Re: Hyperinflation!
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, John Williams wrote: > > > Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> How long is Anathem? > > 890 pages + about 40 pages of supplementary material at the back. I'm on page > 72. > >> If it's under, say, 800 pages, I might pick up a >> copy at FenCon and have it read by Christmas > > Ah, well. Well, maybe I'll look at it and weigh it (and I could do that in more than one way!) and at least think about it. If I get my hands on a copy to look at on Friday, I may very well purchase by the time I leave Sunday. BTW, anyone else going to FenCon? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How long is Anathem? 890 pages + about 40 pages of supplementary material at the back. I'm on page 72. > If it's under, say, 800 pages, I might pick up a > copy at FenCon and have it read by Christmas Ah, well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, John Williams wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> , I'm going to ask some questions that others interpret as setting >> strawmen. > > I'm not saying don't ask, but I won't guarantee an answer. Although you > wouldn't > know it from my posts, I actually wanted to discuss science fiction when > I joined this list (I got a bit sidetracked, obviously). No one wanted to > discuss > Greg Bear's latest book. I just started Neal Stephenson's new book, > Anathem. I'm having a little trouble getting started, the beginning is a bit > slow (heh, big contrast with Snow Crash). If you want to take a break from > your work, you could always read Anathem and then discuss it here! :-) How long is Anathem? If it's under, say, 800 pages, I might pick up a copy at FenCon and have it read by Christmas Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On 12 Sep 2008, at 18:21, John Williams wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> , I'm going to ask some questions that others interpret as setting >> strawmen. > > I'm not saying don't ask, but I won't guarantee an answer. Although > you wouldn't > know it from my posts, I actually wanted to discuss science fiction > when > I joined this list (I got a bit sidetracked, obviously). No one > wanted to discuss > Greg Bear's latest book. I just started Neal Stephenson's new book, > Anathem. I'm having a little trouble getting started, the beginning > is a bit > slow (heh, big contrast with Snow Crash). If you want to take a > break from > your work, you could always read Anathem and then discuss it here! :-) > I just added Anathem to my Amazon wish list the other day. But first I have to read The Baroque Cycle which I bought a year or so back. I might be some time Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >, I'm going to ask some questions that others interpret as setting > strawmen. I'm not saying don't ask, but I won't guarantee an answer. Although you wouldn't know it from my posts, I actually wanted to discuss science fiction when I joined this list (I got a bit sidetracked, obviously). No one wanted to discuss Greg Bear's latest book. I just started Neal Stephenson's new book, Anathem. I'm having a little trouble getting started, the beginning is a bit slow (heh, big contrast with Snow Crash). If you want to take a break from your work, you could always read Anathem and then discuss it here! :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
-- Original message -- From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > Well, my mom seems to have a trouble with new things. She has a far > > different > > way of looking at things, and when I try to explain them, she keeps on > > asking > > questions that don't lead to understanding. > > She isn't stupid, but at 88 she doesn't adapt well. > > Is your implication that she cannot plug in a cable and a power cord? No, it's subtler than that. She can do such things for things she has been dealing with for the last 25 years. But, she gets confused when its a _brand new thing_. For example, she can handle a VCR but not a DVD, even though you and I see them as subsets of the same problem, they are wildly different from her perspective. >Is she living alone? If so, what percentage of women over 65 do you think >are similarly > incapable and living alone? Many older folks are in that situation. They don't want to lose their indepenence and new technology has long passed them by. John McCain not being familiar with the internet is one example of this. > I'm asking because the implication was about whether the government should > have > prevented the networks from switching over to HDTV in order that elderly > women > living alone who cannot plug in a cable and power cord (or have someone help > them) are able to continue watching their old televisions. What will happen is that there will be a lot of upset older folks, most of whom should/do have folks they rely on (as does my mom). She should be in assisted living, would be happier there (knowing her personality I know she'd have great fun socializing instead of being isolated) but clings to the familiar. I'd argue that the real solution will be to have organizations that are in place that already help the elderly aided by the government (the rebate program should be most of the expense) in helping the elderly take advantage of the rebate program. My mom has had cable for years, so I don't worry about her. > > BTW, welcome to Brin-L. I have been the least liberal loud person on the > group, > > Thanks. Liberal loud :-). Nice description! Well, to be clear, it appears that you fit in well with the frequent posters and represent a voice/perspective that was lost when folks to the right of me (Eric, JDG and Gautam to name 3 I can think of) left. I like a wealth of perspectives. I'm taking a bit of time off in Duluth MN, now that I know there are folks who will take care of my house. (It's win-win, the person who's doing it is an old family friend who lives in a mobile home and will invite 4 friends who also live in mobile homes to stay at our house). Her kids are taking in all the blowables from the yard, so I'm very happy with that. I'm going to try to take time off to try to respond to your ecconomics email as a mental health exercise (going 14 hours a day working at my age is hard). When I do, I'm going to ask some questions that others interpret as setting strawmen. They are not I'm just asking to set boundaries, since it's much easier to discuss a topic with someone when one has a general feel for their viewpoint. ___ 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
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
Hyperinflation!
