Re: Co-stupidity (and the flaws that cause it, or context that nourishes it)
-- -- From: "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Douglas P. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Co-stupidity (and the flaws that cause it, or context that nourishes it) Date: Thu, Aug 5, 1999, 8:56 PM I would like to mention WesBurt at the start of this post. I have just read his lengthy post and though I cannot follow all his economic arguments I can agree with his thesis. Society has totally neglected the investment in it's children by not providing additional income for those years of parenthood. The capitalistic idea of paying a single man the same as a married man with children is obscene and only penalizes the parent and society as a whole. WesBurt's analysis is correct as far as it goes in my opinion, but it neglects the ideas I present below through Pearce's quote - and he is not the only author making these statements - they just don't get good book reviews. Now, it turns out that our Prime Minister may actually bring in a National Day Care system and guess what, it amounts to $5000 per child per year up to the age of six. I would say that WesBurts math is pretty good. In light of what Pearce says though, that $5000 per child would be better spent allowing the mother to mother her children rather than send them to day care. If mother's mothered, we would not only get healthier psychological adults but their removal from the workforce into this highly specialized and natural employment would also lower the unemployment rate bringing some of our economy back into balance. Now to my answer to Douglas's points: -- Thomas wrote: You know, people are the problem. Why? My answer is because most of us are terribly dysfunctional. Why? Douglas wrote: Actually I don't think we are all that dysfunction by nature. How well or poorly people function depends on their social context or social environment -- the people they live, work, and make love with. Thomas: Ah, that I had a scanner or ten hours to type in a proper response to this statement. Given that I don't and I don't really want to paraphrase the power of the words in the following lengthy quote, let me say they come from the book Evolutions End by Joesph Chilton Pearce who has just spent two excruciating chapters talking about the childbirth practices in the United States and most of the Western World and how they have destroyed Natures birthing cycle which has created a lack of bonding, the first and most essential step in healthy child development. At the risk of boring everyone on the list senseless, I am going to pick up his thread on Page 125. Quote: No good comes from discussing any of this. An enormous literature has appeared over the years to no avail. These obscene practices have become not just acceptable but the model for childbirth. Our current generations are the unbonded victims shaped by the system, terrified of the thought of birth outside the medical umbrella, willing to pay any price to avoid personal responsibility for what is considered a dreadful experience. As my New Zealand physician friend, Stephen Taylor, put it, this is really a basic war of man against woman. In the male intellect's long battle with the intelligence of the heart, the real trump card was found in catching the woman when she is most vulnerable and stripping her of her power. Now, it seems we have her --- and are surely had. Beneath it all grows great anger: children angry at their parents; men angry at women because they didn't get what they needed from women at life's most critical point and still fail to get it; women angry at men for robbing them of their power and, identifying with their oppressors, rejecting motherhood and men in the process. This has caused a rising tide of incompetence and inability to nurture and care for offspring. The genetically encoded intuitions for nurturning have been shattered, and the results are cloaked by ever-so-practical rationalizations. The largest growing work force of the 1980's were the mothers of children under age three. Day care, an unknown phenomenon until recent years, is a major growth industry. Seventy percent of all children under age four were in day care by 1985, and major concerns of the nation are how to get them all into day care --- and who will pay for it. Our species has survived throughout its history by women caring for women in childbirth, yet midwifery in the United States has been virtually illegal for the last half century. Male surgeons are in charge and many of the female obstretricians follow their system andd are little better. Home birth under any circumstances is safer and more successful than hospital birth, by a six-to-one ratio. That is, the death rate is six times higher in hospitals than at home, regardless of conditions.. Male doctors' intellect has interfered with women's intelligence and in effect, destroyed a major segment of their lives.
Who would invest in durability? Only the family cares.
