Re: war on the environment
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: O-kay. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a few deep relaxing breaths . . . ? Why fscking bother? The world will end anyway, and we are all going to Hell. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 08:00 UTC
On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Dunno if the guy who was showing it to me posts, but if you ever see something from Sodium or Captain Sodium, that's probably my buddy. (And despite the name, he's quite OK if he gets rained on. Heck, I've hung out in a pool with him and have it be fine.) Julia I'm guessing dropping him off the Charles River bridge would be problematic, but not for the traditional reasons .. :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 08:00 UTC
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Dunno if the guy who was showing it to me posts, but if you ever see something from Sodium or Captain Sodium, that's probably my buddy. (And despite the name, he's quite OK if he gets rained on. Heck, I've hung out in a pool with him and have it be fine.) Julia I'm guessing dropping him off the Charles River bridge would be problematic, but not for the traditional reasons .. :) I wouldn't try. He'd be good at fighting back Of course, he might think it great fun, at least in the summer. (And at which Smoot would you try dumping him, anyway?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hyperinflation!
Liberal loud :-). Nice description! reactionary conservatives loud, sarcastic and obnoxious!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
you tell me, john, I already did. You believe that the amount you own is okay, but people may not own more than you. You believe that the way to allocate resources is for everyone to ask you if it is okay, since you obviously know what everyone else should do. there you go again, i did NOT say the amount i own is okay, or that people may not own more than me. you can't have it both ways. go back and read what i did say, IN CONTEXT! but you insist that i would live there alone like a hermit, rather than recognize that there are people who have a more advanced perspective. I do? You can live there with as many people as you want. What makes you think I care what you do? It is you who seem to want to force your opinions on others. Telling us how much property we may have and how much we may consume. there you go, projecting again. obviously you do care, or you would not be so rude!~) it is YOU who seems to want to force your opinions on others. i am NOT telling anyone how much property they can own, OR how much they can consume. I am only suggesting a more sustainable approach, rather than your laissez faire materialist one. do you really believe that foreign workers choose to want to use the short hoe so we can eat lettuce for a few cents less per head. Yes, I really believe that foreign workers are intelligent enough to decide whether they want to take a job or not. come ON! does it take that much intelligence to submit to economic slavery rather than starve? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]go back and read what i did i am NOT telling anyone how much property they can own, OR how much they can consume. Good for you! I'm glad to hear that you no longer support restrictions on property ownership and free trade. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] does it take that much intelligence to submit to economic slavery rather than starve? Choosing to do a job that makes you better off than choosing to do some other job (or not working at all) does not take a lot of intelligence. Which is part of why I think that people are capable of making that choice. If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
i am NOT telling anyone how much property they can own, OR how much they can consume. Good for you! I'm glad to hear that you no longer support restrictions on property ownership and free trade. you are a piece of work, john. like that other john with an 'h' (mc cain) instead of debating the issues rationally your only argument is to cite your bibliography, and to distort your opponents statements out of context. all i can say is that it won't work on this list. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
does it take that much intelligence to submit to economic slavery rather than starve? Choosing to do a job that makes you better off than choosing to do some other job (or not working at all) does not take a lot of intelligence. Which is part of why I think that people are capable of making that choice. If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? your statement is ridiculous and deliberately provocative, john. even if i was as wealthy as you say no one individual (not even bill gates) is going to make a dent in wage inequities, out of their own pocket. did you not comprehend any of what bruce said? do you understand the concept of redistribution of wealth through regulation of CORPORATE greed and profit gouging, reforming the tax system and creating a sustainable economy? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] no one individual (not even bill gates) is going to make a dent in wage inequities, out of their own pocket. Ah, I see, you don't want to give your own money to help people. You want to give OTHER people's money! A cunning plan... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? Here in the United States, like many countries, if you're making a good income and you're giving part of your wealth to the weak and vulnerable, you're almost certainly breaking the law. It's called tax evasion. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