> Liberal loud :-). Nice description! reactionary conservatives loud, sarcastic and obnoxious!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, my mom seems to have a trouble with new things. She has a far > different > way of looking at things, and when I try to explain them, she keeps on asking > questions that don't lead to understanding. > She isn't stupid, but at 88 she doesn't adapt well. Is your implication that she cannot plug in a cable and a power cord? Is she living alone? If so, what percentage of women over 65 do you think are similarly incapable and living alone? I'm asking because the implication was about whether the government should have prevented the networks from switching over to HDTV in order that elderly women living alone who cannot plug in a cable and power cord (or have someone help them) are able to continue watching their old televisions. > BTW, welcome to Brin-L. I have been the least liberal loud person on the > group, Thanks. Liberal loud :-). Nice description! > Unfortunately, I'm way behind because my portable started > crashing every 4 minutes, so I had to rebuild it from the core while I was > trying to satisfy 3 clients and prepare for a trip to help out > family.just > as a hurricane may be bearing down on my house...sigh. In reverse order of priority, I hope! :-) Good luck! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
-- Original message -- From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Ronn! Blankenship > > > 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. Well, my mom seems to have a trouble with new things. She has a far different way of looking at things, and when I try to explain them, she keeps on asking questions that don't lead to understanding. She isn't stupid, but at 88 she doesn't adapt well. That tends to be a fact of life; it's becomes harder to deal with things that are outside the framework with which you've been doing just fine in for the last 60-70 years when 70 or 80 years have passed. BTW, welcome to Brin-L. I have been the least liberal loud person on the group, and it is nice to see someone who jumps in with both feet who appears to be to the right of me. Unfortunately, I'm way behind because my portable started crashing every 4 minutes, so I had to rebuild it from the core while I was trying to satisfy 3 clients and prepare for a trip to help out family.just as a hurricane may be bearing down on my house...sigh. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It's certainly something I'd want to know about (and returns on the > voucher? No, not allowed so sorry) given that there are $50-60 boxes > which give a perfectly good image output. Sure, I'd certainly pay $10 or $20 for a better box. Which model would you recommend? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On 10 Sep 2008 at 18:47, John Williams wrote: > > > Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Yes, and you get what you pay for - in reviews, that box scored > > considerably lower than analogue TV. > > Yeah, don't you hate it when free things are of poor quality? I always > demand my money back. So to summarise, I have to get a box because the government is switching over to digital TV, and the cheapest box actually reduces my image quality? It's certainly something I'd want to know about (and returns on the voucher? No, not allowed so sorry) given that there are $50-60 boxes which give a perfectly good image output. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yes, and you get what you pay for - in reviews, that box scored > considerably lower than analogue TV. Yeah, don't you hate it when free things are of poor quality? I always demand my money back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On 10 Sep 2008 at 10:03, John Williams wrote:
> Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Is it digital-ready? As I've mentioned before,
> > one way of looking at that is as a way that the
> > manufacturers of the equipment and the providers
> > of programming have come up with to get some more
> > money out of those who have been living too long
> > with a perfectly adequate (for them)
> > over-eight-year-old TV with rabbit ears or a
> > rooftop antenna which were long ago paid for.
>
> Are you aware that HD broadcasts ("digital") are available
> and can be received by an old rooftop antenna? If you do
> not have a digital TV, you can get a digital/analog converter
> box. In fact, the FCC was offering a $40 rebate to anyone
> purchasing such a box (I think the deal may be over now,
> but you can check with a web search). I remember at one
> point there was a converter box that sold for $40, so with
> the rebate people could get the box for no out-of-pocket
> cost.
Yes, and you get what you pay for - in reviews, that box scored
considerably lower than analogue TV.
AndrewC
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
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. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
At 12:03 PM Wednesday 9/10/2008, John Williams wrote:
>Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Is it digital-ready? As I've mentioned before,
> > one way of looking at that is as a way that the
> > manufacturers of the equipment and the providers
> > of programming have come up with to get some more
> > money out of those who have been living too long
> > with a perfectly adequate (for them)
> > over-eight-year-old TV with rabbit ears or a
> > rooftop antenna which were long ago paid for.
>
>Are you aware that HD broadcasts ("digital") are available
>and can be received by an old rooftop antenna? If you do
>not have a digital TV, you can get a digital/analog converter
>box. In fact, the FCC was offering a $40 rebate to anyone
>purchasing such a box (I think the deal may be over now,
>but you can check with a web search). I remember at one
>point there was a converter box that sold for $40, so with
>the rebate people could get the box for no out-of-pocket
>cost.
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.
. . . ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hyperinflation!
> Is it digital-ready?
i dunno, i have to have cable to get reception, though.
> It's nice that you do that voluntarily to
> conserve resources, but what about those of us
> who have had to do many of those things for years
> because of the economy, which continues to get
> worse?
i chose a minimalist lifestyle because i abhor waste. i also use freecycle.com
there are a lot of fashionable items in thrift stores from the more affluent
classes. i would prefer a more equitable marketplace, but i don't make the
rules...
i invest my earnings in practical purchases, and at times, have worked two jobs
in order to pay my mortgages.
Also note that no matter why we do that,
> it's not a sustainable lifestyle for
> everyone: we can't shop at thrift stores unless
> there are enough people who can buy new stuff and
> then replace it with new stuff before it is worn
> out so they can donate still-useable stuff to the
> thrift store where we can buy it for a price we
> can afford, so we are dependent on those who have
> more money and are willing to spend it to keep
> the process going. And there are lots of things
> everyone must purchase new rather than used —
> food comes to mind (eww! X;{) — and even the
> price of peanut butter and ramen three times a
> day keeps going up (not to mention the cost of
> water and electricity or gas to prepare the latter).
> >Eventually I will convert to solar and wind
> >energy, and be completely off the grid,
> Options which for the foreseeable future are only
> available to those with significant disposable
> income to purchase and install the hardware.
> >plant an organic garden
> It takes a lot of work to become self-sufficient,
> particularly if one eschews the use of technology
> and modern fertilizer and pesticides. Not
> everyone can do that or even make any significant progress
> in that direction.
> >and have my own well.
