why it’s bad when governments try to regulate economies, how a monopoly in a free market is a very slippery concept and competition is far more dynamic and effective over time than most attempts to regulate.
“I en ny rapport från Skattebetalarnas Förening kartläggs skattesänkningarnas effekter i Göteborgs- och Uddevallaregionen, komplett med topplistor kommun för kommun för de viktigaste skatteförändringarna de senaste åren.”
LOL, tyvärr är väl den artikeln skriven på allvar. Men läs den gärna, man skrattar gott åt den.
Håhåjaja, som man säger i Värmland: “Dä finns fôlk te allt”
Via A För Anka
The reason that libertarians seem extreme and odd is not that they are a furious minority, angry at a world that seems to have passed them by, but rather the opposite. They are heirs to a tradition that has changed the world. Consider what classical liberalism stood for in the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was against the power of the church and for the power of the market; it was against the privileges of kings and aristocracies and for dignity of the middle class; it was against a society dominated by status and land and in favor of one based on markets and merit; it was opposed to religion and custom and in favor of science and secularism; it was for national self-determination and against empires; it was for freedom of speech and against censorship; it was for free trade and against mercantilism. Above all, it was for the rights of the individual and against the power of the church and the state…
The reason that libertarianism seems narrow and naive is that having won 80 percent of the struggles it has fought over the last two centuries, it is now forced to define itself wholly in terms of the last 20 percent. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice if you were in Prussia in the 1850s, but in America in the 1960s? Libertarianism has become extreme because the world has left it no recourse.
Mona Sahlin gör bort sej på ett möte med Svenskt Näringsliv.
“Jag vill höja bensinskatten med 49 kronor litern”. Freudiansk felsägning kanske?
Maggie Simpson as Maggie Roark, a reference to The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.
In the final tale, Maggie is depicted as “Maggie Roark,” representing Howard Roark from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.
Maggie’s architectural brilliance is quashed by an oppressive pre-school teacher (Ellsworth Toohey) who encourages only conformity. She builds several famous landmarks (such as The Taj Mahal in India and The Bird’s Nest in Beijing, China) out of blocks and other toys, all of which are destroyed by Toohey (to the strains of Beethoven’s 9th symphony, 2nd movement) who disapproves of the superiority of her creations over those of the other children. During a Parents’ Day at Mediocri-Tots Day Care Center, Maggie dazzles everyone with her rendition of the Empire State Building and ends up on trial for expressing herself. During the trial, Maggie (voiced by Jodie Foster) defends herself by stating that the creative people of her time have never compromised their talent for the sake of others and neither will she. Years later, Maggie is shown as a successful architect who opens a daycare center dedicated to letting babies express themselves freely.
Detta utöver de pengar de redan får för att köpa datorer, telefoner, etc. vad jag förstår.
Kan vi inte betala ännu lite mer skatt? De styrande är ju så suveräna på att fördela folkets svett till lika möjligheter för alla.
Lite uppmärksamhet i media är ju alltid trevligt! :)
Jag får behålla 2268 kr mer per månad jämfört med 2006, då Anders Borg tog över. Alltid något. Men det är ju en bit kvar tills jag är nöjd så att säga.