no one individual (not even bill gates) is going to make a dent in wage inequities, out of their own pocket. Ah, I see, you don't want to give your own money to help people. You want to give OTHER people's money! A cunning plan... not really, i pay taxes. i have no problem with using those revenues to target social, economic, education and other problems, rather than military, corporate or religious priorities. however, if you have any genuinely realistic suggestions how i can use my wealth to help others (other than giving it to you) i will consider them. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? Here in the United States, like many countries, if you're making a good income and you're giving part of your wealth to the weak and vulnerable, you're almost certainly breaking the law. It's called tax evasion. Nick nick did you mean to say... you're NOT giving part of your wealth...? tax evasion is something mostly engaged in by the wealthy, and it is legal if you use loopholes created for that purpose!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: nick did you mean to say... you're NOT giving part of your wealth...? tax evasion is something mostly engaged in by the wealthy, and it is legal if you use loopholes created for that purpose!~) You have confused tax avoidance, which is legal, with tax evasion, which is not. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann wrote: however, if you have any genuinely realistic suggestions how i can use my wealth to help others (other than giving it to you) i will consider them. jon I have! Give it to _me_!!! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] As long as there's an unregulated-labor pool outside that scope, organized labor is fighting a losing battle because it is still ultimately only pricing itself out of the market. Seems the obvious solution is to not price oneself out of the market, then. Accept the market price, or find a way to provide something else of greater value at a higher price. But your statement assumes that the labor transaction is a direct one between the employer and the worker, and that both have equal power in the negotiation of the terms of that transaction. No. I only assume that both parties have the choice whether or not to enter into the employment agreement. when there are no constraints at all, wages drop to almost nothing, work hours expand to fill every bit of every day that's not spent sleeping or eating (and encroach aggressively on those at every opportunity), opportunities to advance completely disappear, and management attitudes approch that of if you don't like it, you can leave. I assume you mean that this happens to the least productive employees. Obviously it cannot happen to everyone. Workers can choose whether they want to accept the job or not, sure, but that's not much of a choice if that's all that's offered One can always choose another job, or to work for oneself. What I'm getting at is that there's more to this equation than the bottom line, and while laissez- faire economies are generally very profitable for the wealthiest 1-2% of the population (who become far wealthier when they pay almost nothing in labor costs for what they can turn around and sell at wholesale or even retail prices), the effects are ultimately self- destructive to the society as a whole Historically, there has been a high correlation between free markets and vastly increased standards of living and freer societies. Perhaps you mean that a completely free society would have the problems you mention, because otherwise your statement is at odds with history. work every waking hour of your life until you drop dead in your tracks, for just barely enough money to keep you alive, or quit the job and starve to death, is not a choice I'd offer my worst enemy. You'd rather take away their choice and force them to starve to death? Seriously, what alternative do you offer? Are you seriously suggesting that putting restrictions on Americans from hiring non-Americans is going to give the person you describe a third, better choice? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On 12/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? Here in the United States, like many countries, if you're making a good income and you're giving part of your wealth to the weak and vulnerable, you're almost certainly breaking the law. It's called tax evasion. Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs and basic support for society. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Sep 11, 2008, at 6:27 PM, John Williams wrote: Yes, people are too stupid and inept to improve their productivity unless the evil employers help them. And I see business owners going around all the time telling their employees to reduce revenue and decrease their productivity. If you're working a 120+ hour work week with no free time at all, it's pretty hard to do much in the way of improving your employability unless your employer makes it possible. And that's pretty close to where the labor force was in the laissez-faire days of the Industrial Revolution, and that's almost exactly where a lot of the people in the currently unregulated cheap labor markets are right now. Stupidity and ineptness have nothing at all to do with it. (It's difficult to conceive of that sort of life in our labor system where we can earn overtime for more than 40 hours per week (as a disincentive to encroach on what's generally been agreed in recent decades should be workers' free time) and get weekends off, or some approximation of that.) Wow, it is a good thing all the potential entrepreneurs have you to warn them about how they can never succeed. Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them. Ask anyone who's ever tried to start a business, and all but a very lucky few will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how tricky it is to hit a market niche just right and avoid being squeezed out by major players who are doing their best to capitalize on your efforts to break open a new market sector. (Don't get me started on our byzantine 1800's era patent/intellectual property legal system.) Anyway, compare the USA to the former USSR, or South Korea to North Korea, or Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwain to China of 50 years ago. Or today's China to China of 50 years ago. It's rather important to keep in mind that the USA is still running to some extent on the momentum of the wartime mobilizations of WWII and Vietnam, which both had anomalous effects on the economy -- growth economies cannot grow without limit, and war has historically been the reset button that tends to start the growth cycle over at least to some extent -- and if we had started out in our pre-WWII economic state (and managed to stay out of WWII *and* avoid being occupied by Germany and Japan), and run our markets without any regulation at all, we would not be in anywhere near the economic state we're in now and our standard of living would be far worse. But war-mobilization effects aside, our economy is not even close to a completely unregulated free market, and to me, that's a good thing, as far as it goes. The leak in that system is still the fact that the USA's fair- labor standards are somewhat unilateral in the global economy, and until those standards are accepted on a much wider scale, we're basically held hostage by the countries who are willing to subject their people to grossly unfair labor conditions to make a quick buck. What I'm proposing is putting pressure on the safe-harbor countries that currently *don't* regulate labor to establish strong enough fair labor laws that they're no longer as attractive an alternative to doing business with US workers. Ah, not satisfied with being king of a country, you want to be king of the world! Everyone must do as you desire! I'm proposing persuasion. You seem to be confusing that with coercion. but if the best choice I have is to either accept the employment terms the worst offenders offer, or not be able to work at all because a fair wage is priced out of the market, that choice kind of sucks, and I'd like a better one, thank you. Me too. The best way I have seen to promote rapid growth in living standards is free markets and free trade. China and (to a lesser extent) India are making rapid progress since liberalizing their economies (India still has a ways to go). Most of Africa, not so much. But that cannot be blamed solely on lack of free markets, there are other factors at work (Bernstein's book above touches on some of those). Well, at least we agree that the choice being offered to much of the labor force isn't really a palatable one. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on the means to negotiating a more satisfying range of choices. I don't see any real progress coming until everyone on earth in the labor force really is free to seek fair and reasonable employment -- as long as there are at least some who are at the mercy of governments (or lack thereof) who find it more profitable to throw them under the bus, that's where the work will go. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them. If you say so. You are obviously an expert entrepreneur. But no doubt your skills are more useful telling people what they should do than what they do not have the intelligence or ability to do. Ask anyone who's ever tried to start a business, and all but a very lucky few will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how tricky it is to hit a market niche Ah, so it is luck whether they succeed? Could be. A lot of people probably do not know as much as they think, so although they may have a plan, it may actually be luck whether the plan succeeds. That sounds familiar, no? Kind of like people who have plans about what everyone should do to make everything shiny and happy? It's rather important to keep in mind that the USA is still running to some extent on the momentum of the wartime mobilizations of WWII and Vietnam, LOL! Cite, please. I'm proposing persuasion. You seem to be confusing that with coercion. I'm glad to hear that you do not support new legislation that will coerce people to follow your rules. Well, at least we agree that the choice being offered to much of the labor force isn't really a palatable one. No, I do not agree. Any choice is more palatable than no choice. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
By the way, another excellent economics book relevant to our discussion and requiring little background economics knowledge is The Power of Productivity: Wealth, Poverty, and the Threat to Global Stability by William W. Lewis. This book discusses how rules and policy affect productivity in a number of countries. Since standard of living ultimately depends on productivity, this is a key factor to study if you are interested in what helps to improve people's lives around the world. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
death and taxes
Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs and basic support for society. Charlie. and to pay for invading sovereign nations under false pretenses... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
however, if you have any genuinely realistic suggestions how i can use my wealth to help others (other than giving it to you) i will consider them. jon I have! Give it to _me_!!! Alberto Monteiro sorry alberto, what i would like are ideas how to create a non-profit foundation to use the land productively and sustainably. any suggestions, other than giving it away? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Free Market
