AOL Economy

[Tom Kelsall]

(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)

OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?

What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.

For instance:-

"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".

It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)

And then:-

"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".

Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.

This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!

*walks off muttering and waving arms about*

[Mark Erikson]

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?
What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.
For instance:-
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".
It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)
And then:-
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!
*walks off muttering and waving arms about*

Ah, well, I could make a bunch of arguments, and here they are:

The AoL economy was founded on the One Power, a raw material that was
infinite and free.

The AoL was a utopia. Capitalism and communism appeared to have a
loving relationship in the AoL. I'm pretty sure there's never been an
actual utopia with an economy we can study at any point in human
history.

And finally...what? _This_ is the worst aspect of Jordan's writing.
This is something I haven't even thought about. The AoL has been
painted with such broad strokes that Jordan can pretty much get away
with whatever he likes.

And, this is stuff from the Guide, which everybody takes with a grain
of salt anyway. RJ didn't write it, and those particular passages
really smack of filler text which are trying to get across a general
utopian feeling, rather than detail an actual economic process.

In short, either quit reading the books, or sack up and deal with it.

-Mark Erikson

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Mark Erikson

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?
What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.
For instance:-
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".
It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)
And then:-
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!
*walks off muttering and waving arms about*

The AoL economy was founded on the One Power, a raw material that was
infinite and free.
The AoL was a utopia. Capitalism and communism appeared to have a
loving relationship in the AoL. I'm pretty sure there's never been an
actual utopia with an economy we can study at any point in human
history.
And finally...what? _This_ is the worst aspect of Jordan's writing.
This is something I haven't even thought about. The AoL has been
painted with such broad strokes that Jordan can pretty much get away
with whatever he likes.
And, this is stuff from the Guide, which everybody takes with a grain
of salt anyway. RJ didn't write it, and those particular passages
really smack of filler text which are trying to get across a general
utopian feeling, rather than detail an actual economic process.

I assume that RJ would have had to sign off on the information in the guide
before it could be published.

[steveo]

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?
What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.
For instance:-
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".
It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)
And then:-
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!
*walks off muttering and waving arms about*

Clearly it is a socialist economy of some sort. Think Star Trek TNG. I see
the two as being identical.

steveo

[Tim Bruening]

Post by steveo

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?
What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.
For instance:-
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".
It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)
And then:-
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!
*walks off muttering and waving arms about*

Clearly it is a socialist economy of some sort. Think Star Trek TNG. I see
the two as being identical.

What differences would the One Power make in the Star Trek series? Kirk and
Spock would not need to say "Beam us up Scotty". They could simply Travel back
up to the Enterprise.

"Red Alert! Anti Traveling Wards and Shield Wards Up! Hurl Fireballs At The
Klingons At Will!".

[Jasper Janssen]

Post by Tom Kelsall
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.

Of course, that's only true inasmuch as 'destitute' is relative. It's not
that hard to assure everyone[1] of a house and food, but providing them
with cars and TVs is harder.


Jasper

[1] Except, of course, the people that don't exist, like illegal
immigrants (none, in the AoL worldstate) and the homeless.

[Frederick Hurley]

Post by Tom Kelsall
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap. Why
on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!

Um, perhaps you missed the part where large numbers of people can use
magic? I grant that the economic system still leaves a bit to be
desired in the area of plausibility, but there's also a very big device
that causes one to suspend disbelief. How can their be hunger when we
can alter the weather to cause food to grow, wherever we want?

Also, our glimpses of the Age of Legends come mostly from recollections
of residents of that age who no longer enjoy the advanced luxuries.
Their recollections therefore might be considered questionable.

[mk]

Post by Frederick Hurley

Post by Tom Kelsall
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap. Why
on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!

Um, perhaps you missed the part where large numbers of people can use
magic? I grant that the economic system still leaves a bit to be
desired in the area of plausibility, but there's also a very big device
that causes one to suspend disbelief. How can their be hunger when we
can alter the weather to cause food to grow, wherever we want?
Also, our glimpses of the Age of Legends come mostly from recollections
of residents of that age who no longer enjoy the advanced luxuries.
Their recollections therefore might be considered questionable.

It also probably helped that everyone respected and admired the servant
class (the Aiel) and no one took advantage of them (until the Breaking
began, anyway).

[Dan Weiner]

*snip rant*

Read Heinlein's "For Us, The Living".

[Michael Hoye]

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?

And military logistics, and ecosystems, and...

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Michael Hoye

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?

And military logistics, and ecosystems, and...

With Traveling, military logistics become much easier. I have wondered
how in the world elephants survived the Breaking.

[Bill]

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?
What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.
For instance:-
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".
It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)
And then:-
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!
*walks off muttering and waving arms about*

I suppose Jordan isn't a Marxist.

I'm not either.

In the real world, with no magic, it is entirely possible for
the poorest to have plenty of material goods and services.

And the richest have even more. I certainly hope for a future
time in which that is true. The poor have plenty of food, shelter,
electronic entertainment and the like.

What will the rich buy? Hard to know. But there are some things
that it would be likely that only the rich could afford. Personal
servants, for example. Beach front property would be another.
(Assuming such things are valued.)

If we consider the development of the wealthy countries of the west,
we have moved from a situation in which the majority lived in
single roomed hovels and mostly ate grain to a situation
in which the majority of the poor have automobiles, live in homes with
at least one room per person, central air conditioning, televisions,
etc.

"Financial economies" (assuming that is a market economy) don't
require material privation of anyone. They are unlikely to generate
equality, but they are perfectly consistent with very high real
wages--much higher than today. That people with material plenty would
become less interested in obtaining material goods is plausible, but
not
necessary, of course. If that were true, those who were so concerned
might well be able to obtain wealth "easily."

Suppose most people retired after 10 years, worked three day weeks and
took five month vacations during their working lives. Becoming several
times more wealthy than average would be "easy" if you wanted. You
would have to be a "grind" however.

[Peter Reid]

Post by Bill
In the real world, with no magic, it is entirely possible for
the poorest to have plenty of material goods and services.

Not necessarily, see below

<snip>

Post by Bill
If we consider the development of the wealthy countries of the west,
we have moved from a situation in which the majority lived in
single roomed hovels and mostly ate grain to a situation
in which the majority of the poor have automobiles, live in homes with
at least one room per person, central air conditioning, televisions,
etc.

Well, yes...but mainly by exploiting the nations around us. _Worldwide_
this would be impossible to do. And note that even in North America we
have poor people who starve on our very own streets.

[Bill]

Post by Peter Reid

Post by Bill
In the real world, with no magic, it is entirely possible for
the poorest to have plenty of material goods and services.

Not necessarily, see below
<snip>

Post by Bill
If we consider the development of the wealthy countries of the west,
we have moved from a situation in which the majority lived in
single roomed hovels and mostly ate grain to a situation
in which the majority of the poor have automobiles, live in homes with
at least one room per person, central air conditioning, televisions,
etc.

Well, yes...but mainly by exploiting the nations around us. _Worldwide_
this would be impossible to do. And note that even in North America we
have poor people who starve on our very own streets.
--
Peter Reid

I don't agree that the high material standards of living in the West
are caused by lower standards of living in other parts of the world.
High standards of living could be generated world wide.

There is no need for people to starve in the street in the West. Even
the least productive could be employed producing goods and services
more than sufficient for their survival--say, at a standard of living
typical of Mexico or the U.S. in 1950. Well, maybe the insane
couldn't manage even that, but nearly all of them.

High per capita incomes are due to high labor productivity which is due
to sophisticated technology. All that is necessary is to spread the
use of that technology across the world, increasing labor productivity
across the world and raising material standards of living for all.

Unfortunately, the widespread acceptance of anti-market ideology--the
notion that the only way for the poor to get ahead is price fixing or
punitive taxation, or worse, attempts at central planning, interfers
with this possibility. Well, the problem of the local politicians
stealing whatever local entrepreneurs manage to produce is probably a
more fundamental problem, but socialist ideology hardly helps matters.

There is a reason why nearly all economists in the U.S. support a
market economy. We have good reason to not believe that it involves
enriching people in the U.S. at the expense of people overseas any more
than it involves enriching a few in the U.S. at the expense of the
many. Marxism, including the Leninist varient was no more correct in
its analysis of a market economic system than in their proposed
alternative.

[Tom Kelsall]

On 13 Sep 2005 17:03:34 -0700, the keys started rattling, and "Bill"

Post by Bill
We have good reason to not believe that it involves
[...] enriching a few in the U.S. at the expense of the
many.

Then how do you explain the existence of both Bill Gates and people
like him, and at the same time, the people who ARE hungry on the
streets? Surely you don't believe that the people on the streets all
choose to be there?

[Zdenek Dvorak]

Hello,

Post by Tom Kelsall
On 13 Sep 2005 17:03:34 -0700, the keys started rattling, and "Bill"

Post by Bill
We have good reason to not believe that it involves
[...] enriching a few in the U.S. at the expense of the
many.

Then how do you explain the existence of both Bill Gates and people
like him, and at the same time, the people who ARE hungry on the
streets? Surely you don't believe that the people on the streets all
choose to be there?

he only said that existence of Bill Gates does not cause existence of
homeless people. Your question is like asking how do you explain
existence of hummingbirds and sloths at the same time.

And actually, I tend to believe that many of people who are "hungry on
the streets" are there because of their lack of interest in changing
this.

Zdenek

[steveo]

Post by Tom Kelsall
On 13 Sep 2005 17:03:34 -0700, the keys started rattling, and "Bill"

Post by Bill
We have good reason to not believe that it involves
[...] enriching a few in the U.S. at the expense of the
many.

Then how do you explain the existence of both Bill Gates and people
like him, and at the same time, the people who ARE hungry on the
streets? Surely you don't believe that the people on the streets all
choose to be there?

There is no reason for anyone in the US to go hungry. There are myriad
Federal, State, Local, and charitable programs that offer food, shelter,
clothing, education and more to people who apply. Those who do not take
advantage of these offers are either uninformed, stupid, lazy, or suffer
from mental disease.

Those who have mental disorders should be helped by our Human Services
agencies to take advantage of these services. We should develop a more
effective campaign to reach those who haven't learned about these
opportunities. Everyone else can enjoy the life they have chosen, as far as
I am concerned.

There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity. The poor here have (if they are
able and/or willing) the necessities given to them. Not Top Ramen and
ripped tee shirts, but good quality stuff. The poor in Bangladesh die from
a lack of food or basic medical services. Redistribute that wealth and what
you get is what has happened in Tanzania over the past few years. Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

There is the tragedy of children born to worthless pieces of garbage
masquerading as human beings. These children should be taken away
immediately and placed in high quality homes until permanent arrangements
can be made for them to be part of a real family.

There is the structure of a welfare system that does not support AND
nurture. Supporting without nurturing (i.e. educating/training people to
eventually become self-sustaining, contributing members of society) keeps
people poor. This is a bad policy, and should be changed.

Obviously, there is room for improvement. We have the funds already to do
much more than we currently are. We just aren't using them wisely.

steveo

[Tom Kelsall]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:28:17 -0700, the keys started rattling, and

Post by Tom Kelsall
On 13 Sep 2005 17:03:34 -0700, the keys started rattling, and "Bill"

<gratuitous snippage>
There is the structure of a welfare system that does not support AND
nurture. Supporting without nurturing (i.e. educating/training people to
eventually become self-sustaining, contributing members of society) keeps
people poor. This is a bad policy, and should be changed.
steveo

Buy a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and
he'll feed himself for life.

However, I really don't believe that the thousands of poor people in
US inner cities who are either homeless or living crappy nasty lives
are all CHOOSING those lives. I accept that some of them have, either
conciously or through omission, chosen that path; but not all of them.
Maybe they're unaware of these "options" they have? Maybe they're in
the thrall of some undesirable character who's KEEPING them where they
are? We shouldn't judge all these people's situations.