> Ditto in requiring $$$ to purchase land with a
> good water table (or if you already own it you
> may be considered significantly better off than
> most in the US, much less the rest of the
> world). And what population density can the land
> support if each household has its own well?
> . . . ronn! :)
i realize all that, ronn. i am just following my dream to create a science
fiction utopia on a small scale. i doubt i will succeed, but if i can get a
good price for my home in eureka, i have a shot. i was lucky with the land
purchase.
jon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >(I think the deal may be over now, > but you can check with a web search). I remember at one > point there was a converter box that sold for $40, so with > the rebate people could get the box for no out-of-pocket > cost. The rebate is still available. https://www.dtv2009.gov/ Also, it is not hard to find a $40 box, so with rebate, you pay nothing. See the list of retailers here: https://www.dtv2009.gov/VendorSearch.aspx The second online one in the list had a $40 box. I bet there are others as well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is it digital-ready? As I've mentioned before,
> one way of looking at that is as a way that the
> manufacturers of the equipment and the providers
> of programming have come up with to get some more
> money out of those who have been living too long
> with a perfectly adequate (for them)
> over-eight-year-old TV with rabbit ears or a
> rooftop antenna which were long ago paid for.
Are you aware that HD broadcasts ("digital") are available
and can be received by an old rooftop antenna? If you do
not have a digital TV, you can get a digital/analog converter
box. In fact, the FCC was offering a $40 rebate to anyone
purchasing such a box (I think the deal may be over now,
but you can check with a web search). I remember at one
point there was a converter box that sold for $40, so with
the rebate people could get the box for no out-of-pocket
cost.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
At 02:22 PM Tuesday 9/9/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>[snip for brevity]
>
>Sarcasm is the lingua franca of the internet, John.
As I noted a few hours ago on another list, on
one of the lists I am on there is one prolific
poster who frequently claims that he speaks
sarcasm as a second language . . . then there are
those of us who grew up with it as our milk tongue . . . :D
>[snip for brevity]
>
>I purchased my first brand new laptop over four
>years ago, my car was new in 1979, and I've
>owned the same television for over eight years.
Is it digital-ready? As I've mentioned before,
one way of looking at that is as a way that the
manufacturers of the equipment and the providers
of programming have come up with to get some more
money out of those who have been living too long
with a perfectly adequate (for them)
over-eight-year-old TV with rabbit ears or a
rooftop antenna which were long ago paid for.
> My next automobile will be energy
> efficient. In the meantime, I ride my bike and
> take the bus. I recycle as much waste as I
> can, and no longer eat meat three times a
> day. I got rid of my cell phone, and access
> free WiFi at the library. I shop at Goodwill and the Salvation Army.
It's nice that you do that voluntarily to
conserve resources, but what about those of us
who have had to do many of those things for years
because of the economy, which continues to get
worse? Also note that no matter why we do that,
it's not a sustainable lifestyle for
everyone: we can't shop at thrift stores unless
there are enough people who can buy new stuff and
then replace it with new stuff before it is worn
out so they can donate still-useable stuff to the
thrift store where we can buy it for a price we
can afford, so we are dependent on those who have
more money and are willing to spend it to keep
the process going. And there are lots of things
everyone must purchase new rather than used
food comes to mind (eww! X;{) and even the
price of peanut butter and ramen three times a
day keeps going up (not to mention the cost of
water and electricity or gas to prepare the latter).
>Eventually I will convert to solar and wind
>energy, and be completely off the grid,
Options which for the foreseeable future are only
available to those with significant disposable
income to purchase and install the hardware.
>plant an organic garden
It takes a lot of work to become self-sufficient,
particularly if one eschews the use of technology
and modern fertilizer and pesticides. Not
everyone can do that or even make any significant progress in that direction.
>and have my own well.
Ditto in requiring $$$ to purchase land with a
good water table (or if you already own it you
may be considered significantly better off than
most in the US, much less the rest of the
world). And what population density can the land
support if each household has its own well?
. . . ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You might have problems with the part where you bury yourself Good point. I doubt there would be a shortage of volunteers to help me with the problem, however. "We will bury you". ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, John Williams wrote: > But you have helped to break my connection to the marketplace! I gave up > all my evil ways. Now if I only had 40 acres of land to live on, I could > go bury myself in it and stop consuming altogether! You might have problems with the part where you bury yourself Just sayin'. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sarcasm is the lingua franca of the internet, John. It is the signature of > your > suppressed hostility, and allows you to be critical without actually exposing > or > defending your own reactionary opinions (or actually refuting your > opponents). Who is this Mr. Franca? And why are you suppressing hostility to him? That cannot be good for your blood pressure. And you should not feel bad about your reactionary tendencies, we all have them. No need to refute opponents, they have a right to their opinions. > It provides deniability for insults and subtle personal attacks by giving the > appearance of depersonalizing the topic. Your favorite tactic is to distort > what others are saying, by deliberately misrepresenting the context. I'm sorry that I cannot understand your subtle personal attacks on me, or that I find it hard to understand your positions. Perhaps if you tried explaining them to me in simple terms? Or actually answering questions instead of insulting me? > We are all consumers, caught up in the marketplace, but some of us are > unaware, > and others don't care. Some of us bury our heads, and others are completely > buried under the sands of denial. But you have helped to break my connection to the marketplace! I gave up all my evil ways. Now if I only had 40 acres of land to live on, I could go bury myself in it and stop consuming altogether! > I purchased my first brand new laptop over four years ago, my car was new in > 1979, and I've owned the same television for over eight years. My god! The evil plutocrats have forced you to own a gas-guzzling 1979 car and a 4-year old laptop without the latest energy saving features! What unspeakable evil. Down with plutocrats! > automobile will be energy efficient. No!!! But efficiency is BAD. Down with efficiency! > It is not a crime to have money, John, what matters is how you earn it and > how > you spend it... Right, now I understand. It is not a crime to have more than Jon, just if you want to live differently than Jon. I will endeavor to change my ways to be more like the great Jon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hyperinflation!
