INSINUATE
Rant
From: removethis!rvien@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics,sci.econ
Subject: Re: About economist
Date: 9 Aug 1997 12:37:49 GMT
Organization: Dreamscape Online
> 1. What is value? Is value created by nature? How can we know the value
> exist?
Neoclassical economists thought there value theory was related to
nature. Equilibrium prices are supposed to be indices of relative scarcity.
Resources are supposed given in nature. Neoclassical economics is
often taken to be a general logic not dependent on any particular
set of social institutions such as those that exist under capitalism.
> 2. Do we have any theory of value which can explain it correctly and
> logically?
Mainstream economists do not have a correct and logical theory of value.
The following critiques (in reverse chronological order) show Neoclassical
economics to be incoherent and insufficiently general:
o Philp Mirowski's demonstration that Neoclassical economics relies on
an arbitrary and theoretically and empirically unjustified conservation
law.
o The Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu demonstration that one cannot depend
on equilibria in General Equilibrium Theory being either unique or
stable.
o The Cambridge Capital Controversy argument that factor prices are not
determined by supply and demand in factor markets and that there is
no coherent Neoclassical theory of production.
o Sraffa's demonstration in the 1920s that Marshallian partial
equilibrium is valid only if non constant returns are external to
the firm and internal to the industry, the situation least likely
to be encountered in practice.
> 3. Do we have a value theory of economics which can explain how the
> value exist etc. correctly?
Promising approaches to the theory of value can be found in the Classical
and Marxist emphases on reproducability and surplus, in Keynes' Chapter 17
liquidity preference theory of value, in Kalecki's markup theories of
pricing, and in American Institutionalism. Partisans of mainstream
economics might hope that the Santa Fe Institute's increasing returns
theory of economics or Game Theory might someday be developed into an
acceptable theory of value.
[Questions deleted on which I do not feel like offering an opinion]
> 12. There are no students, professors or professional economists have
> complained of such textbooks of economics openly, why? Is there a secret
> and powerful organization to control them?
One might argue mainstream economics is vulgar bourgeois apologetics for
capitalism. At any rate, mainstream North American economists are encouraged
to be ignorant about some logical consequences of maximizing behavior and
about the literature of their subject, especially history of thought.
--
Robert Vienneau Try my Mac econ simulation
removethis!rvien@future.dreamscape.com game, Bukharin, at
ftp://csf.colorado.edu/econ/authors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.sea
Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue, are always
found...in proportion to the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search
of the truth. -- Rousseau
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:01:25 -0600
From: clore@columbia-center.org
Subject: Socialism, Real and Fake
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.media
Organization: The Ardois-Bonnot Gang
Socialism, real and fake (by Noam Chomsky)
One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means
anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not
owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in
capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state.
To refer to the Soviet Union as _socialist_ is an interesting case of
doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state
power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle
the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular
revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets,
in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into
what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any
meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to
destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted
since.
These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals,
who had criticized Lenin's doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because
they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its
leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had
predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two
paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state
power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or
they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist
societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on
both counts.
The world's two major propaganda systems did not agree on much, but they
did agree on using the term _socialism_ to refer to the immediate
destruction of every element of _socialism_ by the Bolsheviks. That's not
too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system _socialist_ so as to
exploit the moral prestige of socialism.
The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the
feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon,
to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress
towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic
institutions and concern for human needs and rights.
If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will
say: _not for me_. And if that's the only alternative to corporate state
capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as
the only reasonable choice.
With the collapse of the Soviet system, there's an opportunity to revive
the lively and vigorous libertarian socialist thought that was not able to
withstand the doctrinal and repressive assaults of the major systems of
power. How large a hope that is, we cannot know. But at least one
roadblock has been removed. In that sense, the disappearance of the Soviet
Union is a small victory for socialism, much as the defeat of the fascist
powers was.
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:clore@columbia-center.org
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquoigmnzhah@cykranosh.com) wrote:
> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
[if you don't send me a cc of your reply to this post, I might not see it]
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
4.8.97 All that New-World gold.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.guns,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The gold standard and WE HAVE BEEN HAD
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 23:15:35 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Derek Nalecki wrote:
> > So the task of a central bank is to step between producing too
> >much money, which can generate inflation, and too little money, which can
> >cause an economic slowdown, and possibly even the emergence or acquisition
> >of alternative currencies of various sorts.
> Creation of money 'out of thin air' is a bank robbery ;-) against every
> single person with more than $0 in a savings account or inside granma's
> mattress.
Money has no value except what you hope to buy with it.
If a central bank invents money to pay off its national debt,
nothing has really changed. But if it invents money to buy a
medical patent or fund research that improves efficiency and
gives it out for free, then it has in effect lowered prices if
production increases. Or if the money is used to increase the
amount of housing, that lowers the cost of housing. What money
is returned to this new housing can simply be destroyed, equal
to the amount created, or put to use somewhere else. Production
lowers the price of whatever was created and inflates the
price of everything else (since the labor that produced it now
has more money to spend). So a truly intelligent bank increases
production everywhere it thinks is important to keep prices
down. Eventually, the extra money will wind up in lame status
symbols, like jewels, watches, Ferraris, or whatever. Idiots
will probably kill each other over them too, unless the
nation insults them all into the ground.
