So I can try to understand this:
Neither side has concrete proof.
Therefore the single desk system should be maintained for the good of whom?
You and your friends?
Without concrete proof, what is different in this approach to AdamSmith's?
To make a statement like: "I really don't think the risk reward is worth it." - is what i do not get.
With risk on one side of a blank piece of paper and reward on the other - and the paper blank - you are drawing conclusions based on nothing.
______________________________________
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
Jean Chretien - March 01, 1995
_______________________________________
Neither side has concrete proof.
Therefore the single desk system should be maintained for the good of whom?
You and your friends?
Without concrete proof, what is different in this approach to AdamSmith's?
To make a statement like: "I really don't think the risk reward is worth it." - is what i do not get.
With risk on one side of a blank piece of paper and reward on the other - and the paper blank - you are drawing conclusions based on nothing.
______________________________________
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
Jean Chretien - March 01, 1995
_______________________________________
Comment