• Forum Think Finance - Bolsa e Forex »
• Perfil de Dilath Larath »
• Mostrar Mensagens »
• Mensagens

Com essa fibra toda e se passares muitas horas sentado , bem podes beber alguns 2l de agua por dia sendo o primeiro copo de jejum

qual a relação fibras / água?

D

salaminho,

amanhã tenho de dar de comer ao mendigo.
lista de compras para os pequenos almoços:
flocos de aveia: 0.89 / 400 gr (2.23 / 1 kg)
bananas: 0.99 / 1 kg
leite magro: 0.54 / 1 Lt * 6 = 3,24
total: 5.12

vamos ver quantos pequenos almoços isto dá.

D

calorias por 100 gr:
flocos de aveia: 371
bananas: 89
leite: 34

50 gr aveia + 300 ml leite + 1 banana= 376.5 cal

pouco mais de um 1/6 da dose diária (2kcal)
não é uma taça demasiadamente grande
40 cts por dose (aprox)

D

Sopas...sem frigorífico...cuidado que azeda!

Têm que ser consumidas no dia. No máximo no dia seguinte. No verão seria mais complicado.

D

Se tiveres sucesso (o que desejo), vais num entanto dar mais um argumento aos libertários inimigos do estado social: não há pobres, só preguiçosos, que andam a sugar o estado por indolencia, já que se se esforçassem, como mostram as estatísticas, com um capital inicial de 2.000Eur poderiam ter vida condigna 

O zark poria a questão de outra forma.
a probabilidade de sobrevivência, hoje em Portugal, de um pobre com 2k no bolso, desempregado (procurando activamente um emprego, qualquer que ele seja),  é tão grande como a de o zark ter sucesso neste projecto.

D

Citação de: Zark em 2016-01-04  17:42:30

buy limit 0.10 EURUSD @1.07835

real or test?

Podiamos começar a postar apenas quando fosse real.... 

o Zark manda dizer que está a fazer como se estivesse em real. é só um par de dias até serem determinadas as limitações e necessidades deste ambiente. como tal, tenho que postar.

D

Patrão, não sei...
só o ouço murmurar 'hannah' e 'pulls e mids' e 'ela gostou, ela gostou'
Vou chamar o pedinte. Pode ser que ele saiba como tirar o nosso senhor do estado catatónico em que se encontra

D

The Fiscal Future I: The Hyperbolic Case for Bigger Government
 APRIL 6, 2015 1:54 PM April 6, 2015 1:54 pm

Brad DeLong has posted a draft statement on fiscal policy for the IMF conference on “rethinking macroeconomics” — and I’m shocked, in a good way. As regular readers may have noticed, Brad and I share many views, so I expected something along lines I have also been thinking. Instead, however, Brad has come up with what I believe are seriously new ideas — enough so that I want to do two posts, following different lines of thought he suggests.

What Brad argues are two propositions that run very much counter to the prevailing wisdom, especially among Very Serious People. First, he argues that we should not only expect but want government to be substantially bigger in the future than it was in the past. Second, he suggests that public debt levels have historically been too low, not too high. In this post I consider only the first point.

So, how big should the government be? The answer, broadly speaking, is surely that government should do those things it does better than the private sector. But what are these things?

The standard, textbook answer is that we should look at public goods — goods that are non rival and non excludable, so that the private sector won’t provide them. National defense, weather satellites, disease control, etc.. And in the 19th century that was arguably what governments mainly did.

Nowadays, however, governments are involved in a lot more — education, retirement, health care. You can make the case that there are some aspects of education that are a public good, but that’s not really why we rely on the government to provide most education, and not at all why the government is so involved in retirement and health. Instead, experience shows that these are all areas where the government does a (much) better job than the private sector. And Brad argues that the changing structure of the economy will mean that we want more of these goods, hence bigger government.

