All,
With respect to greater ideas, Internet is the new medium for communication and conveying of ideas, of respecting countries and bringing them closer together, which sometimes can be a social media objective (Facebook). At what cost, and with what benefit, that answer remains with a question. This article will not cover that question.
Thus, and therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the preponderant evidence to the contrary indicates a need for bigger government. Free markets serve the greater good of taxation, which, despite whatever antiquated Objectivist view old Republicans used to have, thus, it is easy to assume that free markets thrive at the will or lack thereof of government. Free markets exist to sate its need for information, to serve as many different things, all of which help in various ways for government to thrive economically, militarily, domestically, internationally.
The more time it takes for the free market to serve government correctly, the better off the free market will be. Government is safe for those who abide by John Locke's social contract: there are rules, and you will heed their reason. It is no longer a 13 state colony, at least here in the US. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the people are happiest with a hybrid "Lin bao" consent rather than a Wei Ci game of hide and mouse. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that business serves as that agreement, as the conjunction developing good relations with people and allowing them to experience, to quote the Chinese, a "Cultural Revolution of the Internet" which will allow them to deliver suffering at the level required proportionately by government. Of course, with any change, especially from a DarkNet Internet to a Surface Net Internet, the question cannot be answered. It can only be discussed.
With enough time, that question can be answered. But first, it must be addressed. And even before then, one must reflect upon the function of time. What does time produce? Value. It produces value. It allows commodities to be sold and bought with equal exchange in Yen, Dollars, Euro, etc. Exchanged in the NASDAQ with proportionate variance relative to market need. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the COGS, or Cost of Goods Sold in a given market exceeds the expected ROI of clamps. It's reasonable to assume that in order for people to be paying taxes regularly from 2019-2023, it's reasonable to assume that the safest way to establish border security is to continue to develop those ties between nations, allowing servers to both serve and take, and subsequently be the server of government like a waiter is to management. The first premise to answering the initial question is not when, but "what is value?" And, "How does it serve government?" Akin to a voting system designed through cell phones where small amounts of trackable money are collected as donations in an election, technology serves as a means by which to serve that greater good of law and order, in which the law organizes the players and the order establishes the super structure of various things like the law, and it writes the social contract. Pearl Harbor was a threat to national sovereignty and border security, just like Mexico is a threat to Texan, New Mexican, and Californian sovereignty. California has according to a varied Internet source the largest population by state, seconded only by Texas. The south serves government through providing information and intel on the ground. Equivalent to organized terrorism, Mexico has developed into a uniquely hot location for immigration, customs, or even simple stuff like American tourism. Drug lords and kingpins rule the country and come close to the border-this may be because Mexico's GDP is lower than that of the US, which respectively sits at an average of 60,000 per capita. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that Mexico will not develop as well as the US because of its absence of either a function of time or a value output.
No comments:
Post a Comment