Poverty
All around the impoverished. And I don't even a new monitor to buy. And you, too, a beggar?Wing42 wrote:
they
This is ONE bridge. This is to ensure that nuclear power... one bridge...
sundyray
Nuclear superpower, in principle, can afford to build two or three bridges. But why make this the event of the first magnitude?
sundyray
sundyray wrote:
what a clear example of the manipulation of facts!
Thank you. But you manipulation it turned out unclear.
sundyray wrote:
you live in a city with a population of... let 1million people. You live on the 9 floor of 9-storey building, which is let 6 apartments. Let every apartment is for 4 people (so, for example). You, like all other inhabitants of the city pay for capital repairs of housing. BUT! there is a problem! Your landing daily use only 6*4=24 man... out of 1000000. This is about 0,0024% of the population of your city.
Why, in your example, pays for the repair of the whole town, and the area repaired is it just me? Why are all the rest of the site is not fix it?
It may be wise to assume that with proper budget allocation, the site will fix everything, and then use MachineName sites will be approximately 100% of the population of our city?
sundyray wrote:
Comparison of bridge and subway purely for bandwidth in men - is fundamentally incorrect.
A comparison of fundamentally different across categories of objects purely on the price was correct? And then you term (throughput) the illegal use, I about bandwidth did not say anything. Bandwidth is how much people can use. And gave very specific figures indicating how many people use the reality bridge, and how much is the subway.
sundyray wrote:
As to the payback of the construction, then your reasoning is very primitive. To calculate the income, both direct(for example with the trucker), and indirect from simplify logistics with the region is so complicated that I won't even do that.
Well, Yes, on the background of the arguments in the key I don't know what will be the profit, but certainly a very big my very specific numbers describing the obvious fast payback metro look well, very primitive. It may be worth it, after all, to find out, though, how much will the maintenance of the bridge, before their non-primitive judgments to make?
sundyray wrote:
3.7 billion of wrappers, as we have seen in the budget is only one, though a big city, a very small amount to the country
Yes, only more costs for the medicine - a mere trifle.
But in General, the topic can be closed:like I said , I bridge not the enemy, but merely said that
sundyray wrote:
The bridge and the subway is really impossible to compare
you fortunately acknowledged.
Determinant wrote:
Why, in your example, pays for the repair of the whole town, and the area repaired is it just me?
Because it is. The repair is carried from house to house, consistently. The accumulation of funds in the accounts. If you want per unit of time (e.g. a month) is 2 operations: collect money and repair the site. And in a month the WHOLE town is thrown off to fix YOUR site. Notice the rest of the city is NOT using your site(!!!). That is all chipped area repaired. Also, with the bridge All chipped in - the bridge was built. All very clear and understandable.
Determinant wrote:
It may be wise to assume that with proper budget allocation, the site will fix everything, and then use MachineName sites will be approximately 100% of the population of our city?
Owned and it will happen. An example from my post that you quote would be given to prove the inconsistency of your theory about unnecessary bridge, saying it is only Crimeans
Determinant wrote:
only 0.02 % of people.
and why build a bridge is not
Determinant wrote:
economically literate and reasonable
I am glad that you yourself admitted they were wrong.
Determinant wrote:
A comparison of fundamentally different across categories of objects purely on the price was correct?
You do not want to hear and understand the message I wanted to convey:
Whining about the fact that the bridge is expensive and therefore fstream(TM) INSOLVENT!
For projects with a similar cost can afford on an ANNUAL basis is not something that the country and the budget one, though and major cities.
Determinant wrote:
I about bandwidth did not say anything
uh, what's that?
Determinant wrote:
The Moscow metro serves about 7 000 000 people a day.
???
Determinant wrote:
Per day it passes about 12 000 vehicles
???
What's this if not bandwidth?
Determinant wrote:
my very specific numbers describing the obvious fast payback metro look well, very primitive
Of course, you consider the payback of a bridge ANYTHING at all! Example truck driver, and with the amount of people in the Crimea who buy goods cheaper and it will save. For example, TM same with milk from my post: 1 truck has a load capacity of 16 tons is, relatively, 16000 liters, with each liter of 2 rubles is 32000р. direct savings of people in one trip of the truck on the bridge. And how many flights per day? And how many trucks and how savings by accelerating and simplifying logistics? As I wrote
sundyray wrote:
To calculate the income, both direct(for example with the trucker), and indirect from simplify logistics with the region is so complicated that I won't even do that. It works for people with professional education in this area, and maybe a topic for a dissertation.
Determinant wrote:
how much will the maintenance of the bridge
Why?, if you, or I am unable to count the hidden economy of resources and time obtained from the bridge can't. I due to the fact that it is too difficult for non-core specialist. You due to the fact that trying these savings to ignore, because it prevents you to pull your untenable theory on the globe.
Determinant wrote:
Yes, only more costs for the medicine - a mere trifle.
Well, again, this Mulk with BBC. Well, not even interesting. Let's you stop to lie and manipulate the facts. The numbers that you cited that the expenditures of the FEDERAL budget, the syllables: FE DE RA L no GO.
But there is a problem: hospitals, clinics, aid stations, emergency rooms, ambulances - ALL of them are on the balance of the LOCAL from the Federal budget there will not get a dime. Your numbers do not take into account the budgets of the regions.
And Yes,the consolidated budget to deal with the fed. TA and regional budgets accounted for medicine 3.3 trillion rubles
https://www.rbc.ru/politics/09/12/2016/58498efc9a7947140f04eab5
Don't lie.
sundyray
sundyray wrote:
All very clear and understandable.
I absolutely do not argue with this: 100% of people chipped in porches, 100% of people got entrances. 100% of the people threw off the bridge, 1.5% of people got the bridge. Everything is clear and understandable.
sundyray wrote:
and why build a bridge is not
Determinant wrote:
economically literate and reasonable
I understand that the interlocutor is much easier to work reshaping them for yourself, but let's face it, I never said that the construction of the bridge - is not an economic right and justified. Doubts about economic literacy and validity of the made me your comparisons of metro bridge, to what you do in the end came. And the fact that you concocted from my words above - just a falsification.
sundyray wrote:
You do not want to hear and understand the message I wanted to convey:
Whining about the fact that the bridge is expensive and therefore fstream(TM) INSOLVENT!
I totally agree, eat sea urchins in the country for very different reasons, though most really very expensive. I'm about your non-bridge said more than once:
Determinant wrote:
personally I am not a staunch opponent of the Crimean bridge - in my opinion, this is one of the smallest problems of our state
Determinant wrote:
like I said , I bridge not the enemy
But you need to hear and understand this idea did not want.
sundyray wrote:
uh, what is this????
???
What's this if not bandwidth?
It
Determinant wrote:
specific figures indicating how many people use the reality bridge, and how much - metro
And the bandwidth they are absolutely not identical. Bandwidth is the theoretical maximum number of units that can be serviced structure.
sundyray wrote:
Of course, you consider the payback of a bridge ANYTHING at all!
Of course I did not take into account, as I have not even tried to calculate this value. If you look closely at my posts, you will find that my arguments on this score are limited to a given question :
Determinant wrote:
And when its construction will pay for the Crimean bridge?
You on this subject all covered with milk ,and of course a big plus, but the milk, as I understand it, for the time being is not cheaper, so, to share his skin was still too early ( and since your calculating the cost of travel of trucks on the bridge in the calculation somehow does not accept, we can assume that the difference is not so big as you describe).
sundyray wrote:
You due to the fact that trying these savings to ignore, because it prevents you to pull your untenable theory on the globe.
Are you still trying to pull on me not belonging to my position. Is the numeric expression of saving - will be a conversation. And maintenance costs let's not forget.
sundyray wrote:
The numbers that you cited that the expenditures of the FEDERAL budget, the syllables: FE DE RA L no GO.
Your truth, thank you corrected. Not sure, however, that is strengthened to demonize my motivation, because, as I have already said what I wanted to prove (the absurdity of the comparison metro bridge) is proved, and the more I on this subject to prove anything and not trying to lie to me and not with his hands. I don't accuse you of lying when you incorrectly use the term bandwidth, right?
Determinant wrote:
100% of the people threw off the bridge, 1.5% of people got the bridge.
Oyy, in your version of reality is the bridge can only be used by Crimeans? And Yes, you understand what you are talking about 1.5% is untenable, for the bridge it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure the number of transported people? As I wrote earlier
sundyray wrote:
The bridge is not only transportation of people, it is the transshipment of cargo, goods, troops and military equipment in the end. The bridge is a universal acceleration and simplification of the logistics of the region.