Dear Future Work My earlier postings got several private responses. I assume they don't want to be quoted so I include only the questions sent by one provcative person and my answers. Consider... 1; You do not define the nature of the durable goods that will enable unearned income for all, nor the style of economy that would develop. 2; the difference between welfare and shareholders income is qualititative in that the shareholder has to intelligently invest while the welfare recipient is a passive party. If you argue that the intelligent investor will ultimately invest in some system which maintains a high level of general welfare and durable goods with low levels of impact, then i agree completely. How then are decisions to be made, just how is the new society to compete with and superseed the old? *** Inheritance of physical assets is the kind of unearned income provided by a durable economy. Significant durability will make such inheritance the main source of wealth. But, it takes generations before durability can pay off. That means that short-term speculators will never invest in durability. They used to have a bad reputation. Today, propaganda has made bandits and gamblers into heroes. Still we wonder, who will invest in a future that uses durability? Only the family will do it, and not for money! They will do it for love, because only the family has the willing connections of gratitude and stewardship between generations that could form the motivation for real planning. But this system has failed because the bandits and speculators have always had an eye on the family farm, the family house, the family business. And, those with NO CONSCIENCE, have an advantage in that they are willing to do anything. And, they probably don't waste much time thinking about it like an honest person would. With government on their side it has been easy for the speculators and the monopoly bandits to take advantage of the family. The family has helped in its own disintegration with it's simple honesty and lack of sophistication. The family has lost the farm due to the lack of education and legal resources, due to the separation of job relocation, due to market cycles and manipulation, and due to the ideology of personal greed. Today the speculator stands in the sun claming to be an important and useful figure. Obscenity without sex. Inheritance is the purview of the family and the government; the market could care less! The family can make durable conservation possible because the family is interested in love, rather than money. Government help is required to build a durable sustainable society, and that will require a government that is not for sale. It is now possible to keep track of the money, and make that trail very public, for the lifetime of the politicians and their families. Once the government starts to serve the people instead of the business-persons who bought your mind and your politicians, then real education and finance will make the transition to a sustainable economy possible. Education of the ownership/inheritance concept for families and low-interest long-term investments will make the payments on solar houses cheaper than you gas bill. The bean-counters can rest easy. It all adds up unless someone is on the take! Speculators, bandits, and other short-term thinkers and hyper-active bean-counters should not be allowed to run the country. The whole industrial world knows that good government can't be run like a business or by people who are interested in personal wealth without inviting total corruption. With education and support from banks (read govt. controlled banks, as now), and zero tax on wealth held for use the family can become sustainable by living within their means. And, it's also important to tax speculators and holders of vast wealth who's income is beyond their capacity to spend it on their family's consumption, and too great for the mature durable economy to absorb as investments. And, don't leave out control and scorn for bean-speculators/market-zombies. Anti-government/ pro-market ideology is the main obstacle thought on our little world, recently overtaking religion and superstition as the dominant disabling mind-infection. As for question number two... What sign do we have that past investments have been intelligent or have even been investments? Most trades on the stock market are merely exchanges of existing assets, thus most transactions are speculation; not investment. Intelligent investment doesn't even come into play. Even the p/e ratio is ignored my todays bubble traders. A sad lot for anyone to propose as being proper leaders or intelligent investors. Barry http://home.earthlink.net/~durable
on some of Wes Burt's stuff
This is a partial reply to Wes Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED] whose material a still have a lot of trouble with. Perhaps it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Burt, but I still find most of what you write incomprehensible. However there is at least a part of one sentence that I think I understand enough to disagree with: ... my reason for hammering on this need for a widely accepted graphical frame of reference capable of intergrating the many lines of inquiry leading to Globalization and the Good Society. I sometimes use graphs or charts myself and generally prefer to see some in any technical material I read. But they can be misleading, sometimes intentionally. I can't help but wonder if you like such diagrams because they are useful means of communication, or because they are misleadingly biased towards your own theory. Not knowing exactly what your theory is, I have trouble assessing the diagrams you are so dependent on. But your sentence does include the expression "widely accepted" which sounds appealing. Is there any chance