A war that doesn't make an environment! None. The another thing is that people gotta do more work to get back to the station, in which they were before the war. The war is turning people to the effort to make what they have already had. There are no debts in the war — only that any do not pay it and others lose it, due to the fact that the loans do not pay back. These are the losses. No food. Nothing comes from the fact that individual will not pay long!
This is different from that of the buffalo. On the war, individual eats, and individual loses, but in the most common way, this is simply a loss, to which there is inactive a negative synergy, and in the most common way there is simply a two-sided one, it is simply a combination of life, and if there is an additional synergy effect. For these countries in the wars they always lose, and for these countries they eat.
As the fire destroys the house, it will turn it, it will be more and more efficient, it will be little expensive, it will be little expensive, it will be little expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be little expensive, it will be little expensive, it will be little expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be more expensive, it will be little expensive.
One of these is the back! In fact, it will be the back-to-back enrichment of any of the bisnees and the bancructs of others. The fact that any did not work, while others did not. And all to get back to the point of departure. No god will come. And those who grew up on construction, due to the fact that if they didn't, fire, earthquakes, or war, would be much more enriched, for example, in the space industry, building rockets on the Moon, or on an industrially imaginatively edifice computed games.
Those who believe that war is over 150 years have been overturned by the Bastias, and then quite a few environmentalists have been successfully based and theoretically and practically. all single intuition believes that the demolition of any god can't be achieved, and that the large wind in the sky will be that the wartime and another catastrophes and destructions are driven by biznes and turned on by the host. I don't know how much you can do!
Some believe that Różja lives on the war. Therefore, I have the thought of: non-Greater Poland's non-subsistence, and the Polish impoverishment and change with the Earth of Knowledge, which will make the sale of our top companies grow and the Polish companies become 2 richer. You guys know that?
“What to see and what not to see” by the Bastiat, is simply a class, each man should know and read in kindergarten. This begins with a brief essay entitled "The Crash". There is no economist who does not know this. I've sent it all over, and I'm dedicating it to those who believe that Russia is surviving on war.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>https://Twitter.com/gps65]]>
]]>https://www.Living room24.pl/u/gps65/]]>
]]>https://www.Facebook.com/gie.pe.es.65]]>
]]>https://t.me/KanalBlogeraGPS]]>
]]>https://www.YouTube.com/@GrzegorzSwiderski]]>
https://Invalid.pl/people/gps65
PS. Related notes:
- ]]>Long live the war!:https://www.salon24.pl/u/gps65/577547]]>
- ]]>What you can see and what you can't see:https://www.mpolska24.en/post/15628/co-widac-a-what-no-visac]]>
Broken glass
Were there a fewer witnesses to the nesting of Jakuba the Church erstwhile his unruly boy broke the hole? If you were a witness to the site, you would have found with certainty that all of them were present, although there were over 30 of them, that was not good enough. These cases contribute to industrial development. After all, people gotta live from something. What would the glassers do if the glass had not been broken?’
One in the last fewer words of the survey is simply a certain explanation that would be better understood. In this case, it is very simple, and it is precisely the explanation that governs the bovia, inconsistency, in the majority of environmental innovations.
We presume that six francs should be spent in order to make it worse. This indicates that an accident will bring glass manufacture to six francoes, that these six francoes contribute to a complementary industrial branch. I think, in any case, that is correct. The glass will come, and it will take six franches to do so, and it will work hand-to-hand and in the deep heart of the blessed child. It's a sight.
But if, and frequently so, we are going to deduce, that we are going to get to the point that we are going to get to the point where we are going to get to the bottom of this, if we are forced to call: Stop! The main explanation is to take into account as far as what you see, and not to be aware of what you see.
Do not see that he has spent six francs on 1 vow, that he will no longer be able to spend them on something else. Do not see that, if he did not gotta exchange a book, he would buy a fresh book, for example, or he would enrich his biblioteque with a different book. Briefly speaking, six franches would make an alternate usage that he would no longer make.
Let's take a look at the full thing.
It's broken. The glass manufacture has been supported by six francs—it is seen. If there were no aggregates, the six francs would have been able to build a Swedish manufacture (or an another one).
And if we thought so, what we didn't think was negative, as well as what we thought was useful, then we thought that, for the industry, it was more complete, whether it was for the labour marketplace or not.
Let's take a look at the situation of the Jakuba Ordinary.
In the first hypothesia, which is spoken of as having been struck, it produces six franches and can be enjoyed back and turned off. In the second hippothetium, which assumes that the accident did not occur, it will spend six franches on the shoes, so it will have a pair of shoes, and a stack of shoes.
It is crucial to presume that the society has lost its value.
Generalising the presentation of the example here, we come to the following, which is not part of the conclusion: "The society of losses of value is not required to eat up: "The translation, the demolition and waste does not support the Krajwej market", or briefly say: "Nichchenze does not bring about destruction".
What do you say, "Monit-Chamans" who, with this precision, calculated how much they would have developed if they had reached the fire in Paris, from the detonation of the detonation of the demolition of the houses?
I am sorry that I am forced to disprove these résumés in a timely manner, even though their large ones have penetrated our legislative authority. I ask him 1 way to conduct his calculations erstwhile again, with a view to taking into account what he does not see next to what he sees.
It would be a good thing for the reader to see that in this short talk, I have not been able to make 2 but 3 bohatheria. The first — Jakub Common, a re-presentation of a consumtion, which, in addition to the first demolition of the hull, is replaced by two. Seconds — under glass, symplies the production, which is supported by accidents. The 3rd is simply a shoemaker (or developer of each other's industry), who will be liable for the loss. This 3rd bohater, which remains throughout the full time in the cut, and which embodies what it does not see, is simply a essential component of the task here. It is he who will not long teach us that the absurrent is to live in the game, which ends with a partial destruction. Take a closer look at all the arggents here, and you can see in them only the paraphrase of this poplar maksym: “What would the glassers do if they did not break the glass?”.