He also suggests — or at least that’s how I read him — the common thread among these activities that makes the government a better provider than the market; namely, they all involve individuals making very-long-term decisions. Your decision to stay in school or go out and work will shape your lifetime career; your ability to afford medical treatment or food and rent at age 75 has a lot to do with decisions you made when that stage of life was decades ahead, and impossible to imagine.

Now, the fact is that people make decisions like these badly. Bad choices in education are the norm where choice is free; voluntary, self-invested retirement savings are a disaster. Human beings just don’t handle the very long run well — call it hyperbolic discounting, call it bounded rationality, whatever, our brains are designed to cope with the ancestral savannah and not late-stage capitalist finance.

When you say things like this, libertarians tend to retort that if people mess up on such decisions, it’s their own fault. But the usual argument for free markets is that they lead to good results — not that they would lead to good results if people were more virtuous than they are, so we should rely on them despite the bad results they yield in practice. And the truth is that paternalism in these areas has led to pretty good results — mandatory K-12 education, Social Security, and Medicare make our lives more productive as well as more secure.

Now, Brad argues that we’re going to need even more of this kind of paternalism. An aging population and the demand for a more highly educated work force certainly push in that direction. It’s less clear, I’d say, that health care will be a big driver, since the rate of growth of health spending seems to have slowed.

But he certainly has the principle right. To think about the growth of government, we need to look at the range of things government does well, a range that goes well beyond the narrow concept of public goods.

krugman

Também existiu dinheiro para a Grécia, se não me engano qualquer coisa entre 100 e 200 milhões de dólares há 50 anos atrás.

sim. a própria alemanha nessa altura considerou isso com uma primeira parcela do que devia à grécia.
depois 'esqueceu-se' do resto.

D

não percebo a dúvida.
a 2ª GG foi a excepção, em que a Alemanha não pagou reparações (ou pagou muito pouco).
em todas as outras guerras os perdedores pagaram reparações, desde o sec XVII.
não estou a afirmar se está bem ou mal.
estou a dizer que não é nenhuma surpresa.

não é como se fosse a primeira vez que reparações de guerra eram exigidas aos derrotados.

D

How long can Calif. farmers dodge water restrictions?

As California enters its fourth year of drought, the governor is not backing down from his mandatory water cutbacks. But critics say the new measures don't focus on the biggest water users in the Golden State, and the $46 billion farming industry is getting a pass -- for now.

California's Central Valley is home to some of the richest farmland in the world. It is where nearly half of all the nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts are grown. But while agriculture accounts for just 2 percent of the state's economy, it accounts for roughly 80 percent of California's usable water, reports CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy.

"I don't think that we can sustain agriculture at the level that we have been. The water supply just isn't there," NASA's senior water scientist Jay Famiglietti said.

Famiglietti recently made headlines around the world when he warned that California has just one year's supply of water in its reservoirs. He said the issue is no longer just about California's nearly empty reservoirs, but it's about farmers pumping out massive amounts of groundwater to try to keep their crops alive.

"Over the last few years we've lost about five and a half trillion gallons of water per year just in groundwater, so it's a huge amount of water," Famiglietti said.

Yet last week when Gov. Jerry Brown ordered an unprecedented and mandatory 25 percent cut in water use statewide, agricultural use was exempted. Brown defended his actions Sunday, saying farmers have already left nearly half a million acres unplanted and need access to water to survive.

"Of course we could shut it off if you don't want to produce any food and import it from some other place. Theoretically you could do that, but that would displace hundreds of thousands of people, and I don't think it's needed," Brown said on ABC "This Week."

The mandatory 25 percent cuts to water use will hit urban areas hard. Some people are draining their swimming pools, letting their lawns die and counting how many times they flush the toilet. But in reality, just 12 percent of the state's water is used by Californians at home.

If the drought continues, Famiglietti said farmers will no longer be spared.

"Restrictions on agriculture because of the dire situation we are in are inevitable," Famiglietti said.

cbs