Determinant wrote:
Doubts about economic literacy and validity of the made me your comparisons metro bridge
No need to ascribe to me your fantasies. Comparison of the bridge and the subway was never. It was a comparison of the cost bridge and the cost of the metro. Made this comparison was to justify the absurdity of the opinion similar to your own:
Determinant wrote:
most really very expensive
Namely:
sundyray wrote:
Whining about the fact that the bridge is expensive and therefore fstream(TM) INSOLVENT!
For projects with a similar cost can afford on an ANNUAL basis is not something that the country and the budget one, though and major cities.
The construction of the bridge is not considered to be a big burden for the budget, because as I wrote above, the budget of the cities, not to mention entire countries can afford to implement projects of greater value each year, without the whining in the spiritbut the bridge
Determinant wrote:
I never said that the construction of the bridge - is not an economic right and justified.
Then what is this?
Determinant wrote:
Why, then, does not compare 227 billion spent on the bridge, which is 0,02 % of the people on the day
Determinant wrote:
And when its construction will pay for the Crimean bridge? And will pay for whether - because its service is probably not very cheap.
Determinant wrote:
Of course I did not take into account
That's right, the cost of the service you are interested in and the hidden and direct benefit from the use of the bridge you are not interested. Because then torn to pieces the owl, pulled to the high cost of construction.
Determinant wrote:
Your opinion on this all leather milk
Milk is only EXAMPLE known to me with information about the benefits from the construction of the bridge, expressed in monetary equivalence. Such examples, I'm sure, relevant specialists will be able to lead even more.
Determinant wrote:
you calculate the cost of travel of trucks on the bridge into account why not take
And what makes you think that he will be paid? As we all remember mulka about tolls on the bridge for the cars are covered with a copper basin on the opening day of movement. The fare will be when will be established the appropriate infrastructure for the passage of heavy machinery. Be paid the road sections in the construction of which was invested privately owned, and the bridge is built with government money. Therefore do not take into account
Determinant wrote:
Is the numeric expression of saving - will be a conversation. And maintenance costs let's not forget.
Yeah, consider costs, savings staem. Okay. Owl cracked the second time
sundyray wrote:
Oyy, in your version of reality is the bridge can only be used by Crimeans?
Can - anyone. And here are obviously a few. Approximately 10 000 000 people a year. Less than the Moscow metro in two days. And metro is 7000 000 different people every day, but how many unique users is obtained from these 10 million is the big question.
sundyray wrote:
Made this comparison was to justify the absurdity of the opinion similar to your own:
Determinant wrote:
although the bridge is really very expensive
One of the most expensive bridges in the world very expensive-absurdly? Interesting position.
sundyray wrote:
Then what is this?
Determinant wrote:
227 billion spent on the bridge, which is 0,02 % of the people on the day
It is a fact. The bridge is 227 billion and use it to 0.02% of the population of the Russian Federation on the day.
Determinant wrote:
And when its construction will pay for the Crimean bridge?
It is a question. The question, from which, using your terminology, owl your assertion that profit from the bridge does not interest me, several injured, as the interest in question is expressed in plain text.
sundyray wrote:
Milk is only EXAMPLE known to me with information about the benefits from the construction of the bridge, expressed in monetary equivalence.
This is not an example of this is speculation. Or milk cheaper?
sundyray wrote:
And what makes you think that he will be paid?
http://fozo.info/141-stoimost-proezda-po-krymskomu-mostu-v-2018-godu.html
sundyray wrote:
Be paid the road sections in the construction of which was invested privately owned, and the bridge is built with government money.
And see how that goes.
sundyray wrote:
Yeah, consider costs, savings staem.
And again fraud, where is it, I said savings not have to consider? Sure it is necessary. And then, you will need to compare it with the cost, and we will get an objective picture of the economic feasibility of the bridge. How would you not want to get on me the uniform of the antagonist on this issue, I , unfortunately, accept this honor can not, I repeat (slightly lost count at some time, probably in the fourth),anything against the bridge does not have, and your suggesting the reverse the owl is sewn with white thread. Just would like to know the actual numbers, not dairy hypothesis.
Determinants
sundyray
Guys, a couple of lines you sho be the bridge, his mother, stood and grandmother were
sundyray wrote:
Also, with the bridge All chipped in - the bridge was built. All very clear and understandable.
Oh? I didn't vote, my dad with my mom not thrown off, my sidekick is also not chipped in, the neighbors did not chipped. Especially in the tram have people asked - people who can bridge overthrown? - silence, no one, current me in the face (said it hurts provocative) clean.
sundyray
Dude, you yourself gave the grandmother? And where?
sundyray wrote:
For example, TM same with milk from my post: 1 truck has a load capacity of 16 tons is, relatively, 16000 liters, with each liter of 2 rubles is 32000р. direct savings of people in one trip of the truck on the bridge.
