View Single Post
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 18:15   #21
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Surely wealth is an infinite source. To be wealthy just means you're better off than x% of the population.
That's talking about two different things I think.

Wealth is infinite in the sense it's subjective. I might consider myself wealthy for collecting all the Dandy comic annuals from 1983 to 2001 (inclusive) but that doesn't mean anyone else does.

Wealth is finite in the sense in most cases in our economy it is dependent on / comes from finite resources. The amount of "stuff" people can have is highly variable but it not unlimited.

I don't think either statement is particularly helpful though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Somewhere like Switzerland wasn't really involved in any of the wars. Have they suffered a gigantic population rise in comparison to countries who DID drop in population?
No, and that's another flaw in the original concept. Population growth is never even, and the countries involved in WW1 and WW2 are the ones with very low population growth today (if we exclude immigration).
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote