Fragmentation and the De-Optimization of Centralization

Many observers decry the loss of national coherence and purpose, and the increasing fragmentation of the populace into “tribes” with their own loyalties, value systems and priorities.

These observers look back on the national unity of World War II as the ideal social standard: everyone pitching in, with shared purpose and sacrifice. (Never mind the war killed tens of millions of people, including over 400,000 Americans.)

But few (if any) of these nostalgic observers note that history has no rewind button or reverse gear. It is impossible to recreate the national unity of World War II, as modern war is either specialized or nuclear. Neither enable mass mobilization.

Few observers note that World War II set the template for the next 60 years:the solution is always to further centralize power, control and money to serve the goals set by centralized authority.

The wartime economies of every combatant were optimized not just for production of war goods but for centralized command and control of that production.

We are now so habituated to centralized decision-making, control and power that we don’t even question the notion that a wildly diverse nation of 320 million people can be well-served by a single healthcare system that requires thousands of pages of regulations to function in a centrally managed fashion.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that we need 10,000 different solutions to healthcare, not one insanely complex centralized system that is a global outlier in its cost and ineffectiveness (see chart below).

Those who are nostalgic for a centralized command and control economy and society are like those who decried the breakdown of “the one faith” Catholicism in the emergence of Protestant Christians.

The Protestant Reformation occurred because the centralized authority of Rome no longer worked for many of the faithful. The proliferation of Protestant churches was the solution.

Simply put, the 4th Industrial Revolution has de-optimized centralization. Centralized control, power and money are now the problem, not the solution.

Source: U.S. Healthcare Is A Global Outlier

This reality has pitted the changes in the economy and technology against the political command and control system that is virtually unchanged since 1945. New layers of bureaucracy are added, but none are ever dissolved.

Those decrying the loss of centralized control and narratives are in essence decrying solutions to the new problems we face. Just as the Catholic Church could not turn back the clock to 500 A.D., so the central states and banks cannot turn back the clock to 1945.

Solutions abound, but they look forward, not backward, and they embrace experimentation, innovation, decentralization, community and new models that obsolete de-optimized centralization. These solutions are what Of Two Minds is all about.

New Year Note: I want to thank those financial contributors who have supported the site throughout 2016, and especially those who renew their financial support like clockwork in January of every year. It is you stalwart financial supporters that keep the site going. Thank you for contributing your hard-earned money to this often-Quixotic project.

This includes the subscribers and patrons who receive the weekly Musings Reports ($5 per month or $50/year) as a token of my appreciation.

In 2017, the site will continue to focus on new tools for alleviating inequality, privilege and poverty globally. Yes, it’s possible, and yes, it’s practical. I’ve written three books on these topics: Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege, Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform and A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology & Creating Jobs for All.

More to come on all fronts–thank you for sharing the journey.

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • diogenes

    The science of ecology shows that centralization always has more costs than benefits and the larger the centralized entity grows the more costs outweigh benefits. There is a definite curve identied by bioscientists and it has a predictable downturn after which conditions begin to deteriorate and sink. They sink below an equilibrium point and then either restabilize or crash entirely. You can review this science in, e.g. Odums & Barrett, Fundamentals of Ecology.

  • Josh Stern

    Historical note – WWII like almost every big event in US history, gets a bit of sunny propaganda buffing around the edges. It’s true that there was a lot of new unity – e.g. White soldiers didn’t refuse to serve with Negroes as they did in WWI. But domestically, tensions between war profiting businesses and unionist strikers continued apace:

    • diogenes

      Yes, lets talk about minor details of 75 years ago. Why do you want to mislead and distract discussion? What’s your motive? What’s your agenda? Whatever it is, the result stinks.

      • Josh Stern

        Both WWII and 9-11 caused an increase in patriotic support for US govt. In both cases, that “mandate” was both exaggerated, and more importantly, abused to create laws that allowed anti-democratic consolidation of power. After WWII we got a) 3X larger standing army and defense budget, b) National Security Act of 1947 with anti-democratic provisions, c) active covert war against USSR, d) and creation of CIA to do clandestine activity. After 9-11 we got “Patriot Act”, FISA, black-site rendition, increased mass surveillance, etc.

        My “agenda” is to point out that we should be skeptical about the supposed benefits of these national moods of unity. They seem to often do a lot more long term harm than good. Related to that, I wanted to point out that both capitalist profiteeers and unionist strikers felt free enough to pursue their self-interests during WWII without being call traitors or something akin to that. Do we have that freedom still today or have we become propaganda slaves to group think? I feel that perspective is important and relevant to the parent topic.

        • diogenes

          The “increase in patriotic support” in both cases is mostly a myth. The increase in police state fascism is a different matter.

          • Josh Stern

            More personal accusations for you…essentially without content.

            But lo, here you do make an actual claim. You say it is a myth that US patriotic sentiment increased after 9/11 and. moreover, you accuse me of insincere dialog on the premise that I an engaged in propagating this “myth”.

            Factually, you can google “post 9/11 patriotism survey” right now and find article after article reporting that as fact. I also perceive it to be true, and I am not sure why you are attacking me on the basis that I mentioned that fact in the context of making a critical point about how that sentiment was exploited. If you have some basis for saying that claim about sentiment is itself a conspiracy, then please share, and I will be englightened, along with others here.

            “magic bullet” theory is bad explanation in the context of JFK coverup that I criticize, even here on washingtonsblog. 9/11 coverup I also criticize, but have not written about here. “Dan Rather”?? If you refer to Carl Herman’s recent post, I will add that he did not tell the most relevant part of that story, which I will include here.

            At time of JFK assassination, the overwhelming majority of witnesses felt that the shots they heard came from behind the picket fence above the grassy knoll. Many said they saw a puff of smoke from that direction, and that can be seen in some pictures. Well over 40 witnesses reported this:


            The doctors as Parkland hospital where JFK’s body and the wounded Gov. Connally were taken all reported that he had an entry wound in the right side of his head and a massive exit wound in the back. This was reported by at least 8 different medical personnel and govt. agents. The Dall PD motorcyle police riding 20 ft.+ to the left rear of the JFK limo got splattered with blood and brains. A piece of JFK’s skull fell on the back of the limo, with Jackie famously crawled to retrieve….So, *obviously* he was shot from the right front. But the govt. wanted to tell a different story…

            The best film showing him shot from the right front was the famous Zapruder film. Like all the other films, this was first confiscated and then given back. Whether it was corrupted in development in controversial, but in any case, it shows JFK being hit from the right. There was an auction for the rights to this film which rather attended for CBS. He was outbid by LIFE magazine, who paid $50K for that important doc and then suppressed it from the public view. The public only got to see it because Jim Garrison was able to subpoena it for the Clay Shaw trial. Although his bid for the film was low, Rather saw it and reported on the air, a completely incorrect description, as Carl’s link shows. He later claimed that he has made an error, influenced by the false stories about a rear shot from Texas Book Depository that the govt. was quickly starting to spin. The controversy around Rather is about whether he/CBS really got that wrong or deliberately described it incorrectly. CBS was implicated in several other bits of coverup related to the JFK assassination, so the theory is that someone there, perhaps Rather or perhaps his copy editor, falsified the report on purpose.

          • diogenes

            When I go to google and google surveys for facts, bury me, because I’m brain dead.

            Polly wanna cracker, Josh?

          • Josh Stern

            Google offers you, or anyone else, an easy way to find to a variety of different quantitative sources backing an observation that most take as common place. You claim it is untrue and that anyone believing it to be true is insincere, without presenting any rhyme or reason.

          • diogenes

            Your comments display a basic ignorance about the character of “surveys” and “statistical facts” and/or an enormous credulity or an enormous deceit. With the right questions and the right “sample” a survey can produce any results desired — and often do. In a blizzard of bullshit, look in another direction.

          • Josh Stern

            Any given survey *could* be wrong. But yet that google search takes one to several surveys supporting that particular point, whereas you offer ZERO evidence for your angry rebuttal – which frankly, did not seem to merit more attention from me than what I provided.

            Several effortful studies supporting a point – any of which *could* theoretically be misleading in some way – despite matching what most observers clearly saw around them – still offer quite a bit more evidential support that your isolated opinion offered with no support of any kind.

            Trolling seems to be your only purpose here.

          • diogenes

            You could ask Google, or you could ask Time Magazine. Take your pick, idiot.

          • Josh Stern

            If you were not trolling then you would reply with actual content or an actual point.

          • diogenes

            See above. Or see my essay The Distribution of Wealth In America, posted elsewhere on this site. You’ll find about 20,000 words of “actual content and actual poiints.” It includes about 25 pages of references to key works on this subject. Meanwhile, stop making yourself look stupid.’

          • Josh Stern

            In this part of the sub-thread, you are angrily attacking, in contentless, loud-mouth

            ad hominem way, the innocuous observation that their was a surge in patriotic sentiment within the US after 9-11. You claim that is a myth and that I show ignorance and bad faith for even mentioning it passing, in support of a different point.

            Several rounds of replies later, you still offer nothing in support of that angry denunciation. My comment above was following your stream of nonsense on that sub-topic.

            I did find your essay mentioning Veblen here:

            I observe that it says nothing about efficiencies of production, economies of scale, etc. It does not, in any way, support your claim that Veblen’s 1910 writing was somehow prescient in showing the futility of the following 100 years of Economics work on those topics and the conclusions they have drawn about it.

          • diogenes

            If you read it and understood it you would know better. But you didn’t and you don’t. As every word you post proves.

          • Josh Stern

            Your blog post? I took the effort of finding the link which you didn’t provide, and, yes, I skimmed your profound utterance, searching for anything that look even potentially relevant, but finding nothing. Surely, you can at least be bothered to point out which setences there relate to either disproving the existence of economies of scale or post-9-11 patriotic sentiment.

          • diogenes

            “skimmed”. And found nothing! No shit, Sherlock. You have a real talent for making a fool out of yourself. You should be on TV, or in politics, or maybe in education.

          • Josh Stern

            Same pattern continues. Diogenes makes surprising assertions – that Veblen had already proved modern economic theory was false in 1910 and that its a “myth” that patriotic feeling increased in the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 attacks , Diogenes offers no concrete support of any kind for those assertions, Diogenes claims that my belief in them identifies me as either an idiot or some kind of insincere actor, Diogenes follows up my reply asking for specifics with the same pattern of nonsense and insults, offering no specifics.

            We’ve gone through about 5 rounds of that now. Is there some kind of official record we can try for here?

          • diogenes

            As above, I suggest you read Michael Hudson’s books, Killing the Host and J Is For Junk Economics. And stop wasting our time until you do. And don’t lie that you have read what you obviously haven’t. It’s tiresome, stupid, and disgraces you.

          • Josh Stern

            Another round. Piling on more unfounded accusations & insults without supporting any of the previous ones with even one ounce of rational content.

          • diogenes

            See above.

  • madrino

    Economies of scale can only go so far in with limits in every industry. The cost after reaching optimum performance goes up rapidly. The “capitalist” system that is at work today has far exceeded any cost benefit and is out of control. Centralized decision making of policy holders are supported by concentrated power in industry which try to destroy or usurp any form of healthy competition based on required skills, resources availability and capital needed to enter into business. Our way of life is out of control as well, pouring money into amusement and paying the industries associated with it far more than they are worth, using Bernays’ manufactured demand techniques. Every industry, especially factory “farming”, has become more detrimental to the survival of people and the planet, while profits are swept away from local communities, cities and states into the coffers of international “investment”.

    • diogenes

      “Economies of scale” are a LIE. This was demonstrated over 100 years ago by numerous students of corporate flimflam, including Thorstein Veblen. They are and have always been a public relations HOAX. The same law of ecology demonstrating the decreasing returns and increasing maintenance cost of “expansion” apply here also. The entire industrial economy and its predatory investment superstruture is 100% BULLSHIT designed to “justify” and sell wage slavery to the 99%. This has been known and demonstrated for over 100 years. It takes a huge heap of hired liars — in public relations, in media, and in education — to keep people who think they are intelligent and informed believing this BULLSHIT.

    • Josh Stern

      I don’t agree with these claims that “economies of scale” are theoretically or empircally bad. What I think is true is that many capitalists work to exploit the system to their advantage in all sorts of ways, so every instance of “too big to fail” should be looked on as a potential problem and invitation for systemic abuse. Anti-trust laws exist and they are good things. They should be rigourously enforced. Activities like giving out monopolies to the cable company to compensate for their initial build-up cost might have seemed okay in the 1970s when cable was new, but they were a mistake as well – multiple competitors should have been required. The theoretical arguments for international trade ARE NOT wrong, but they are exploited by people who don’t care about their adverse effect on wage inequality, foreign “OSHA-type-considerations”, etc.