how rules and policy affect productivity in a number of countries. Since standard of living ultimately depends on productivity, this is a key factor to study if you are interested in what helps to improve people's lives around the world. a better way to improve people's lives around the world is to reward them fairly for their labor, and increase substainable productivity. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
At 07:54 PM Wednesday 9/10/2008, John Williams wrote: Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whether I am aware of it is less the point than whether little old ladies living alone on Social Security need something else technical to bother with. So, you think elderly women are too stupid to plug in a cable and a power cord? Good thing they have such a smart guy like you to to look out for them. No, when they call me to come over and connect or troubleshoot something for them, I don't consider them stupid even in the cases where it turns out to be that simple. Many of them know how to do things well that I don't know how to do well or at all. Sometimes they offer to do something in exchange for what I do for them, but I never expect anything in return and nearly always turn it down. That said, it's hard to see how this forced change is about anything else but money: to eventually get everybody to have to buy new equipment and to subscribe to cable or satellite TV for a monthly fee around what one of those government coupons are worth, which is a significant amount for someone on a fixed income who doesn't really have any desire to have 500 channels. And as far as bringing in more money to the government for deficit reduction (which is what the title and stated purpose of the bill mandating the change is) by auctioning off the portions of the spectrum freed up by the change, not only does have to wonder whether this will bring any more relief to the average citizen than anything else which has been implemented under a similar title but we also have enough wireless bandwidth already for people to yak on the phone and even send and receive text messages rather than paying attention while they're supposed to be driving, so what else is needed in that area? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] That said, it's hard to see how this forced change is about anything else but money: No, it is not hard to see. A lot of people appreciate the benefits of HDTV, as evidenced by the number of people with cable who are willing to pay extra for HD service. Without digital broadcasting, people cannot receive HD programming. Given the limited amount of bandwidth available to television broadcasters, it is not surprising that they would want to switch from analog to digital to give many of their customers what they demand. The current situation is clearly inefficient, where multiple copies of the same signal are broadcast in analog and digital. Some of that bandwidth can be used more effectively for other useful purposes. I think it is easy to see why the switch is occurring, and it is primarily because many customers want digital TV, and secondarily because the current redundant broadcasting is inefficient -- in other words, people want to use some of that poorly used bandwidth for other useful purposes. under a similar title but we also have enough wireless bandwidth already for people to yak on the phone and even send and receive text messages rather than paying attention while they're supposed to be driving, so what else is needed in that area? I certainly want more wireless bandwidth. I know a lot of other people who do, too. I would like to be able to stream video to and from my laptop wirelessly wherever I am, and that takes quite a bit of bandwidth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
my new blog on OpenSalon
At the invitation of the editors at Salon Magazine, I've started an occasional political blog at: http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=17245 I don't know how well it will work out. Certainly better than DailyKos! If you'd like to drop by and leave a comment, cool. He's hoping for good news in interesting times. David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote: Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them. If you say so. You are obviously an expert entrepreneur. But no doubt your skills are more useful telling people what they should do than what they do not have the intelligence or ability to do. Ask anyone who's ever tried to start a business, and all but a very lucky few will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how tricky it is to hit a market niche Ah, so it is luck whether they succeed? Could be. A lot of people probably do not know as much as they think, so although they may have a plan, it may actually be luck whether the plan succeeds. That sounds familiar, no? Kind of like people who have plans about what everyone should do to make everything shiny and happy? It's rather important to keep in mind that the USA is still running to some extent on the momentum of the wartime mobilizations of WWII and Vietnam, LOL! Cite, please. I'm proposing persuasion. You seem to be confusing that with coercion. I'm glad to hear that you do not support new legislation that will coerce people to follow your rules. Well, at least we agree that the choice being offered to much of the labor force isn't really a palatable one. No, I do not agree. Any choice is more palatable than no choice. This discussion is obviously getting neither of us anywhere. Fine, whatever, my patience with this thread has now expired. The only thing I will say at this point is that my silence does not imply agreement. Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