> > you don't get it john, the market is fixed; it is > rigged by the plutocrats. > Thank you, Jon! I've been so naive, but you have opened > my eyes. Those > evil plutocrats have really kept me down, but I won't > stand for it any more! > > they don't care what all this capitalism is doing > to the planet, or the wars > > that are mortgaging your children's' future. > you are nothing but a unit of > > consumption to them, programmed to purchase cars that > use gas, plasma > > television, i-phones and a new computer every three > years. > I must break my programming! I need to give up my car and > my TV > and my cell phone and my computers, they are proof of how > the evil plutocrats have kept me down! > > now with all the > > houses that are in foreclosures america will be a > land of renters and consumers. > I've been renting and consuming for years! I can't > believe I've never seen > it before! This has to stop. I think my best bet is to > move to somewhere > in Africa so that I can cut down on my consumption > (Africans don't consume > much, right?) and maybe find a piece of land that no one > wants so that I can avoid paying rent. Sarcasm is the lingua franca of the internet, John. It is the signature of your suppressed hostility, and allows you to be critical without actually exposing or defending your own reactionary opinions (or actually refuting your opponents). It provides deniability for insults and subtle personal attacks by giving the appearance of depersonalizing the topic. Your favorite tactic is to distort what others are saying, by deliberately misrepresenting the context. We are all consumers, caught up in the marketplace, but some of us are unaware, and others don't care. Some of us bury our heads, and others are completely buried under the sands of denial. Owning a computer does not equate to being a plutocrat, no matter how you attempt to link the two. You can keep your i-pod, too... All we can do is to try to reduce our own carbon footprint as much as we can, and support anti-war leaders who can move the government toward sustainable policies. I purchased my first brand new laptop over four years ago, my car was new in 1979, and I've owned the same television for over eight years. My next automobile will be energy efficient. In the meantime, I ride my bike and take the bus. I recycle as much waste as I can, and no longer eat meat three times a day. I got rid of my cell phone, and access free WiFi at the library. I shop at Goodwill and the Salvation Army. Eventually I will convert to solar and wind energy, and be completely off the grid, plant an organic garden and have my own well. It is not a crime to have money, John, what matters is how you earn it and how you spend it... The measure of a civilization is not how much energy it consumes, but how much it conserves (and what kind of energy it develops)... Jon "if carbon emissions were immediately cut 100% , the planet would continue to heat at precipitous levels for 60 years" (sic) David Letterman (Sept. 8, 2008) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you don't get it john, the market is fixed; it is rigged by the plutocrats. Thank you Jon! I've been so naive, but you have opened my eyes. Those evil plutocrats have really kept me down, but I won't stand for it any more! > they don't care what all this capitalism is doing to the planet, or the wars > that are mortgaging your children's' future. you are nothing but a unit of > consumption to them, programmed to purchase cars that use gas, plasma > television, i-phones and a new computer every three years. I must break my programming! I need to give up my car and my TV and my cell phone and my computers, they are proof of how the evil plutocrats have kept me down! > now with all the > houses that are in foreclosures american will be a land of renters and > consumers. I've been renting and consuming for years! I can't believe I've never seen it before! This has to stop. I think my best bet is to move to somewhere in Africa so that I can cut down on my consumption (Africans don't consume much, right?) and maybe find a piece of land that no one wants so that I can avoid paying rent. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD > thing no matter how > > efficient it makes the market: > Good point. If the market were less efficient, almost no > one would be able to > afford computers or Internet access. Then no one would need > to listen > to crazies spouting nonsense about the benefits of a free > market. Woo hoo! you don't get it john, the market is fixed; it is rigged by the plutocrats. they don't care what all this capitalism is doing to the planet, or the wars that are mortgaging your children's' future. you are nothing but a unit of consumption to them, programmed to purchase cars that use gas, plasma television, i-phones and a new computer every three years. now with all the houses that are in foreclosures american will be a land of renters and consumers. WOO HOO! jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 03:25 PM Monday 9/8/2008, John Williams wrote: >Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how > > efficient it makes the market: > >How would you allocate resources among all the people who say "if I only had >this" then I could accomplish ___? Start by listing all of the people who have ever said "If I only had the money I could _" and annotating the list to show all of the accomplishments by those people who then won the lottery or got a big inheritance? Contributions Gladly Accepted Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how > efficient it makes the market: Good point. If the market were less efficient, almost no one would be able to afford computers or Internet access. Then no one would need to listen to crazies spouting nonsense about the benefits of a free market. Woo hoo! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how > efficient it makes the market: How would you allocate resources among all the people who say "if I only had this" then I could accomplish ___? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> The way I see it, a short-term focus on cash returns is a > good thing for all > but the most proven and talented forward thinkers. It keeps > the market > moving towards greater efficiency. the way i see it is focusing on cash returns is a BAD thing no matter how efficient it makes the market: http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-world-is-flat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm not sure that all that many people have learned not to be greedy and > short-term focused. No doubt. But some have learned that house prices don't always go up. > My posting was ironically predictive, as my job fell victim to the market's > obsession with positive cash flow. The way I see it, a short-term focus on cash returns is a good thing for all but the most proven and talented forward thinkers. It keeps the market moving towards greater efficiency. Exciting ideas for expensive long-term projects are a dime a dozen -- choosing which ones to pursue takes rare talent. It seems harsh to creative people, but I think it is a good control. After all, creative people who are good at predicting the future should have no problem amassing a small fortune, which will then allow them to pursue their pet projects as they see fit. > And we bought a house at what now seems to be pretty much the exact wrong > time. Ouch, but on the bright side, I bet you won't overpay for housing again! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:33 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Look at what has happened in a traditionally > > low-risk marketplace -- real estate -- lately. Even there, investors > > started having crazy expectations. And yes, the market is correcting, > but > > look at the fallout. > > People thought that real-estate always went up, at least for the past 30 > years in the US, they said. Now a generation of investors has learned > otherwise. > That lesson will probably stay with the current generation of investors, > but in > 20 or 30 years the lesson may need to be "re-learned". And the investors > who > learned from history will profit from the ones who did not. I'm not sure that all that many people have learned not to be greedy and short-term focused. My posting was ironically predictive, as my job fell victim to the market's obsession with positive cash flow. And we bought a house at what now seems to be pretty much the exact wrong time. On the other hand, we own the house my wife grew up in, which is in Springfield, Oregon, where housing prices are rising. So there's that, anyway. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 09:50 AM Tuesday 9/2/2008, John Williams wrote: >Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and >reduced by politicians. Indeed even casual observation suggests that the opposite is the more common outcome. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 11:41 PM Monday 9/1/2008, John Williams wrote: >Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is important is that a leader take responsibility for his > > administration. It is important that I am able to distinguish between > > someone that has done a good job and someone that hasn't when I cast my > > vote. > > > > So in that case, yea, blame is pretty important. > >Sorry, I blame myself. I was not clear. I meant to ask, is it helpful to blame >politicians for not having solutions to difficult problems? Helpful? Maybe not. But it feels sooo good . . . Not To Mention Distracts Voters From The Fact That The Other Party Hasn't A Clue How To Solve It Either Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 10:03 PM Monday 9/1/2008, John Williams wrote: > Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a > > comprehensive energy policy? > >The same one we blame for poor humanity leadership and complete lack >of a comprehensive intelligent-design policy? > >Sorry for the sarcasm, but is blame so important? Unfortunately it is only a little sarcasm to note that often in business* and government assigning blame seems to be more important than actually finding a solution, and is almost always more important than taking responsibility . . . _ *anecdotal evidence: the number of people who report recognizing their current or former employer in "Dilbert" or before that the Judge Reinhold film _Head Office_ . . . Only About 90+ Messages To Go To Catch Up Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 08:20 PM Monday 9/1/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: >Ronn! wrote: > >The "4% inflation is unacceptable" statement was the Democrat's >ridicule of Ford's "Whip Inflation Now!" campaign and it's "WIN" >buttons. I'm sure they picked the worst figure they could find, just >as whoever from the other side who came up with the "Carter said 4% >inflation was unacceptable, then he got into office and ran it up to >20%" statement back then probably picked the worst spot figure they >could find or fudge. > >Your statement had no caveats or explanations nor did it have an attribution >and its implication was that inflation jumped from 4 to 20% during the >Carter Administration. I'm sorry if I'm being didactic, but you're a >respected member of the list and people listen to what you have to say. Sorry for the confusion. I really expected that of all of the people on the list who report having lived through and remembering the Carter years at least one other would remember that series of exchanges . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For public companies, the "long run" is anything more than a year or two, What is it for politicians? > Who cares if the company will run out of trees, as long as it isn't going to > happen until long after the current senior management and board are gone? I'd peg the long-run for investors at about 20 to 30 years, which is about the longevity of many investing careers. I agree that few companies excel at planning ahead by more than a couple years. But that is because predicting the future more than a few years ahead is difficult. That is why the free-markets have historically outperformed planned economies. Humans are bad at planning ahead, but if you have a sufficiently large and diverse "gene-pool" of plans, random events and natural selection will tend to evolve a few successful plans. > Look at what has happened in a traditionally > low-risk marketplace -- real estate -- lately. Even there, investors > started having crazy expectations. And yes, the market is correcting, but > look at the fallout. People thought that real-estate always went up, at least for the past 30 years in the US, they said. Now a generation of investors has learned otherwise. That lesson will probably stay with the current generation of investors, but in 20 or 30 years the lesson may need to be "re-learned". And the investors who learned from history will profit from the ones who did not. > As long > as a few people are becoming millionaires and billionaires and the rest of > us think we have a shot at the same, nobody sees any need to change their > perspective. Amen! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or > all-encompassing. > Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to > see how similar some posts appeared as far as faith in a paternalistic > force > for good. No offense intended to your faith, or lack thereof, whatever your > inclination may be. > I'm relieved that you are unsure about that, since I don't see any conflict there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Anyway, do you think that > a logging company that clear cuts its forests will be the most profitable, > in the long run, in a competitive market? Well, I do... if by clear-cutting it drives the competition out of business. For public companies, the "long run" is anything more than a year or two, at best. The stock market likes consistent profits from quarter to quarter. There's a damned if you do and damned if you don't in the market. If you're a small company, nobody cares if you're investing for the long run because they can't be bothered to understand the strategy of a small player. If you're a large company, the market expects you to figure out how to be profitable every quarter *and* invest for the future. Thus the public markets encourage businesses to ignore the long-term issues. What's more, the tenure of top management at public companies is short and their compensation has nothing to do with how the company performs after they leave, so again, no incentive, even a disincentive, to have a real long-term strategy. Who cares if the company will run out of trees, as long as it isn't going to happen until long after the current senior management and board are gone? And if we don't keep profits up now, we'll be gone that much sooner. It is very, very hard for anybody to make present-day sacrifices for long-term profits when the guy next door is cashing in stock options worth millions. In fact, one risks a lawsuit that would argue that the board is failing in its fiduciary responsibility to protect shareholder value. Shareholder value is now or in the few years, not in a decade or two. Pardon if it seems like I'm repeating myself... but even for venture capital, which plays for a longer term than the public markets, long-term is 4-5 years. If you can't show the possibility of a 10x return in that time frame, you don't get to play. Look at what has happened in a traditionally low-risk marketplace -- real estate -- lately. Even there, investors started having crazy expectations. And yes, the market is correcting, but look at the fallout. I've played the game a lot, raising venture money, IPOs, advising large and small companies on high-risk investments in emerging markets. Maybe I'm biased because that's the world I've lived in for many years now... but what I see is people who mostly let the long term take care of itself. As long as a few people are becoming millionaires and billionaires and the rest of us think we have a shot at the same, nobody sees any need to change their perspective. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2 > emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree > with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way > to address that sort of problem. But when you are confronted with an > urgent life-or-death problem, the primary problem is not one of > efficiency. For example, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did > not worry about the most efficient, market-based way of letting the > private sector respond. The "solution" to Pearl Harbor was straightforward. The "solution" to the environment is not. I don't see how some politicians, who have spent precious little time studying either the environment or economics, will be capable of solving the "problem". Simply deciding to go to war on the environment will not help, and on balance, will probably cause harm. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