Heh, heh... saving people? Type, milk deshevshe was? Or huckster 32 mower durnyak raised?
And... here, I'm thrown off.
Determinant wrote:
You on this subject all covered with milk ,and of course a big plus, but the milk, as I understand it, for the time being not cheaper
And sho, it is still cheaper maybe!? Like, until the current souring stopped. And cheaper?... Nonsense.
sundyray wrote:
Milk is only EXAMPLE known to me with information about the benefits from the construction of the bridge, expressed in monetary equivalence. Such examples, I'm sure, relevant specialists will be able to lead even more.
sundyray
On TV? Well, these profile specialists to bring more where you are? So I'm in the last year is also seen on TV, caught, then, a huge macaque, was brought to town in a circus show. So she escaped and all the people killed, then the home of high climbed, the plane was caught in Africa on it flew away.
Determinant wrote:
And then, you will need to compare it with the cost, and we will get an objective picture of the economic feasibility of the bridge.
The economic feasibility of the bridge let the decadent West says. Nuclear power led the most popular politician on planet Earth need only the political part of the feasibility of construction of a bridge.
Throwing bridges as caps the whole Scatter-mother. My e things out.
Krucinski the quiet badass wrote:
Nuclear power led the most popular politician on planet Earth need only the political part of the very economic viability of the bridge.
Throwing bridges as caps the whole Scatter-mother. My e things out.
Ischo eater urchins tightened
Determinant wrote:
The bridge is 227 billion and use it to 0.02% of the population of the Russian Federation on the day.
Renovating your staircase is 20000, and uses it 0,0024% of the population (from my posts above) :)
And Yes,
Determinant wrote:
I absolutely do not argue with this: 100% of people chipped in porches, 100% of people got entrances.
The same with the bridges on a national scale: 100% chipped on the bridges, 100% receive the necessary bridges. Something is wrong with your logic.
Determinant wrote:
but how many unique users it turns out
How many unique users have metro? Do not understand what it is. Some words for the sake of words
Determinant wrote:
One of the most expensive bridges in the world very expensive-absurdly?
Expensive - cheap, are relative terms. Americans won in panelovy superesminets Zumwalt already a shitload of lard shot it full, and the boat is never plavaet. But they are not expensive, can afford it.
And Russia bridge - not expensive. As I wrote above (and cited examples of even greater value :) METROZOO :) )our country has sufficient funds to ANNUALLY to implement such projects
Determinant wrote:
And here are obviously a few. Approximately 10 000 000 people a year. Less than the Moscow metro in two days.
How much do you need? And what is it? The bridge is necessary to the region Desired, the bridge benefits the region carries. Then why this conversation? You're kind of like
Determinant wrote:
personally I am not a staunch opponent of the Crimean bridge
But persist in trying to throw about the fact that the bridge he does not need to yakupitsa
Determinant wrote:
This is not an example of this is speculation. Or milk cheaper?
This is a real calculation of the cost reduction from simplification of logistics. And why did milk become cheaper now? The tracks on the bridge ischo not ezdyut :) Here go and see.
Determinant wrote:
fozo.info/141-stoimost-proezda-po-krymskomu-most..
And why you gave me the Mulk? Reality has ALREADY proven that it is not so few as described in the article. With motorcycles, cars and gazelles don'T charge you HERE right NOW. Or are you trying to challenge reality? Well, good luck. We SS you exactly in one reality live?
Determinant wrote:
And see how that goes.
What comes out? In reality, ride for free. In my anyway.Your not aware of :)
Determinant wrote:
Just would like to see the actual numbers
I gave examples, want to know more - Google profile forums.
Determinant wrote:
where did I say that the economy is not necessary to be considered?
Let us formulate this: you never accept even attempt to calculate the economic benefits from the construction of the bridge. An example of these benefits I brought.
But about the expenditures you are not forgotten never. It turns out lopsided adnaka.
sundyray
sundyray wrote:
Renovating your staircase is 20000, and uses it 0,0024% of the population (from my posts above) :)
And the rest 99,9976 use the repairs on their landings. Beauty.
sundyray wrote:
100% threw off the bridges, 100% receive the necessary bridges.