that the "graphical frame of reference" you mentioned will be widely accepted? Having looked over your various diagrams I have to say "NO" because the "graphical frame of reference" seems to be hopelessly entanged with your particular theory. To be widely accepted as a means of communicating ideas a graphical representation has to be capable of expressing all the other theories people have. Could someone with a very different theory use a diagram like yours to present it? Probably not. Perhaps you should make the attempt yourself to represent the theories of others in the framework you prefer. Better yet, represent your theory and the theories of others in ANY frame of reference, so they are at least comparable. Generally a theory carries along with it some facts, or supposed facts. I'd like to know what facts your theory depends on. You mention, for example, the interest on the national debt, and then go on to treat it as a constant percentage of the debt (over time). Is that a fair assumption, a reasonable simplification of reality, or is it something your theory depends on? Suppose the interest rate was declining each year, instead of remaining constant -- would that make your theory less plausible, leave it invariant, or make it even more likely to be right? I'd like to know that about ALL the numbers you quote. In other words, I'd like some kind of sensitivity analysis done. I am quite willing to do that analysis for you, if I can figure out what you are trying to say. That would be easier if you could express your views in equations instead of diagrams. I suppose I could just look at the lines on the diagrams and convert them to equations myself, but I'm not completely sure what all the lines represent. (And that is AFTER having read your explanation of what the diagrams and the lines on them represent). You characterize your complicated argument as "sixth grade arithmetic". I remember getting an "A" is sixth grade arithmetic, and I've done a lot of math since then, yet I find your argument hard to follow. Maybe a bit of ninth grade algebra would help. I'm quite willing to work with you in this matter, but I still can't follow what you are saying. Perhaps someone else on one of these mailing lists could explain things to me. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind trying one more time, Mr. Burt. It may be yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black, but I'd strongly recommend: --- don't quote what anybody says about anything, just state your views --- use short sentences and short paragraphs --- say what you are going to say, then say it, then say what you said --- clearly distinguish premises from conclusions. I break all of those rules quite often myself, but usually end up regreting it. Clarity is worth the extra trouble it takes. There are a few lines I think I understand in your last paragraph: A solution of the global problematic may be closer than we realize. If the Clinton administration's "Earned Income Tax Credit" and the Blair administration's "Working Families Tax Credit" should happen to be implemented at anything above 20% of each country's per capita GNP ... ... the other nations would soon follow suite, just to remain competitive. Almost everyone else I know thinks that such schemes to divert money to the less fortunate people in a country will make that country LESS competitive. Some countries (my own, for example, Canada) find that an acceptable trade-off, within reason. Others, particularly the ones who happen to have surging economies these days, are much more reluctant to put their prosperity at risk. That is usually justified by the old "trickle-down" argument that the poor people in a more economically-successful country are better off than those in a kinder but less successful one. They might have a point there, I don't know. I
y2kaos
I just now attempted to send a message to my own mailing list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and got a very nasty bounce message because the Esosoft mailing-list host software (their enhanced version of majordomo) will not accept messages from the 21st century. That seems terribly unfair to us time travellers, so I've set the computer's clock back to 1999, again. How long it will stay there, I don't know.I see the futurework list software accepted the message from the future without complaint. Having reset the date, I now have to go to all my working directories (folders, w95 calls them) and change the date on any files created since w95 last shot me into the future. If anyone else has this problem I do have a piece of software to do the basic date change. I'd offer to put that up on the SocialTechnology FTP site, but that is not currently working because of trouble with it's commercial host, who is happier to accept payments than problem reports. I'll mail it out to anyone who asks. dpw Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
Re: y2k bug urgent request
REH wrote: We all notice the immense contradiction between people greedily taking everything they can, declaring that everyone is only responsible to themselves while building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" is more the rule than their hyper individuality. For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept" over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft dumbware they are using. They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did from the start. M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part -- quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard" (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates calling the shots. Dump the M$ crap and get yourself REAL software! Chris ___ "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981 [just like 8 characters for filenames...]
