Money Making Schemes

Nagesh answers:

The essence of the question is “modern” not “market”. Modern economies are founded on credit; most of the money in the world is bank money – created by borrowing; etc.
Http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/moneybasics.html

No one would lend if they didn’t expect to get their money back; no one would borrow if they didn’t expect to make a profit after paying back the loan. If the economy isn’t growing in real terms, then most loans just can’t make a real profit and the economy collapses.
Http://cij.inspiriting.com/?p=698#

When people talk about the modern economy being a Ponzi scheme, this is what many mean.
Http://writ.news.findlaw.com/buchanan/20101202.html

The alternative would be a much poorer society, where most people couldn’t afford to buy houses because they’d have to save up the cost of a house while still paying rent, where farmers couldn’t buy the machinery that made them more productive until they had accumulated the full cost of that machinery while being less productive, etc.

So the answer is C.

It is also the case, that people do want their standard of living to rise and are willing to take action against politicians that don’t deliver the economic growth that makes that possible:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64862/minxin-pei/will-the-chinese-communist-party-survive-the-crisis
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Inflation-in-China-will-cause-the-collapse-of-the-regime-20383.html

And it is also the case that rising populations require rising aggregate growth just to keep standards of living constant.
Http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/03/some-economic-underpinnings-of-the-arc-of-protest.html

So, politically, though not economically, A and B are also legitimate answers.
In any case:

1. It is imposible for there to be perpetual significant economic growth in any finite universe, which means that the modern economic system is simply not sustainable – it will stop.
Http://dieoff.org/page110.htm

2. The Marxists would argue that there is a further self-destructive element: the nature of capital accumulation, where the rich have more chances to become richer yet, resulting in a concentration of assets and a tendency for the rate of profit to fall.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall
A countervailing force would be continually improving technology, but it is hard to assume that technology will continue at the same rate from now to eternity.
Http://www.economist.com/node/346598?story_id=346598

Nagesh answers:

Nurse for terminally ill cancer patients 42.00 an hours double time for sunday shift..
Pyramid marketing schemes like you are trying to convince your friend to do are only great for a while… Let him be happy educated and employed you work from home long enough and you will no longer be marketable in the real world and real workforce… So work from home and you make your million quick before your leads die and your residual income is stuck at less than you were promised for your investment

Nagesh answers:

Hundreds of years and trillions of dollars of government spending have given us roads and bridges, schools and clinics, police and fire stations, courts and prisons, and the armed services that protect everything else. Spending is good!

To stay ahead of China, we need to spend trillions of dollars more, not less, on infrastructure, including defense. Spending is good!

By spending more, government could put to use such idle resources as the twenty-five million unemployed and underemployed Americans who are drawing benefits instead of creating wealth. Real government waste is caused by NOT converting idle resources into wealth. Spending is good!

Government spends too much only when it buys scarce resources that could be better used by the private sector. Our scarcest resource is energy and the only way to increase it is by spending more, not less, on energy resources: wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, coal, and oil. Spending is good!

What’s bad? Borrowing is bad and paying interest to bond-holders is even worse. Why can’t we just print our own damn money? In an emergency, both Lincoln and Roosevelt printed money with great success. Out of desperation, both resorted to an excellent idea that should be used normally.

Pros and cons? Pro: Print just enough and full employment will create Heaven on Earth. Con: inflation, if you either print or borrow too much money. The only difference is that printing always avoids debt and interest payments.

Government prints too much money only when it runs out of idle resources. So, when resources are scarce and inflation begins, government can just reduce printing and raise interest rates. It’s like sprinkling the lawn: when it’s wet enough, stop! Voila! Heaven on Earth! Print the damn money!

Nagesh answers:

I’ll bet that if you came up with a clever enough web site, persona and a marketing scheme, you could become a fad. People would quip “uh, hold on, lemme go ask Ron C” when they didn’t know an answer, or “I’ll have to consult Ron C for advice before moving forward” if a friend or family member was getting too demanding. Or, for the masochist who just wants to be insulted, you could have them ask you questions and then you could berate them. Sounds fun!

I think you need a video of yourself lip synching some catchy tune and dancing (like the Numa Numa guy), or an animated avatar with a weekly adventure, or a simple comic strip with voice (like Teen Girl Squad) to draw folks to your site.

Now, I don’t expect that people would pay much, so you should keep it cheap (2 cents for Ron C’s 2 cents!) and make it up in volume. Your real money would come from the advertisers.

Now that I’ve given you a thoughtful answer, you’re not going to delete the question, are you????

P.S.: Remember me when you’re rich and famous!

Nagesh answers:

Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. A scam that is.

But you don´t give enough information to say anything more.
Be sure to research them thoroughly before putting money into it.

And by seriously I don´t mean Yahoo Answers.