You would be such a statement, I think, would call a lie, but I say gently - you are mistaken.
https://www.rbc.ru/research/society/24/05/2016/573de5139a79478774746561
https://meduza.io/feature/2016/05/24/pochemu-v-rossii-tak-malo-mostov
a little bit of drama
http://www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2018/01/29/1678052.html
sundyray wrote:
How many unique users have metro?
At least 7 000 000, obviously.
sundyray wrote:
Do not understand what it is.
The point is that one of the most expensive bridges in the world, will benefit very few people.
sundyray wrote:
Expensive - cheap, are relative terms.
But the concept of one of the most expensive in the world is quite specific.
sundyray wrote:
But they are not expensive, can afford it.
I don't know what these word for word, the United States-can afford many more, certainly more than us - different budgets.
sundyray wrote:
As I wrote above (and cited examples of even greater value :)METROZOO :)
Metro two days are more people than the bridge for the year.
sundyray wrote:
How much do you need?
This, of course, a rhetorical question. And it is possible for one man to build. It is a question of appropriateness and rationality of resource allocation.
sundyray wrote:
But persist in trying to throw about the fact that the bridge he does not need to yakupitsa
You persistently accused me something I don't. And I persist in trying to achieve real numbers.
sundyray wrote:
This is a real calculation of the cost reduction from simplification of logistics.
Calculations real, that's just a reality they have not yet become.
sundyray wrote:
Here go and see.
It's true.
sundyray wrote:
Reality has ALREADY proven that it is not so few as described in the article.
The article (written two days ago, by the way) describes what is possible in a short time, will be charged. Your reality a little in the future, about reality in General? Otherwise, it is not clear how it proves something will or will not in the future.
sundyray wrote:
I gave examples, want to know more - Google profile forums.
Just to say that no data on payback of bridge you have, and the assumption about the return on investment is only your speculation, I would have you with this issue behind.
sundyray wrote:
An example of these benefits I brought.
Example, unfortunately, the reality is not embodied.
sundyray wrote:
you never take even attempts to calculate the economic benefits from the construction of the bridge.
I attempt to count the cost of not taking these expenses are either already known (price construction), or is not known, but are a priori fact (the bridge not be able to contain, in all senses).
sundyray wrote:
But about the expenditures you are not forgotten never.
I and about the income forgot:
Determinant wrote:
where did I say that the economy is not necessary to be considered? Sure it is necessary.
sundyray wrote:
It turns out lopsided adnaka.
You have the owl will not crack-reproach of one-sidedness of the man who has not once said to count you need to compare all the indicators?
sundyray
your any word I fully agree, the rest are all as from the devil jumped out.
I live in Russia, work, give birth here and moan - there are two exit such: or to blame, or pitchfork in hand Yes, on the Kremlin.
in the first situation is already full of escapes, and good riddance.
second:
we sofa fighters
we cherish their yaytsy (C)
to look at it all funny
and this is why roads/junctions when the fields need people build, there is such a stir in the network, as with the Crimean bridge? with all the crazy poshodili, if only for the fan to throw up.
gentlemen, you want to look smart and independent? BU-ha-ha, usually against you, the return is triggered
Europe on the scale and not so small - Wellcome back and good to blame the place where you live, well, the same sawing the branch on which sit.
and if not from Russia you write, do not understand anything, get sick and worry for my country, but I'm sure on the couch and in your region you will not go away
sundyray
sundyray wrote:
Ischo eater urchins tightened
No... I'm vegan radish, cucumber, vodka, fennel and Yam.
And your argument about the feasibility of the construction of the bridge - about anything. The whole country consists of places, which are the people that make up hundredths of a percent of the total number of the population - a first-aid station in the village, Deputy VIP waiting areas in airports and railway stations, almshouses and orphanages, sports facilities posleolimpiyskogo in Sochi,... a Playground near my house is one person - a homeless person acne. So can not build them then, and grandmother save? Can assume that eaters of urchins, to whom was lucky enough courtesy to be numbered and I will prefer to start saving on parliamentary disposable pompous halls and sports facilities... If they are, heh, heh... of course I'll ask. I sumlevayus however.
Here's the other thing.
Determinant wrote:
The point is that one of the most expensive bridges in the world, will benefit very few people.
So the Kremlin (too expensive house) even one person enjoys...
Spoilergate, since you allowed yourself to rank their interlocutors or to any category, must be prepared for the fact that the same thing can do (in fairness) and against you.
I think the eater of tileorassi seasoned with Patriotic kvas would fit you best.
