This discussion is not new, many years ago that economists and political scientists have conflicting views on the subject property in fact there are extensive studies that link the existence of private property for economic development and other much (though much less), trying to prove otherwise. However, in countries where private property is enshrined, the expectation of development greater economic and people tend to work harder when you own the land when it is not.
Of course property ownership have their flaws, the large estates, monopoly, etc. are evils arising from the accumulation of land and that only through an assertive control (not shown), can strike a balance.
The problem is that private property is a danger, because the man works harder and is able to defend their property up to life, as I told a friend expert in these things , a person can lose life when someone tries to steal a cell phone itself not the phone itself, but because it is at stake, "the property" which is a basic instinct. Obviously, this is a very simplified approach but you can understand it perfectly.
positive Is expropriation of private property? for military purposes, yes. Absolutely. For economic purposes, at all. In World War II the Nazis expropriated all the countries they occupied, as the Romans did at the time, but it is the only way to maintain control.
Economically justifiable only in emergency situations, as in the case of the financial crisis last year, where the American state has become "shareholders", not the owner of some banks to avoid a greater evil.
Cativen 's grace, by reference to the Casino Group Financial Statements, will cost the country a U.S. $ 806 MM. The question one asks is whether the markets are as good government why the St. Hedwig Excelsior range passes are full every night?.
So what is worth the investment of money? For military purposes, yes. For economic purposes, definitely NO.
Until next delivery!
Bookmark this on Delicious
0 comments:
Post a Comment