Re: y2k bug urgent request
Christoph Reuss wrote: REH wrote: We all notice the immense contradiction between people greedily taking everything they can, declaring that everyone is only responsible to themselves while building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" is more the rule than their hyper individuality. For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept" over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft dumbware they are using. Hi Chris, Most of the people that I talk to about this says much the same about Gates and Micro-soft. However, for the record I was not speaking of Gates only but the Libertarian Party cell that inhabits almost all of silicone valley. They fund anti community initiatives all over the country and one of their crew just did in fair minority hiring practices in California as "socialist." Generally they are followers of Ayn Rand and follow the new term of "Dynamists" as opposed to the rest of us which they have coined "Stasists".Actually their history is confused and their philosophy is a mongrel mix of romantic and classical 19th century artistic cultural styles. The mix shows that they understand neither. I suspect that the mix of digital mechanics that they use in programming really is what they say, an ignorant mistake based upon a two dimensional view of the world. Their scholar's think tank is funded by that nutty Koch family from Kansas and calls itself the Cato Institute which shows how the media will kiss any body part that smells of money. The Internet was the government's invention based upon a need for scientists to communicate, or so the myth goes. I suspect that they all had something to do with it, Al Gore, Gates, the Army Band and all of the other connected folks. My point was how they are rabidly anti community (Gore excepted) in their politics and how that would make them truly awful when trying to work from network integrated systems when they don't believe in them. The key word is "believe."I would call this a giant double bind for such conflicted folks. They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did from the start. On the other hand it could be just money and built in obsolescence. Something that has been done often in the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. The PC is a lot cheaper than an automobile. M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part -- quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard" (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates calling the shots. You mean mass production which is the only productive way togo. But you are confusing the dynamics of the net with the PC itself. My point is still that they have to inhabit the role of the "Trickster" with such a massive commune like entity as the Internet. It is literally vulnerable to anyone. Imagine what it would be like for everyone to be able to change the traffic lights in New York's traffic grid simply by running the clock forward on their car and you get the linkage problem. The only way I can see the net working is if there is standardization of structure with individuation of the process.Those who still think like process when they are responsible for structure are like someone walking into another linguistic culture and speaking only their own language while demanding that the others grow up and speak his language which doesn't fit their culture or personal lives. Dump the M$ crap and get yourself REAL software! Chris This all reminds me of the Cherokee word for automobile, obviously of recent invention. It is dicktulena. If you say the word enough you will get the image of some drunk dick driving down a two lane road, which means to us "watch out!" I'm sure we could come up with some comparable word for this beast. REH ___ "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981 [just like 8 characters for filenames...]
Re: y2k bug urgent request
-- Hi Ray, Chris, et al, I am a twenty seven year resident of Sillycon Valley and one of those technologists responsible for the Y2K problems. Please don't suggest that all SV residents are followers of those vocal Libertarians that seem to have become the spokespersons of many of the high tech folks here. Some of us (a few at least) are futurework types. First, much of the Y2k difficulties will come from embedded microchips buried in products most of us don't think of as computers. Examples are traffic lights, medical and other scientific equipment and industrial control systems such as safety systems on refineries and power generators. The reason that these systems are more likely to go bad is that, in many cases, there is no way to "fix" them short of replacement. But there is another, difficult problem, that of legacy systems running COBOL programs on main frames. Can't blame Big Bill for that either. Most major computer systems will probably fair pretty well. The ones that scare me are the computers in shops and factories that have no one who understands them available in-house. This includes many smaller companies in this country and even more in countries with a less well developed software industry and less resources to effect a fix. Not to let Gates off the hook. His company produces some of the most bloated, inefficient programs around and so should have found a way to avoid the Y2K problem long ago. They did copy so much of Apple's user interface, they could have looked a little deeper for additional guidance. In my case, if any of my software is Y2K buggy, it was not intentional. It was simply not paying attention. Usually this was because I could not believe that code I wrote in the '80s would still be around in '99 and later. Of course it would have been nice if the product specs I worked to had said to assure Y2K compatibility, but my customers didn't have that foresight either. So there is a lot of blame to spread around. dennis Christoph Reuss wrote: REH wrote: We all notice the immense contradiction between people greedily taking everything they can, declaring that everyone is only responsible to themselves while building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" is more the rule than their hyper individuality. For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept" over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft dumbware they are using. Hi Chris, [snip] They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did from the start. On the other hand it could be just money and built in obsolescence. Something that has been done often in the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. The PC is a lot cheaper than an automobile. [snip] REH ___ "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981 [just like 8 characters for filenames...]