Determinant wrote:
www.rbc.ru/research/society/24/05/2016/573de5139..
meduza.io/feature/2016/05/24/pochemu-v-rossii-ta..
a little bit of drama
www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2018/01/29/1678052.html
What is it? why is that? how is that to our argument? Did you even read what I wrote? This is exactly the response my comment?
You write:
Determinant wrote:
It may be wise to assume that with proper budget allocation, the site will fix everything, and then use MachineName sites will be approximately 100% of the population of our city?
The same thing about bridges, I write:
sundyray wrote:
The same with the bridges on a national scale: 100% chipped on the bridges, 100% receive the necessary bridges. Something is wrong with your logic.
Ie, to paraphrase your words:
It may be wise to assume that with proper budget allocation, the bridges will be built to anyone and then use built bridges will be approximately 100% of our population? No?
Determinant wrote:
obviously.
No, it is not obvious, because it is unclear how going calculation: 1 person after all, maybe 2 or 3 times a day to use metro. His visit to count or not?
Determinant wrote:
The point is that one of the most expensive bridges in the world, will benefit very few people.
And I ask, how much? The Chinese have built Qingdao axle for 8.8 billion penticoff and the day it goes 30,000 machines. It's a lot or a little? Is this enough or not? This is a sufficient number of cars to the powerful 8.8 billion?
You also do not mind that your landing will be using 0.0024% of the population of the city?
Moreover the bridge was written above:
sundyray wrote:
The bridge is not only transportation of people, it is the transshipment of cargo, goods, troops and military equipment in the end. The bridge is a universal acceleration and simplification of the logistics of the region.
It is incorrect to measure necessity of the bridge just passed a number of cars. You have to understand it.
Here's an example example with the milk truck, driven 16000 packs of milk. Here he brought the milk, and bought 16,000 people. 16,000 people have benefited from the availability of a bridge across a price reduction. These people you know? And lower their expenses? NOPE, not counted. And many other examples of simplifying the transport of materials, goods and accelerate the transport?
You're not stupid enough to measure usefulness bridge the number of people that passed by him.
Determinant wrote:
But the concept of one of the most expensive in the world is quite specific.
What? Then what? The country has the money to this project, then what?
Determinant wrote:
Metro two days are more people than the bridge for the year.
What? You even read my posts or not? Well, I repeat:
sundyray wrote:
Comparison of the bridge and the subway was never. It was a comparison of the COST bridge and the cost of the metro. Made this comparison was to justify the absurdity of the opinion similar to your own:
Determinant wrote:
most really very expensive
Namely:
sundyray wrote:
Whining about the fact that the bridge is expensive and therefore fstream(TM) INSOLVENT!
For projects with a similar cost can afford on an ANNUAL basis is not something that the country and the budget one, though and major cities.
The construction of the bridge is not considered to be a big burden for the budget, because as I wrote above, the budget of the cities, not to mention entire countries can afford to implement projects of greater value each year, without the whining in the spiritbut the bridge
Determinant wrote:
And I persist in trying to achieve real numbers.
Ie you came to a GAME forum and want to give you the real figures of economic justification of construction of Crimean bridge? uh, Okay...
sundyray wrote:
I gave examples, want to know more - Google profile forums.
Determinant wrote:
I attempt to count the cost of not doing
You are reading what I write or not? Talking about the BENEFITS. Read carefully.
Determinants
I finally realized, why are you bothering to 1.5% received bridge
Well, here we go:
There are 2 examples :
1) the city collects ONCE a PERIOD (month) of money to repair porches. Money to pay all residents. In the period (month) being repaired, only one area, which is used by 24 people, which is 0.0024% of the population. (The conditions of my example above)
2) There is a country collects IN PERIOD (year, money allocated in the budget once a year) money to build a bridge,which, by your reasoning (vkorne wrong because they do not take into account the specificity of the object) will use 1.5 % of the population. Well, so be it.
Then you say, they say to build a bridge disadvantageous because a few people on it ezdyut.
Following your reasoning the city to collect and allocate money for the repair of your landing DISADVANTAGEOUS because it is used even less percent of the people .
Here you put in the jump and say:
Determinant wrote:
100% of people chipped in porches, 100% of people got entrances
Suddenly expanding the number of periods of collecting money to the city to the number of these periods to fix all sites.
My objection is about the fact that the same logic ALL regions in need of bridges, through a number of periods (years) will also receive the necessary bridges, you dismiss.
You schizophrenia the head is not too tight?