John Williams wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> It is clear that climate change is not something >> the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has >> any >> possibility of tackling this problem. >> > > I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only > way > that I have seen that consistently solves difficult problems is trial and > error. But > government does not do trial and error efficiently. Typically, there are very > few > ideas, sometimes only one, and the failures are not abandoned, but > instead suck down resources indefinitely. Far better to let prices and market > forces evolve efficient solutions. If "climate change" is a high-priority > problem > that is not adequately touched by market forces, then perhaps there is a > small role > that government can play, but never in specific policy. The government role > should be limited to addressing market failures, such as when carbon-emitters > do not pay for costs to the environment that everyone experiences. For > example, > a carbon-tax. > If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2 emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way to address that sort of problem. But when you are confronted with an urgent life-or-death problem, the primary problem is not one of efficiency. For example, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did not worry about the most efficient, market-based way of letting the private sector respond. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another." -- J. Frank Dobie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an > unfortunate way. Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or all-encompassing. Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to see how similar some posts appeared as far as faith in a paternalistic force for good. No offense intended to your faith, or lack thereof, whatever your inclination may be. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd say that the American free market is an illusion > anyway. I'd agree that the United State's market is far from free. I did not intend to compare countries. Indeed, the more global the market, the better, as far as I am concerned. > So allowing a logging company to clear fell an entire forest, > rather than only taking a percentage of trees, is fine in a free market? If the forest is someone's property, then no one has the right to prevent them from doing as they wish with their property. If the forest is the "property" of government, then government is probably in the midst of one of its many failures. Anyway, do you think that a logging company that clear cuts its forests will be the most profitable, in the long run, in a competitive market? > You should be made aware that this is a global list, and that basic > legal framework you're talking about only applies to your nation, not > mine. I was not referring to the framework for any specific country. If your country does not have basic laws protecting property and individual liberty, then I suggest worrying less about government regulations to reduce waste and more about basic legal framework. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 03/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > >> >> My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between >> religous >> people, >> with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their >> politicians. > > > Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope. > > If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations > in an > unfortunate way. Yeah. I couldn't work that out either. Right, off to work time. Conversation resumes in about 12 hours from my point of view. :-) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous > people, > with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their > politicians. Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope. If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an unfortunate way. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 03/09/2008, at 12:50 AM, John Williams wrote: > > > Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and >> environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. > > I don't understand the "yes", since what follows the yes does not > agree with what > I wrote. Yes it does. It only doesn't if you're ideologically tied to the idea that there should be no regulations at all. And given the differences in standard of living between say the USA and the Scandinavian countries, I'd say that a free market doesn't and shouldn't mean NO regulations, just a level playing field. Given the power of lobbyists in the States, I'd say that the American free market is an illusion anyway. > Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and > reduced by > politicians. In the simplest terms it can. > And "environmental damage" has become trendy for politicians to > talk about, but the cures they propose are invariably more harmful. Really? So allowing a logging company to clear fell an entire forest, rather than only taking a percentage of trees, is fine in a free market? > So, No, not > "Yes". I would probably agree with a carbon tax or similar measures > that forces > carbon-emitters to bear the costs of pollution that everyone must > endure, but > government should not be creating specific rules on "waste" and > "environmental > damage". Why not? Chemical companies should not dump their waste in rivers. The only way you make them not do that in an otherwise free market is to have financial penalties if they do. > As far as unethical practices and exploitation, the politicians > excel at > those pursuits. Not a good idea to have politicians defining what is > ethical or > exploitative, beyond a basic legal framework for protecting property > and liberty > that was already established ages ago. You should be made aware that this is a global list, and that basic legal framework you're talking about only applies to your nation, not mine. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Sep 2, 2008, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It is clear that climate change is not something the market can > handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any > possibility of tackling this problem. That's been well established. The government does best when it provides the external force necessary to push the market out of suboptimal equilibria that none of the market players want to bear the cost of breaking out of unilaterally. "Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It is clear that climate change is not something > the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any > possibility of tackling this problem. I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only way that I have seen that consistently solves difficult problems is trial and error. But government does not do trial and error efficiently. Typically, there are very few ideas, sometimes only one, and the failures are not abandoned, but instead suck down resources indefinitely. Far better to let prices and market forces evolve efficient solutions. If "climate change" is a high-priority problem that is not adequately touched by market forces, then perhaps there is a small role that government can play, but never in specific policy. The government role should be limited to addressing market failures, such as when carbon-emitters do not pay for costs to the environment that everyone experiences. For example, a carbon-tax. > Later on I > recalled the words of one of my best professors from grad school, who pointed > out that the issue with Libertarianism is that it is held most strongly by > those > who would be most likely to prosper in such a system. The same could be said of virtually all politics. There are many people who want to make laws to benefit some at others expense. I prefer to minimize all such laws. Freedom is the best policy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and > environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. I don't understand the "yes", since what follows the yes does not agree with what I wrote. Waste is not something that can be efficiently identified and reduced by politicians. And "environmental damage" has become trendy for politicians to talk about, but the cures they propose are invariably more harmful. So, No, not "Yes". I would probably agree with a carbon tax or similar measures that forces carbon-emitters to bear the costs of pollution that everyone must endure, but government should not be creating specific rules on "waste" and "environmental damage". As far as unethical practices and exploitation, the politicians excel at those pursuits. Not a good idea to have politicians defining what is ethical or exploitative, beyond a basic legal framework for protecting property and liberty that was already established ages ago. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of ideas in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. If the "gene-pool" of ideas is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will find better solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If the gene-pool is not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for government to encourage greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that relies on politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. But sometimes there are problems that only govenrment *can* handle. I used to be a member (dues paying!) of the Libertarian Party, but I left that behind because of thei ssue of global climate change. What I saw inside the Libertarian Party was a very interesting dynamic. It is clear that climate change is not something the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any possibility of tackling this problem. Well, Libertarians cannot abide the thought of the government being necessary to solve a problem, so they almost instinctively tunred to embracing all of the climate change denialists. Now, I don't like unnecessary government action (there is a reason *why* I joined that party), but I also have a firm rule that I do not make scientific decisions on ideological bases. So I left the Libertarian party. Later on I recalled the words of one of my best professors from grad school, who pointed out that the issue with Libertarianism is that it is held most strongly by those who would be most likely to prosper in such a system. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 02/09/2008, at 2:41 PM, John Williams wrote: > My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between > religous people, > with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their > politicians. I'm neither of those. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking, but this List is far more dimensional than that. Recently some voices have been louder, but there is a genuine breadth of opinion here (of course, most of it's wrong, but they'll agree with me one day ;) ) > > Personally, I put my faith in evolution, both biological and > economical. I don't. Evolution exists, but I hope we can rise above mere evolution, and direct ourselves rather than being shunted about by the harsh mistress of selectional forces and mere survivability being the criterion for our future. > Humans > are fallible, and politicians are human. Putting greater > responsibility (power, > expectations, etc.) in the hands of politicians means that their > failures will be > greater disasters. Better to keep government as small as possible, > not put our > politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and > competition of ideas > in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. Partially agree. By "small government", I think we need more participatory government. We need rules and regulations to make an even playing field for business, employment, education and opportunity, but we don't need government interference in our personal lives. Not putting our politicians on a pedestal is a good thing, 'cause people are people. > If the "gene-pool" of ideas > is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market > will find better > solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If > the gene-pool is > not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for > government to encourage > greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that > relies on > politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. Beyond that, they should be as minimal as possible (and that means minimal subsidies and tarriffs too). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What is important is that a leader take responsibility for his > administration. It is important that I am able to distinguish between > someone that has done a good job and someone that hasn't when I cast my > vote. > > So in that case, yea, blame is pretty important. Sorry, I blame myself. I was not clear. I meant to ask, is it helpful to blame politicians for not having solutions to difficult problems? My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous people, with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their politicians. Personally, I put my faith in evolution, both biological and economical. Humans are fallible, and politicians are human. Putting greater responsibility (power, expectations, etc.) in the hands of politicians means that their failures will be greater disasters. Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of ideas in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. If the "gene-pool" of ideas is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will find better solutions to problems than millions of politicians ever could. If the gene-pool is not sufficiently diverse, then perhaps there is a role for government to encourage greater vitality and diversity through policy. But any approach that relies on politicians to design an efficient system is doomed to failure. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
John wrote: > > > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a > > comprehensive energy policy? > > The same one we blame for poor humanity leadership and complete lack > of a comprehensive intelligent-design policy? > > Sorry for the sarcasm, but is blame so important? Not if I'm playing a friendly game of volleyball and my team mate over-passed the ball, no. What is important is that a leader take responsibility for his administration. It is important that I am able to distinguish between someone that has done a good job and someone that hasn't when I cast my vote. So in that case, yea, blame is pretty important. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a > comprehensive energy policy? The same one we blame for poor humanity leadership and complete lack of a comprehensive intelligent-design policy? Sorry for the sarcasm, but is blame so important? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Ronn! wrote: The "4% inflation is unacceptable" statement was the Democrat's ridicule of Ford's "Whip Inflation Now!" campaign and it's "WIN" buttons. I'm sure they picked the worst figure they could find, just as whoever from the other side who came up with the "Carter said 4% inflation was unacceptable, then he got into office and ran it up to 20%" statement back then probably picked the worst spot figure they could find or fudge. Your statement had no caveats or explanations nor did it have an attribution and its implication was that inflation jumped from 4 to 20% during the Carter Administration. I'm sorry if I'm being didactic, but you're a respected member of the list and people listen to what you have to say. > > > (as that part of the recent increase due to increased > demand for gasoline in China and the loss of refinery capacity due to > Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were not under the direct control of the > current President, although there seem to be some folks willing to > count those among his multitude of sins :P). That's why we pay him > the big bucks . . . > So who can we blame for poor leadership and the complete lack of a comprehensive energy policy? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 06:17 PM Friday 8/29/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Ronn! wrote: > > > > > Being there. > > > > A faulty memory is a poor cite. That is an obvious statement with which anyone would have to agree. ;) > Not only wasn't inflation anywhere near >20% during the Carter administration, Somebody has already mentioned a possible explanation for that number. > it wasn't anywhere near 4% immediately >prior to his election. The "4% inflation is unacceptable" statement was the Democrat's ridicule of Ford's "Whip Inflation Now!" campaign and it's "WIN" buttons. I'm sure they picked the worst figure they could find, just as whoever from the other side who came up with the "Carter said 4% inflation was unacceptable, then he got into office and ran it up to 20%" statement back then probably picked the worst spot figure they could find or fudge. >Here's another cite to go with the ones already posted: > >http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=3 > >And here's a quote from William's reference: > >Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his >watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next >15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of >the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an >intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, >Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an >expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do >with the economic events that occurred during their terms. One of the things we learn from observing American politics is that the then-current administration can expect to be blamed for bad economic news that happens on its watch regardless of how much actual control they had or even conceivably could have had over the circumstances that led to the bad economic news. (Of course, we also learn from observing American politics that the then-current administration is likely to claim credit for any good economic news regardless of whether they were responsible for the good economy or not. :P) Certainly the big problem for most ordinary citizens in 1979-80 was the rapid increase in the price of gasoline at the pumps (like it has been in recent years) and the actual causes (primarily instability in the Middle East) were largely beyond the control of the President (as that part of the recent increase due to increased demand for gasoline in China and the loss of refinery capacity due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were not under the direct control of the current President, although there seem to be some folks willing to count those among his multitude of sins :P). That's why we pay him the big bucks . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> > I'm pretty sure it never got into the 20s for any sustained period. > > I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the > web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in > 1980. > > Dave Well, IIRC, the primary source for this is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If not the primary, they are a darn good mirror source. At http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm they have a calculator, which is an easy way to calculate the total inflation over a period. They also have monthly tables for people really into it. >From inflation was 75-76 5.8% 76-77 6.5% 77-78 7.6% 78-79 11.4% 79-80 13.5% 80-81 10.0% Also of note, under the 4 years of Carter, there were about twice as many jobs created (10.3 million or a 12.8% increase), than have been created under Bush in 7+ years (5.1 million or a 3.9% increase). And, with employment expected to continue to fall through next January, I expect this number to drop below 5 million. (anyone want to bet against me?) Given the fact that housing prices are tumbling and unemployment is rising, we may have a bit of stagflation, but I don't think that wages will hold up their end of the wage-price spiral. So, I don't expect much more than 5%-6% inflation before things settle down. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Ronn! wrote: > > Being there. > > A faulty memory is a poor cite. Not only wasn't inflation anywhere near 20% during the Carter administration, it wasn't anywhere near 4% immediately prior to his election. Here's another cite to go with the ones already posted: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=3 And here's a quote from William's reference: Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms. Doug The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. --Stephen Hawking ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 11:29 AM Friday 8/29/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: >Ronn! wrote: > > > > > Or just remember the Carter administration. > > > > > > He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was > > Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus Percent Maru > > > > > > Cite? > >Doug Being there. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
> > I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the > > web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in > > 1980. > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm The US Bureau of Labour Statistics places CPI inflation at 13.5% in 1980. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt Williams' link uses this number as well as states the following, "In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II." Perhaps some media sources have been confusing these numbers. Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On 29 Aug 2008, at 18:34, Dave Land wrote: > > I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the > web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in > 1980. > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm Second Hand Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > >> Ronn! wrote: >> >>> Or just remember the Carter administration. >>> >>> He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was >>> Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus >>> Percent Maru >>> >>> Cite? > > Might Ronn! be conflating twenty-plus percent _interest_ rates > (which were > definitely in effect during the Carter administration) with such > inflation? > > The phrase "double-digit" is commonly mentioned in articles about > the Carter > years and inflation, but that could be as "low" as 10% and as high > as 99%. > > I'm pretty sure it never got into the 20s for any sustained period. I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but one reference on the web (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1990/ch8_p21.htm) put it above 20% in 1980. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Ronn! wrote: > >> Or just remember the Carter administration. >> >> He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was >> Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus >> Percent Maru >> >> Cite? Might Ronn! be conflating twenty-plus percent _interest_ rates (which were definitely in effect during the Carter administration) with such inflation? The phrase "double-digit" is commonly mentioned in articles about the Carter years and inflation, but that could be as "low" as 10% and as high as 99%. I'm pretty sure it never got into the 20s for any sustained period. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Ronn! wrote: > > Or just remember the Carter administration. > > > He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was > Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus Percent Maru > > > Cite? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
At 07:30 AM Friday 8/29/2008, Alberto Monteiro wrote: >I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation >in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation >is about 10% (!!!) > >Welcome to Hyperinflation. If you want any hints on how to survive >and prosper under hyperinflation, just ask me. Or just remember the Carter administration. He Said During The Campaign That Four Percent Inflation Was Unacceptable So When He Got Into Office He Made It Twenty-Plus Percent Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
Zimbabwe inflation rate is around 810% **per month** ! c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro Sent: 29 August 2008 14:31 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Welcome to Hyperinflation! I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation is about 10% (!!!) Welcome to Hyperinflation. If you want any hints on how to survive and prosper under hyperinflation, just ask me. Brazil had it for decades. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Welcome to Hyperinflation!
I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation is about 10% (!!!) Welcome to Hyperinflation. If you want any hints on how to survive and prosper under hyperinflation, just ask me. Brazil had it for decades. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