      Scott Noble’s doc film on plutocracy – provides a lot of great examples of how bad things used to be, with less economy of scale – e.g. entire towns governed ruthlessly by the local coal mine owner, etc.

      Regulated capitalism is the best system we have, but we need to stand up against all the ad hominem arguments that try to label all regulations for broad sharing of profit and political power as inherently socialist=bad. Totalitarianism is bad, Democracy is good, and improving everyone’s standard of living and standard of liberty moves forward are all good things, without any contradictions between them. Incentives are helpful and should not be eliminated, but we have seen a long history of people justifying huge inequality and corporate welfare under the name of “incentives”. The people, as a whole, need to get sharper about how these games get played.

      • diogenes

        Scott Noble’s documentary film is propaganda. Lies from top to bottom. In 1865 the wealthiest 2% of Americans owned 5% of America. In 1895 the wealthiest 2% owned 65% of America. THAT’s centralization and that’s when and how the bad old days got started. Today the wealthiest 2% of Americans own over 70%. The money nazis of Wall Street staged a financial coup in the first decade of the 20th century. There has been no real American democracy since then. Amercan’s economy has been, and is, financial slavery for the 99%. The oligarchs have enough money to hire enough liars — like Scott NOble — to persuade enough fools — like Josh Stern — to think otherwise. Enough spew.

        • Josh Stern

          Noble is well researched and cites his sources – – see “Sources” for references.

          He is a well know establishment critic, as you can see: His film on the CIA is one of the best film sources for info on the CIA/MI6 coup against the liberal govt. of Australia in the 1970s.

          Your comments don’t throw any light on actual points of disagreement. He is saying that things were not good in the “good ol'” Post-Industrial Revolution days, and you are saying things were not good in the “good ol'” Post -Industrial Revolution days. So far, you agree. And?

          • diogenes

            According to your synopsis Noble presents “less economy of scale” as a detriment. This contradicts basic facts of biology (see the comment on ecology & citation below) and as economics, it was demonstrated to be bullshit 110 years ago. This is a recommendation? The example you cite (the “small town coal mine owner”) is preposterous, as an example and as economic history. If you’re synposis is accurate Nobel is either a fool or a propagandist.

            Your statement that “regulated capitalism is the best system we have” flies in the face of 130 years of historical fact and economic fact to the contrary. To me it indicates that you, too, are either a fool or a propagandist. Either you are ignorant of the history you think you refer to or you have no respect for facts. Either way, screw it.

            Investment capitalism is a fancy name for robber baronry. And robber baronry is all about charge tolls for nothing because you have the muscle to bully people and markets into paying them. If you want to inform yourself, instead of talking rot and making a fool of yourself in front of people who know better, you might start by reading Michael Hudson’s Killing The Host. For instance.
            By the time you’re done you should be in a position to understand just how stupid the position you forward really is, just how far out of touch with reality it is. In fact, stuff like “regulated capitalism is the best system we have” amounts to making excuses for the worst predators humanity has ever seen, and an attempt to sweep under the rug the utter ruination of human lives and our planet that these bloodsucking moneynazis commit as a matter of policy, a policy driven by greed and fostered by lies — lies which you parrot. What kind of cracker do you get for parroting it, is a relevant question.

          • Josh Stern

            Economy of scale is a description the relationship between production facilities and consumers. When few facilities service consumers over a very broad area, that is an example of an economy of scale. One idea is that logistic distribution is cheaper than duplicating production facilities at many places. A retailer like Amazon, replacing many store fronts, is another example. A turn of the century robber baron owning many, many small factories is not an example of an economy of scale.

            Objectively, pre-New Deal working conditions for Americans were far, far worse than what they achieved in later decades and today, yet economies of scale were much lower then.

            Are we clear about those basic facts, or are they somehow in dispute? My sense is that you confusing economy of scale with concentration of ownership.

          • diogenes

            “Economy of scale” claims that production and provision of goods and services becomes more efficient as scale of operation grows and becomes more centralized. As economics, this was demonstrated to be a falsehood by 1910. As biophysics the science of ecology has demonstrated it to be a falsehood on even more basic terms over the past 50 years. See the text I site below on the ecology; see Thorstein Veblen and hundreds of others on the economics.