--------
The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: The gold standard and WE HAVE BEEN HAD (1)
Organization: Netcom
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:22:42 GMT
In article 5s2vm9$22nk$1@sol.caps.maine.edu, Scott D. Erb scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>Actually, the people who were against the gold standard the strongest were
>economists, esp. capitalist economists. Why should we tie our currency to
>a mineral (esp. one most found in S. Africa and Russia?) Why not let the
>market determine exchange rates and the value of money?
A further problem is that the Gold Standard places monetary
policy in the hands of the gold miners; monetary policy will be
determined by how much gold they choose to dig up (too much, and it
dilutes the value of gold).
One interesting thing here is that the Spanish conquistadores
hoped to become rich from all that New-World gold. Instead, the result
was a lot of inflation. So that's what would happen with an influx of
gold without the rest of the economy keeping up in value.
>The gold standard was simply an anachronistic remnant of mercantilism, and
>except for a few people with really strange ideas (and no economic common
>sense), the idea is dead.
I think that the Gold Bugs think that gold somehow represents
intrinsic value -- which conflicts with the rest of their ideology, of
course.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: SOPHISTRY VS ECONOMIC REALITY
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 18:31:02 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Markus Diehl wrote:
> > Does not the persistence of a large trade deficit prove the
> > overvaluation of the dollar?
> this is one of the fuzziest topics in economics. My view on that is: the
> persistent current account deficit (= net capital inflows) shows only,
> that foreign investors share the opinion that lending money to the US is
> still a profitable business. This may be the case even for some decades.
> Many newly industrializing countries have this in common with the USA. I
> cannot judge the US dollar overvalued from this observation. This would
> only be the case if the USA is overindebted based on reasonable criteria.
> Anyway, to restrict one's view to the trade account is ridiculous.
In actuality (in the absence of currency markets), foreign investments
of currency have only 2 purposes: to buy imports from that other
nation, or to attract foreign labor if this nation cannot attract it
with just a minimal guarantee of biological comfort plus either sex
or praise. Similarly, a nation's exports serve only 2 purposes: to
get vital imports, or to obtain praise. The only problem with a
nation (or province or city) too concerned with its imports and
exports (mobile economy) is that its labor never has the time to
improve its stationary economy: housing, health care, agriculture,
infrastructure, etc.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: How do photons exist?
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 16:00:27 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
David L Evens wrote:
> : Let's say in our frame of reference, we accelerate one spaceship to
> : .5 light speed in one direction and another spaceship to .5 light
> : speed in the opposite direction. What do the passengers aboard one
> : ship think has happened to the other ship?
> They see the other ship as having a relative velocity that is still less
> than c to them. I don't have the formulas at hand to compute precisely
> what that is, however.
From our "stationary" frame, there will be a point in time when it
appears to us that light from spaceship A will never reach spaceship
B. To a person on spaceship B, the frequency of photon hits from A
will decrease... it thus appears to Mr. B that A is moving slower
and slower (and more red too) until the point at which their relative
velocity difference reaches c, and Mr. B can no longer see Mr. A.
It seems the concept of time stopping at c is like saying the
hare will never catch the turtle, because whenever the hare
reaches the spot the turtle is on, the turtle will have
already moved forward another tiny bit.
Anyway, if we pick a direction and accelerate in that direction
until we are at .5 c and stop accelerating. It will then appear
to us that we are stationary (since movement is relative). Can't
we then just accelerate another .5 c and so on?
4.8.97 Shakespeare Monkey will know more.
5.8.97 Chaos theory.
13.8.97 Many versions of the same.
16.8.97 If I can't see it.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:25:28 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Martin Dann wrote:
> >Free will implies a noncausal universe and
> >thus some Higher Power(s). Maybe there is (are).
> First, nothing non-causal about the decisions *I* make, because *I*
> cause them. Second, the move from non-causal to a higher power is a non
> sequitur, and predicated on the refusal to accept the posibility of
> uncaused events (you assume they must have been *caused*, and if not
> part of a deterministic causal chain, then they must be *caused* by a
> higher power). Does not follow!
Sure, you cause your decisions like a football field determines
the final score. Then, of course there's also how well the players
have trained, the weather, the latest football rules, your memories
and observations, cosmic rays, and the laws of physics. Physics
tells us everything happens in a deterministic chain. One event
leads to another. Heisenberg only proved that this deterministic
chain cannot be fully predicted. Of course, this has been argued
before by Zeno and his Stoics back in ancient Greece. And then along
came philosophies about Higher Powers to argue that we're more than
just dead presidents that haven't stopped moving yet. It's deja vu
all over again.
---------
Pereant, inquit, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt.
"Confound those who have said our remarks before us."
-- Aelius Donatus
From: beck@lightspeed.bc.ca (George Beckingham)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 03:56:39 GMT
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:50:26 -0700, "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com wrote:
>grossep wrote:
>> > Ironic that if you do believe that your mind is less deterministic
>> > than "non-conscious" objects, that you will have to accept the
>> > existance of some Higher Power (TM), and yet, not one that uses
>> > that power over your "free will".
>> "Lower" objects are no more deterministic than my mind. However, the
>> "lack of determinism" shows up better in my mind than in a rock because
>> my mind has more routes open to it.
>No more and no less. Just because WE can't determine something
>doesn't mean it's NOT deterministic. But if your definition of
>"nondeterministic" is anything we can't determine, then fine,
>the world is nondeterministic. The only thing we base physics
>on is experimental observations. Something is "deterministic"
>if the same initial conditions always produces the same results.
>The only problem is that the same initial conditions can never
>be exactly reproduced. Thus, we invent this concept of
>nondeterminism. Sure, it's more comfortable to believe that
>the choices you and the others around you make aren't (or are)
>fated, just as it might be comfortable to believe in an
>afterlife. But if the only way you can prove nondeterminism
>is by saying it can't be predicted, then that's just fighting
>definitions. Free will implies a noncausal universe and
>thus some Higher Power(s). Maybe there is (are).
>----------
>Conquer fear. Question faith. Humor distraction.
>Thou shalt not make any graven image,
>or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.
Those who are familiar with Schrodinger's Cat experiment can skip this
paragraph.
Erwin Schrodinger came up with a thought experiment in which a cat was
placed in a box along with a vial of poison and a radioactive
device-thing. The box was closed, and the experiment was set in
motion. Depending on whether a particle decayed or not, the vial of
poison would be broken, or would not be broken. Depending on that
outcome, the cat would be killed, or would not be killed.
The only way to find out whether that cat was alive or dead was to
open the box. Until the box was opened, we could not tell whether the
cat was alive or dead. That's as far as common sense takes us.
Schrodinger said, however, that until we opened the box, the cat was
neither alive nor dead, but in a superposition of states of being
alive and dead, and neither alive nor dead. When the box was opened,
we would see the cat in one state or another because our observation
of the cat would collapse the wave function, and cause the cat to
assume a definite state.
Quantum physicists have embraced this thought experiment as a perfect
analogy of one way the subatomic world behaves. Schrodinger was
dumbfounded at their acceptance; he meant to ridicule them by
demonstrating how absurd the whole thing was.
"If I can't see it, it's not there."
Okay, now stand on a railroad track and close your eyes.
beck
From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:43:36 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
grossep wrote:
> > : Nope. The parameters that you'd need to predict this are more than
> > : impossible to measure, they do not exist.
> > "Because I said so."
> Not quite. Even if one assumes that particles have a definite position
> and momentum, and that these definite positions and momenta are known to
> you, you STILL cannot predict that the dice is going to roll a six. So
> something more is needed.
> This "something more" is what I was saying did not exist. Unless you
> can think of something that fills the bill?
Again: "Because I said so."
In order to "predict" something, you need to be able to observe it
both before and after the experiment. But the observation itself
becomes part of the experiment... and THAT is Heisenburg's point.
Yes, when the observer is part of the system being observed, it
isn't possible to fully predict anything. BUT that says nothing
about whether the Universe is deterministic.
Imagine if we try to simulate a smaller version of the Universe
on a supercomputer. How do we put non-determinism into the
simulation? That, in fact, is impossible because the computer is
a deterministic machine. The only way it can show non-deterministic
behavior is if "our Universe" leaks into the computer in the form
of a hardware glitch... again proving that it isn't possible to
predict anything because we are STILL part of the system that
includes the computer simulation. So how do we avoid glitches in
a deterministic simulation of the Universe? We could run many
many versions of the same simulation on different computers. One
glitch gets outvoted by all the other computers. But of course,
that still doesn't avoid the chance that all those computers get
exactly the same glitch at the same time... which is always a
possibility, no matter how minute.
Ironic that if you do believe that your mind is less deterministic
than "non-conscious" objects, that you will have to accept the
existance of some Higher Power (TM), and yet, not one that uses
that power over your "free will".
----------------
"Culture" is the name we give to a majority insanity. If it weren't
for culture, there would be only one reason to wear clothes on a
hot day: pockets. (Where else would you put your hands?)
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:19:47 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Tom Roberts wrote:
> >Given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, eventually one
> >will type up Shakespeare. And then, maybe all the other monkeys
> >will come to Shakespeare Monkey for advice, teach it more than
> >they teach other monkeys, ultimately ensuring that Shakespeare
> >Monkey will know more than most monkeys.
> But no knowledge is involved! How will the monkeys know that
> "To be, or not to be...." is Shakespeare, and "aspodi dfkw sdswq sds"
> is not?? You will have billions and billions of "teachers" teaching
> gibberish for every one teaching something approaching English.
The same way language is learned. We grow up associating the
sound "apple" with that reddish (or greenish) thin-skinned fruit,
or the sound of a bell with the delivery of food, or our own
sense of self-worth with a book, a shiny rock, a philosophy,
or a piece of colored cloth flapping in the wind.
> Your attempt to reduce physics to reductionist logic is hopeless.
> Look up "Chaos theory". Or look up the granddaddy of them all:
> "Turbulence". One does not need Quantum Theory to show that complex
> systems (e.g. biological organisms) are completely unpredictable.
> The world is much more interesting than you paint.
Who says it isn't interesting? Even simple deterministic systems
can be unpredictable. Consider Conway's Game of Life. The only
way you can predict what will eventually happen to any set of
initial conditions is by actually running that simulation and
seeing what happens. THAT is chaos. How would we know, given the
simplest initial starting pattern in Conway's Life, that the
pattern wouldn't eventually halt or become stagnant? Only by
running that simulation. For all we know, THIS universe could be
the result of the simplest such apparently non-halting pattern.
----------
If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never
encounter any black bishops.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:30:38 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> Maybe you could go with a refresher course in statistics: if I roll
> a die, and get a six, that does not mean that six is a preordained
> outcome or that the die is biased towards producing sixes.
Maybe you could go with a refresher course in physics: the
movement of that die and the air molecules around it obey
physical laws, and the six was, in fact, unavoidable. However,
if you try to predict what will happen by measuring, for
example, the dimensions of the die, air temperature, the
movement of individual air molecules, etc, you are changing
the experiment by your actions. In fact, that you try and
succeed (or try and fail) in anything you do is unavoidable;
it is merely a conceit of humanity that thought is not
ultimately deterministic. And yet, it is impossible to predict
the result of our actions except by trying it (or not trying
it) and waiting to see what will happen.
Given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, eventually one
will type up Shakespeare. And then, maybe all the other monkeys
will come to Shakespeare Monkey for advice, teach it more than
they teach other monkeys, ultimately ensuring that Shakespeare
Monkey will know more than most monkeys.
-------------
Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and
experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent
societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from
his keyboard.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,can.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Libertarian ideals
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:26:38 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Matthew Devney wrote:
> Marriage is about two things: love and property. Sex (action or gender)
> has nothing to do with it. When two people love each other and decide,
> between the two of them, issues of money, cohabitation, medical care,
> etc., then they are essentially married. Government only has an
> interest in them for tax purposes; nobody else even has the right to
> know about it, much less an opinion.
Love is merely sex with praise. Property is defined by violence
under capitalism or agreement under democracy. Taxes are merely
a way for a government (whether autocratic or democratic) to keep
down inflation after it loses control over its financial
institutions... similar to the concept of a "loan" issued by
banks, instead of just handing out grants: they are trying to
hold back the inflation created by marketing. Then again, not
enough numbers given to workers means the only people able to
buy what they produce will be foreigners. Thus many Third World
nations are busy producing lame export products instead of
building housing or infrastructure.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,bc.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: A "Livable Minimum Wage" is a Bad Idea
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 13:53:12 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Giovanni 8 wrote:
> Quite so. Interestingly enough, burying funds in the back yard
> can also be productive. It produces greater security for their
> owner than would exist if he had spent them on, e.g. Twinkies(tm).
> Of course, those who most effectively choose their investments
> produce the most value over the term of the investment. Such
> choice requires a further investment in obtaining the valuable
> information which helps in optimizing investment.
This of course grows out of that one truly successful religion that
has spread to every corner of the globe -- that precious metals
can actually store value. Imagine the world's simplest economy: 2
people -- a king with all the shiny rocks and currency, and a farmer
with no money at all. How stupid will the farmer have to be before
he will trade food for money? Hey, EVERYBODY wants money right?
A nation that claims it's "out of money" to do things is either
stupid or afraid to admit the truth. Money *can* in fact grow on
trees, because it can just print more (or invent numbers in some
computers). The real question is how to motivate people to do
useful work like producing food, housing, and health care if they
are guaranteed a certain level of biological comfort. The answer
is that certain amounts of biological comfort will always be
sacrificed in order to get sex and praise (which includes, of
course, imitation and self-praise). Praise it enough, and people
will be falling over eachother to wear a yellow jersey, head a
cheer-leading squad (or a nation), or spend hours everyday
calculating and recalculating a stock portfolio. Those who cannot
get enough sex or real praise resort to substitutes like drugs or
imagined excuses to praise themselves. If it weren't for that,
they would have no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Of
course, the nation will have to be willing to admit that this
small percentage of "unskilled" manual labor is much more
important than what professional bullshitters do 365 days a year.
2.8.97 Spread that knowledge as much as possible.
6.8.97 Paint his fence.
19.8.97 Enslaved by its own brainwashing.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,misc.invest.stocks,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions!
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:03:48 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Libertarius wrote:
> ===>Not everything of value is edible. Tell your girlfriend
> that gold has no value and give her a plastic engagement ring,
> or better yet, one made from bread dough.
Certainly doesn't have to be edible. A prune won't do you much
good if you're falling out of a plane, but would you choose to
be lost in a desert with a suitcase full of gold or bread dough?
Two things determine value: utility and marketing. The value of
gold would be entirely due to marketing if it weren't for its
only recent uses in electronics. The value of gold was (many
thousands of years ago) based on wheat, and had no value besides
the fact that it was easier to carry units of gold than bushels
of wheat. Today, in the more "advanced" societies, we carry
paper money instead of wheat, but some clingers-on to the old
shiny-rock religion still think there's somehow "real" value in
gold... mainly because they're still invested heavily in it. So
that's where marketing comes in: "REAL diamonds! NOT synthetic
diamonds! NOT cubic zirconia! With a REAL certificate of
authenticity!" Anything to make it seem more valuable than it
is. And then we wonder why nothing useful ever seems to get done.
--------
If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it?
From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,misc.invest.stocks,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions!
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:45:27 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
Libertarius wrote:
> >bethbethbeth wrote:
> >> Capital _is_ labor. Money represents one's labor, in portable form.
> Money is a TOKEN OF VALUE and a MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE. Real
> MONEY has INTRINSIC value, like gold or silver coins.
> Government "money" is not real money but a certficate
> of indebtedness -- i.e. the indebtedness of the Government,
> a "note" or IOU. (See "Federal Reserve Note").
Please. You almost had it right there until your second sentence
gave away your stupidity. Gold or silver has NO intrinsic value.
The easiest way to see is this: one nation produces bread, one
nation produces gold. One day, all their trade routes are
destroyed (or they simply put up some trade sanctions). Which is
the nation that survives? The only thing that second nation is
doing is wasting its time... either because it's trying to
brainwash that first nation into being their slaves, or it
itself has been enslaved by its own brainwashing. Digging up
gold improves the economy about as much as counterfeiting
improves the economy.
-------
With earnestness he advocated the case of injustice against justice,
and by specious arguments and illustrations he strove to prove that
injustice was an advantage to the State, while justice served no
useful purpose. - St. Augustine
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions!
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 16:28:46 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
bethbethbeth wrote:
> If a reward -- money, awards, praise, or winning a contest -- comes to
> be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity
> will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right.
There's that old saying: "There are three ways to get something
done: do it yourself, hire someone, or forbid your kids to do it."
Payment automatically assumes that the person would rather be
spending the money than doing whatever it is he's doing. These
assumptions work amazingly well... for example, how most of today's
nations assume they should try to achieve 0% unemployment rather
than 100% unemployment. Use of money for biological comfort is
one thing, but after that, wealth merely becomes a measure of
praise: "My dick is longer than your dick."
> There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An elderly
> man, harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally devises
> a scheme. He offered to pay each child a dollar if they would all
> return Tuesday and yell their insults again. They did so eagerly and
> received the money, but he told them he could only pay 25 cents on
> Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him again and collected their
> quarters, he informed them that Thursday's rate would be just a penny.
> "Forget it," they said -- and never taunted him again.
And Tom Sawyer found a way to get payment for allowing other
kids to paint his fence. Ultimately, everyone wants an excuse
for feeling superior - real or imagined (of course, it'll ALL
imagined, but that's just a cultural point). That's what comedy
is all about. Some jokes are more subtle - making listeners
feel superior to an earlier version of themselves - which, of
course, is also the motivation behind self-education.
-----------
"Culture" is the name we give to a majority insanity. If it
weren't for culture, there would be only one reason to wear
clothes on a hot day: pockets.
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 18:38:43 -0600
From: J. Iscariot cyu@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions!
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)
In article 5rmi1q$mf6@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com, attila1@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
> Your litany of Marxist BS notwithstanding, the ONLY true wealth
> ever produced by Humankind was produced under the best market
> conditions, even if admittedly most of the time and in most
> places it has been far from being TRULY FREE!
> The more "socialist" a system, the less wealth it will produce,
> ultimately killing all motivation, and reducing all individuals
> to the lowest common denominator, while enriching a few Party
> Functionaries who will be riding herd on the people. Socialism
> and Communism are predicted on the existence of a "working class",
> therefore they can never elevate the workers to any higher level,
> any higher standard of living, only maintain the masses as
> cogs in the machine of the State, while preaching to them
> about a Land of Manana, where the State will have "withered
> away".
Yeah, whatever. What exactly is "true wealth"? Certainly not digging
up shiny rocks. There are only two types of occupations: keeping
people alive and giving people a reason to continue to live.
Knowledge of the first was so vital that early civilizations spread
that knowledge as much as possible in order to survive. As a result,
farming is no longer as respected as many of the occupations in the
second area: entertainment, which includes everything from politics
to management to academics and everything in consumer capitalism.
People always want something to do, but as the percentage of people
that are needed to do truly useful work falls, it's not the wages of
migrant farm workers that should fall but the amount of time that
each person NEEDS to be a migrant worker, or construction worker,
or whatever. And for the rest of the months out of the year, they
should be free to do whatever the hell they want. If your nation
can market people to the point of thinking that high heeled shoes
are sexy, then it's your own damn fault if even a democracy can't
convince its own fully supported people to do what it itself thinks
is important. Then again, a lack of motivation tends also to steal
all the labor away from organized crime and warfare as well...
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,sci.econ,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Income Mobility
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:44:02 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> Capitlalists (either free-market believers or businessmen) do
> NOT rule in the USA. Bureaucrats and politicians do. That's
> why businessmen lobby so much and spend so much money trying
> to buy the influence of the rulers.
Wake up biscuit brain, the rich and the powerful were born
of the same parents. You think Al Gore's family is poor?
The fact is, the more property you have, the more you believe
in property rights, and the more you're able to tell other
people that "everyone" believes in property rights. Sure
wolves can blame lions for eating sheep, but them wolves
better brush their teeth REAL well before they open their
mouths.
-----------
"Arthur Phili ..." it said, then glanced sharply at him and down
at his clipboard. He frowned. He looked up at him again.
"I've done you before haven't I?" he said.
From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Stock Market Worry
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:31:32 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
LUIS LOPEZ wrote:
> > I'm pleased with the fantastic performance of the stock market, but
> > it seems to good to be true, and it worries me.
> > I wonder if interest rates are too low letting speculators borrow
> > cheaply to gamble in the market?
> > Any of you wizards see signs of this? Or am I just a worry wart?
> Well, I'm worried too. But then I was worried when the Dow hit 5000 pts.
> So what now the market is going to do? Maybe this is as high as it will
> get. All shares look overvalued to many people. Even to Warren Buffett. He
> said that publicly last February, and the market went into a tailspin soon
> after his remarks. And look at where it's now: 7500+ points. So what next?
> could be 8000 around the corner. It may be.
> That's what makes the market interesting.We'll never know for sure what it
> is going to do next.
The answer is: "The stock market is nothing but a way to keep stock
brokers employed." The Dow goes up, the Dow goes down. Where do these
little bits of economic photons end up? Is there some black hole
out there just waiting to suck up all our numbers? Fact is, if stocks
crash, these economic photons have just moved to commodities, bonds,
or to stocks overseas. What happens to your bank account? Not a
fucking thing. What REALLY causes a capitalist society to fall apart?
When the few human beings whose labor are ALWAYS needed (ie. farmers)
decide not to listen to marketers anymore and stop working. Of course,
we gorge them with overdue loans to make sure that will never happen.
-----------
"The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity
and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted
activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy ...
Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The Global Abolition of Money and Property
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:12:08 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Paddy Joe Shannon wrote:
> Second, no criticism of 'socialism' or 'communism' is valid which relies
> on references to China, Cuba, Russia, Korea or anywhere else, because
> these places were not, and are not, socialist. In fact, a moneyless
> society has not existed in recorded history, and its establishment
> remains the last great human goal to be achieved.
> Fifth, no violence is necessary for this transformation, only the active
> and conscious cooperation of the 99% of the world's population who do
> all the work and who presently get little or nothing out of it.
Almost total agreement except for the point that 99% of the world's
population "do all the work". In fact, a tiny minority actually does
the important work. They are the farmers of grains. All the rest
have invented work that have varying levels of importance. The
vast majority are involved in occupations that ultimately result in
entertainment of some kind (whether to entertain themselves, their
bosses, other people, or all of the above).
--------------
"The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity
and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted
activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy ...
Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
19.6.97 21:22 A society that does not value human life.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Computer Cost Benefit Analysis of Death
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:34:44 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
jim blair wrote:
> But we do have cases of convicted murders who kill again, both in prison
> and after being released. There was a case right here in Madison of a guy
> who killed a little girl, served about 15 years, got out, and killed
> another little girl. You might see this case differently is the second
> girl had been your daughter.
If you emptied the jails of drug and property "crime" offenders,
you'd have a heck of a lot more room. How many witnesses are killed
because offenders do not want to jail for non-violent crime?
-------
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished.
....unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
--Voltaire
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Computer Cost Benefit Analysis of Death
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:22:54 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Della Lu wrote:
> The jist of it is that when a guilty person is executed it saves 5-50
> innocent lives through deterence, when a misconvicted person is
> executed it still has the deterant effect (since it is not known at
> the time by the justice system or by criminals generally that the person
> is innocent), and saves 4-49 innocent lives.
Why not just execute the entire population? No more murderers
because no one left to murder. I could just as easily say that
one execution encourages 5-50 other executions. A society that
does not value human life is a society that does not value human
life. Duh.
---------
History of the Universe: God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Dog trains God.
God rebels. God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Will the cycle never end?
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Natural Right Minimum Income: Purple Wage??
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:33:53 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
jim blair wrote:
> Interesting. Phillip Jose Farmer published an interesting SF story back
> in the 1970's called "The Riders of the Purple Wage"; The "purple wage"
> was the income everyone got just for existing, anything else they made
> was OK and taxed at some (I think) low flat rate.
> But somewhere you switched from "mankind" to the US. Does someone become
> entitled to the benefit of a country the day they move there? How do
> "rich" countries keep any benefits for their citizens?
When an unemployed individual enters a job market, either his
labor is needed to keep himself or other people alive, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then there's no reason to force him to work. If it
is, then it just allows some currently employed person to retire.
Is someone being productive simply by existing? That would depend
on the definition of "productive". Food and health care (and the
occasional new building) are the only occupations that are truly
productive because they keep people alive. Every other occupation
can be considered entertainment (of course, this also includes
entertainment foods like ice cream, entertainment health care like
braces, and entertainment buildings like libraries). Will we run
out of space? We could fit the entire population of the world in
China and not match the density of NYC, farm the rest of the land,
and still not touch our oceans.
-----------
Producers who can't produce anything useful keep hiring advertisers
until they have redefined "useful".
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.publius,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.politics.socialism,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization
Subject: Re: Why creationists must be opposed!
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:10:31 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Platypus wrote:
> As a matter of Biology, we know when a new life begins. You may wish
> otherwise, but that's too bad. This is not 1297. Life begins when the
> genetic material from the 2 parents fuses, and a fertilized egg begins
> its development. This is fact. It is not up for negotiation, nor it it
> subject to public consensus. If nobody believes it, it is *still*,
> *fact*. Be you God fearer or atheist, no attack on my character, (as
> will doubtless follow from the likes of Kenfran, Milt, Olson, and Zepp,
> who have no other rhetorical option -- fire away, boys...) will change
> it. Prevent conception, whether by condom, abstinence, or whatever, and
> you prevent life before the fact.
That is assuming you can define life itself. Where does life
begin and chemical reactions end? If a chicken is an egg's way
of producing more eggs, then what is sperm or ovum? Do businesses
use marketing to produce more business, or do marketers promote
business to perpetuate marketing? Is the abortion debate merely
a way to keep lawyers and preachers employed, after which, we'll
have to find a new obsession, like whether we can hold off on
disease treatment in order to study the spread of plague?
Abortion is not an issue by itself. Would you be more likely to
have an abortion if society holds single-motherhood in contempt?
Cut support for health care and doom welfare mothers to poverty?
Condemn adultery and then live in fear that humanity will die of
homosexuality?
-------------
Thou shalt not make any graven image,
or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,talk.politics.theory,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Big Brains (Re: Einstein?)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:37:50 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Michael Bain wrote:
> >Actually, I think that whole 10% thing just started as rumour, and,
> >amazingly, many people DO take rumour as gospel (God knows why?!) I
> >believe that the 10% theory has been disproved, and that we do in fact
> >use 100% of our brains. As you said, it would be pointless to have a
> >mostly useless organ (particularly our brains!) and evolution doesn't do
> >that, except when something becomes obsolete (e.g. appendixes).
> In any event, the greater error in thought may be that using *more*
> of a brain is better. It has been bourne out that more intelligent
> "brains" actually have a *smaller* percentage of use then less
> intelligent ones for similiar mental tasks. So, it appears that
> efficiency is a more important aspect of the brain than overall
> use... EG.. which program is better, both do the same task, one
> is 1000 lines, one is 10,000?
You can equip a computer with 64 Megs of RAM and just have it run
screen savers, or you can run a web server on a computer with 16
Megs of RAM. Then there's the notion of hard-drive disk space,
which in human terms, translates to writing things down. (Something
we've been doing for thousands of years I might add.) In terms of
an organization, you can either structure it so that 20 out of 20
people get to think, or 3 out of 500 people get to think (with
the other 497 doing what those 3 tell them to do).
--------
NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe? Everything he
says is wrong.
GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then everything he says
will be right.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Rights of Doctors
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:47:39 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > Yet what is implied with the assertion of "So you admit that too much
> > government is the problem," is that the problem of secret pricing
> > (thru BCBS) _is_ somehow related to big government. Sorry, doesn't
> > follow.
> The real problem is government intervention, in the form of the
> medical monopoly, the intrusive regulations on every move a doctor
> makes, on every move the producers make.
People in business blame government. People in government
blame business. People in "democratic" countries blame
communist countries. People in "communist" countries blame
"democratic" countries. People in "religious" countries blame
secular countries. When someone's got you by the purse-string,
they've got you by a noose.
---------
Bloom's Seventh Law of Litigation:
The judge's jokes are always funny.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Attitudes towards the Law (was: NJ's Liberal Death Penalty
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:33:30 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
midtowng@slip.net wrote:
> > But that's not my point. It all leads to an attitude that the law
> > doesn't matter. When people think that law doesn't matter, what's to
> > stop them from murder and rape? The answer: NOTHING.
> #1) What is stopping them from raping and murdering people now?
> The answer is nothing except for the punishment, which will
> remain if we have laws against jaywalking and smoking
How do we even know there's crime (TM) if we didn't witness one
ourselves? The answer is, "If I can't report on my own wickedness,
I shall report on the wickedness of others." Heck, even exaggerate
it a little. Make it seem more dire than it is. Get some pulses
racing. Better ratings, more entertainment. Much better than a
horror movie because you can say it's real. Fuel paranoia to draw
attention away from my own autocracy. The dirty truth is always
more entertaining when it involves someone else. Only trouble is,
paranoia breeds paranoia. Let's all go hide in our bunkers now.
-----------
There's only one zoo where we can see unreasonable humans: the media.
9.6.97 The king is obviously more valuable.
11.6.97 This thing that you are advocating.
16.6.97 Their very own kingdoms.
From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,soc.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,rec.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage"
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:09:45 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Stacy G Kilgore wrote:
> What planet do you live on? Do you really see no relationship between
> profits and people's lives? Do you really think an airline would see it
> in their best interest to kill people intentionally?
> The fact of the matter is that planes crash for the same reason the
> Challenger blew up. People are fallible. They make mistakes. And
> sometimes those mistakes cost the lives of other people. It has nothing
> to do with socialist or capitalist principles.
> Just out of curiousity...do you believe that capitalists are the origin
> of all evil?
Stupidity is the root of all evil. Political and corporate autocracy
are mere tools to perpetuate stupidity. Mistakes happen, yes. But
hiding them sure isn't going to prevent them from happening again.
And it is so much easier to hide mistakes and perpetuate mistakes
if all decisions come top-down, if peons are afraid to disagree.
----------
Newton's Law of General Stupidity:
Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the
chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's
no such thing as "free will".
Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity:
By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within
a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not
possible to determine "destiny".
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,soc.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,rec.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage"
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 17:19:42 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Stacy G Kilgore wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that planes crash for the same reason the
> Challenger blew up. People are fallible. They make mistakes. And
> sometimes those mistakes cost the lives of other people. It has nothing
> to do with socialist or capitalist principles.
> Just out of curiousity...do you believe that capitalists are the origin
> of all evil?
What is a capitalist principle? The only view that all capitalists
share is that if they have a lot of money, nobody has the right to
use guns to take it away from them. So they hire their own guns.
Tell me again how government ownership or private ownership differs
from monarchy. Fact is, monarchy and feudalism never died. They've
just diverged into their very own kingdoms - government, business,
military, religious, educational, etc etc.
Those who control words say words are superior. Those who control
currency say money is superior. Those who control faces say its
beauty. Those who control weapons say its violence. "Superiority"
was a concept invented as a way to get praise. The fact is, the
concept of "superiorty" is inferior if all it means is secrecy
(to keep everyone gullible) and self-censorship (to keep yourself
employed). In the end, everybody is doing useless and pointless
jobs, all the while worring about limited resources.
-------
Show me a man who is a good loser and I'll show you a man who is
playing golf with his boss.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,sci.econ,soc.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,rec.misc,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage"
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:51:11 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
> R* wrote:
> > If you (the peons) organize, manage, and administer industrial
> > productivity there will be *none*!
> > All this country needs to finally bury itself is to put a bunch of
> > worker bees in charge of things.
> > Worker bees are stupid people.
> > They are worker bees *because* they are stupid.
> > Put worker bees in charge of auto design and you get Volkswagens.
> > Put worker bees in charge of aircraft engineering you get
> > crash-and-burn.
So what is this thing that you are advocating? A centrally
planned command economy? Hah! It's amazing how capitalist
pawns think their companies are any different from your
average everyday run-of-the-mill "communist" economic
autocracy. Only defenders of slavery deserve to be slaves.
You want to know why planes crash & burn? When the choice
is either lives or the bottom line, there is only one choice
under a system where profits are king. Whistle blowing
trouble makers MUST be stamped out - NEVER to work in this
town again.
------
The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him
away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There
tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice
to him later."
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,rec.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage"
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:08:18 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> ...and of course, the value of a human to society is nothing more than
> the value of his input into society. The economic system, whatever it
> is, has the function of determining the value of his labor to society,
> indeed, the value of the society's self sustenance is exactly equal to
> the value of each human's input By linking the rewards to the
> individual to his input to the system, the economic system insures
> it's sustenance. Lacking this link, the socialist's must rely upon
> force, which is what eloquently damns socialism.
What rewards and what input? Shiny rocks for chia pets? Useless
on both ends, my dear dog biscuit. Is a king more valuable to
a society or a farmer? The answer to that question, of course,
depends on who gets to make the decisions. Under a monarchy, the
king is OBVIOUSLY more "valuable". How does corporate structure
differ from a monarchy? They don't. And the more the monarchy,
the less incentive corporate "peasants" have to work. It's not
like peasants really believe in doing what they're ordered to
do anyway.
There's a difference between "force" as in calling in the
military to enforce corporate democracy and "force" as in just
passing "laws" that plants the seeds for corporate democracy.
What is this difference? The difference is that in one, people
are afraid NOT to practice democracy, and in the second, people
are given the COURAGE to practice democracy. But of course,
control freaks always assume only they themselves have any
good ideas, dooming the rest of society to self-censorship.
---------
And the fewer other skills these idiots have, the more they try
to make their one skill seem important.
From: Matt.Perez@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.union.iatse,alt.union.natl-writers
Subject: Re: Capitalism at work, ain't it great.
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:43:05 -0400
Organization: Private Individual
spin wrote:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> The old man was walking on the beach, where many starfish had
> washed ashore. He saw a little boy on the shoreline, throwing them
> back into the ocean. The boy said 'They'll die if I don't get them
> back into the water.' The man said 'Son, there are hundreds of
> starfish ashore. It's not going to make a difference.' The boy
> picked up a starfish and threw it into the water. He turned to the
> man and said, 'It made a difference to *that* starfish.'
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If a sea star has washed ashore, it's probably time for it
to have washed ashore. Too many starfish can choke the food
cycle, destroying oyster beds, for example. Similarly, too
many unemployed citizens of small developing nations can
strangle the economic potential of viable producers.
Tell the little observant boys to leave habitat management
to nature or professionals and to keep their hands off the
wildlife. ;-)
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,can.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: inequality innate? not so, big oh.
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:24:13 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Equality doesn't mean that *people* are equal physically or
> emotionally or spiritually, but that they are entitled to *equal*
> treatment under the law, and equal opportunity.
> Humanity needs to be diverse. For without diversity, there could
> be no change.
Exactly. A society with too much order dies because it can't adapt
to external change. A society with too much chaos can't produce
something resembling itself.
------
Immigration (TM) is a boogeyman invented by slave masters to draw
attention away from their autocracy. Limited Resources (TM) is a
religion invented by financiers who think patent law is more
productive than marine farming.
CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu
[email/index]