            Centralization benefits the wealth and power of centralizers, period. Concentration of ownership is the financial expression and method of centralization and the supposed financial basis of supposed “economy of scale” (which does not exist). Both are based on monopoly and cartels. The centralizers peddle the idea that bigger is better purely to serve their own greed for wealth and power, and fools parrot their lies. Fools like Josh Stern.

          • Josh Stern

            The quantitative & qualitative Economics and Finance communities take the reality of efficiences from Economies of Scale as something that is both theoretically easy to understand and very common to see in empirical practice. When you claim that the entire profession is deluded about something the burden is on you to explain what you mean and why. Referencing the year 1910 over & over again is not helping in any way to clarify your bizarre claim or why you go out of your way to list my name, in post after post. Veblen is not widely regarded as an economist or an important critic of economic theory.

          • diogenes

            The entire profession is compromised by its a priori assumptions about the character of finance. That Veblen is not widely regarded is an index of what the profession stands for — Wall Street, and Wall Street’s assumptions, in two words. Read Michael Hudson until you understand what he’s saying. Try Killing The Host. The theory of finance embraced by professional economists is an historical abberration sponsored by the elements it benefits. Surprise! If you can’t get your head around that you haven’t begun to face facts and you haven’t begun to think. Sorry if it bothers you that I put it so plainly. You can lead a horse to water.

          • Josh Stern

            I regard Veblen as a Sociologist and social critic of distinction, but not any kind of serious economist; he was writing before modern economics really existed as a body of theory/knowledge. You are claiming that in 1910 he somehow, from another discipline, without quantitative data or numbers, somehow managed to disprove quantitative views of modern economics before the discipline even existed. Economies of scale claims can be explained very intuitively, and make sense intuitively, but they are proved or disproved with numbers. If distribution networks were, counterfactually, much more expensive, then most would fail. The empirical truth of the matter depends on the *current* state of the world, its technology and its prices. It’s not in the category of a claim that can be disproved in 1910 by a social critic.

            Given all of that, one would expect you to provide a little more detail and specifics about this quaint view.

          • diogenes

            I regard Veblen as someone you have obviously never read and certainly, obviously, have not understood. And that means I regard you as a bullshitter. 100%.

          • Josh Stern

            I have read Veblen, and I explained to you, in sufficient detail why your citation of Veblen 1910 makes absolutely no sense here.

            If you were not trolling you would reply with actual content or an actual point.

          • diogenes

            If you had read and understood Veblen — start with Absentee Ownership and the Theory of Business Enterprise — you would not be talking the crap you are. If you had read and grasped Louis Brandeis — Other People’s Money — and William O. Douglas — Democracy and Finance — you would not be talking the crap that you are. What all of them, and plenty others, demonstrate is the pure fraud that forms the basis of the financial assumptions, instruments, and operations informing the entire “economy” called “capitalist” and pimped for by hireling kakademic professional economists If you had read Michael Hudson or Ellen Brown you would understand it. But every word you say demonstrates your ignorance and your delusion — or your deceit, maybe, but I’m betting it’s delusion and arrogance. Either way, you are in WAY over your head and the more you thrash around the more it shows, to anyone who can see it. Obviously you can’t. Why don’t you make the effort to educate yourself and stop wasting our time and spreading falsehood and ignorance?

          • Josh Stern

            You claim that Veblen’s turn of the century works somehow prove or demonstrate the wrongheadedness and insincerity of most of the Economics profession which came afterwards. You claim that people who do not recognize this singular view of yours – are somehow ignorant dupes and probably insincere to boot. You offer no specific arguments in support of this. The paragraph above is simply a content-free stream of ad hominem invective. It says nothing concrete about substance.

            That is loon trolling.

          • diogenes

            No, if — as you pretend to, and lie — you had read and understood them — as, for instance, Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas, Charles Beard and Buckminster Fuller did — you would understand that what Veblen demonstrates, categorically and conclusively, is the FRAUD that underwrites “capitalist” finance.

            But you prefer to bluster and pose and pretend and lie, and attack people who point it out — anything rather than think? Or anything to serve your masters? Who cares?

          • Josh Stern

            Again, you assert – without any form of rational argument – that Veblen proved the fraud of modern Economics and Finance before the fields even got started. Somehow, only Diogenes grasps this truth. No point going into specifcs about the bizzarro claim…one simply needs to ponder old religious texts and wait for enlightenment.

            Dude, your trolling is a bad joke.

          • diogenes

            If you read Veblen and understand him you will be in a position to understand what I’m saying. You might get there easier by reading around in Michael Hudson but I’m not familiar enough with his work on contemporary economics to tell you with certainty where. I was drawn to him by his work in the foundations of finance in ancient Mesopotamia, which are definitive and brilliant.

            But every word you post shows that you are incapable of any of it. Or so I conclude from what you post so far. But go ahead, get a grip on what Veblen and Brandeis (Other Peoples Money) and Douglas and Hudson are trying to show you, the fools, and come back and show us that you are capable of learning and thinking after all. It will be a happy surprise all around, I’m sure of it.

          • Josh Stern

            You have yet to write even one single sentence about the logic of WHY economies of scale can’t happen – using any argument made known to you by Veblen or anyone else. Essentially all modern Econ and Finance people regard that as a commonplace, and well understood thing, while blog avatar Diogenes claims it is all a fraud or a misunderstanding, as can be seen in some, unspecified, early 20th C arguments by Veblen. You must realize how absurd that sounds…yet you keep repeating it.

            You think Veblen is important and shows such a thing, then write a paragraph outlining the general idea of how or why that would be true. If you claim it depends on as yet undiscovered physical laws of the universe – even that would be more of an argument that you have provided in your 15 or so replies to this thread.

          • diogenes

            Since you say you can’t understand Veblen, whom you pretend to have read while proving that you haven’t, why don’t you check out and follow up on two of his books. J Is For Junk Economics will explain to you, if you are capable, despite appearances, of understanding, the fraudulent character of 20th century American academic “economics.” And Killing The Host will give you an overview, if you are capable, despite appearances, of seeing it, of the real character of the real economy, as contrasted with the hoax cover-up economy presented by hired academic liars for the benefit of the hoaxers and their masters. Good luck. I can tell you will need it. But don’t despair. One of the thieves was damned, but one of the thieves was saved.

          • Josh Stern

            Which quantitative models of micro and/or macro economics do you claim are not “fraudulent”?

            You say I need to read some obscure book to explain why economic models are “fraudulent”. What does YOUR claim even mean? And how does it relate to your insults and other bluster? This is the “argument” you present:

            Premise 1: Diogenes has read such and such book and seen there, the truth of the claim that all economic theories are “fraudulent”.
            Premise 2: The field of economics ignores those books. That’s part of the fraud.

            Premise 3: The idea of economies of scale is part of many economic theories. So the univesal claims in those books show it to be wrong or fraudulent.

            Conclusion: Since I think the economies of scale are real in many instances, I am either a fool or a perpetrator of fraud.

            Is that the correct summary?

          • diogenes

            NO, I suggest specifically that you read Michael Hudson, Killing the Host and J Is For Junk Economics. That is, if you can read the previous sentence. It’s not my job to educate you, and to all appearances anyways you are ineducable, but those are two texts that will fill you in on these questions.

          • Josh Stern

            Another round. Piling on more unfounded accusations & insults
            without supporting any of the previous ones with even half an ounce of
            rational content.

          • diogenes

            Everyone can see that your responses are vacuous. You’re not addressing anything. You’re just throwing mud, and it’s sticking to your hands.

          • Josh Stern

            If anyone care’s to read the thread above, they can see that you attacked what I wrote & me personally without a shred of specific substance. You went on to justify your attacks *only* with the claim that essentially all Economics – even empirically grounded and weakly theory dependent observations such as “economies of scale” – is crap and this was somehow proved by Veblen before the modern enterprise go started. When I asked for specifics, you only claim without truth or reason that I haven’t read Veblen and mention some other books without showing evidence that *you* have understood them well enough to extract a single rational point of relevance and bring it to the discussion. This is like me saying “You, Diogenes are a worthless troll and if you go read the New Oxford Dictionary and you really understand it this will become clear to you.” That’s a well know form of worthless argument.

            One also wonders why you are not spreading your wisdom about the fraud of economics all over the web, attacking every Economic professional and those who read them.

            Why does your focus concentrate on this backwater thread, while saying nothing here? Why follow me, to object – without content – to my view that “economies of scale” is an easy to understand and meaningful concept applying to many situations of economic production???

    • Margaretslewin

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj261d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash261TopInfoGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj261d:….,…