[steveo]

Post by Tom Kelsall
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:28:17 -0700, the keys started rattling, and

Post by Tom Kelsall
On 13 Sep 2005 17:03:34 -0700, the keys started rattling, and "Bill"

<gratuitous snippage>
There is the structure of a welfare system that does not support AND
nurture. Supporting without nurturing (i.e. educating/training people to
eventually become self-sustaining, contributing members of society) keeps
people poor. This is a bad policy, and should be changed.
steveo

Buy a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and
he'll feed himself for life.
However, I really don't believe that the thousands of poor people in
US inner cities who are either homeless or living crappy nasty lives
are all CHOOSING those lives. I accept that some of them have, either
conciously or through omission, chosen that path; but not all of them.
Maybe they're unaware of these "options" they have? Maybe they're in
the thrall of some undesirable character who's KEEPING them where they
are? We shouldn't judge all these people's situations.

I specifically mentioned that a better job should be done in disseminating
knowledge about these programs. For those who are being kept down by
illegal means (e.g. underage girls being used for prostitutes), I think that
a situation like that is implicitly an exception, because my whole argument
is based on choice, which the person in this situation wouldn't have.
That's also why I went out of the way to talk about people with mental
disorders.

The people who live a life of hunger and homelessness, excepting the people
and cases I have already mentioned, do it from choice.

As for judging, when did using judgment get such a bad rap? Oh, right, it
was the 1960s. How the heck can we make an informed decision without
carefully evaluating all the information available to us, deciding which is
important (judging its accuracy, validity, and relevance), and then choosing
a course of action (judging which is the most effective route to the desired
outcome [judged by morals and ethics held])?

Condemnation is not the same thing as judgment. Even though I might judge
that these people are lazy and/or stupid for the most part, that does not
mean that I think they should all be killed or that they are evil people.
It just means that if I wish to deal with them, then I should do so at a
level that is simple and clear and relates to their sensibilities and goals.
Personally, I believe that charity and compassion are good things, and so I
as an individual and we as a society should work to improve the lot of the
poor (not "less fortunate," which is PC for those who avoided the
responsibility and opportunity of America to make yourself greater than you
were). These are judgments I have made.

steveo

[James Bremner]

Post by Tom Kelsall
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:28:17 -0700, the keys started rattling, and

Post by Tom Kelsall
On 13 Sep 2005 17:03:34 -0700, the keys started rattling, and "Bill"

<gratuitous snippage>
There is the structure of a welfare system that does not support AND
nurture. Supporting without nurturing (i.e. educating/training people to
eventually become self-sustaining, contributing members of society) keeps
people poor. This is a bad policy, and should be changed.
steveo

Buy a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and

He'll spend all day drinking beer on a boat while his wife and kids
starve to death.

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for the night. Set the bastard
on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

[Mike Kozlowski]

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use. This
is a good reason to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

Post by steveo
There is the tragedy of children born to worthless pieces of garbage
masquerading as human beings. These children should be taken away
immediately and placed in high quality homes until permanent arrangements
can be made for them to be part of a real family.

Alas, it's too late to help Jenna Bush now.

[Zdenek Dvorak]

Hello,

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use. This
is a good reason to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

you know, we have tried it. During comunist times, everyone had
basically the same (except for a few people in who controled everything,
of course). We had no homeless people. We had no unemployment. And
nobody had motivation to do anything, which is basically why the things
collapsed after some time (regardless of the idealist's speaches about
freedom, the comunist regime collapsed purely for economical reasons).

Zdenek

[Karl-Johan Noren]

Post by Zdenek Dvorak

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there
sure is. I wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that
concentration of wealth has enabled the development of an economy
that grows every year, raising everyone's absolute level of
prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Well, he has a point, in that you need a certain concentration
of wealth in order to generate capital. However, this can be
achieved in many different ways. Large infrastructure projects
(like the US highways) usually uses those novel concepts of
"taxes" and "government".

Post by Zdenek Dvorak

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
Money that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous
crap, and is not used to generate more wealth. I know I would
blow a few million on "fun" if I won the lottery. If I were
wiser, then I would invest it all so as to keep my new-found
wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use. This
is a good reason to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

I think this can be argued two ways. For personal use, after
some point things just get silly, and a more even distribution
is called for. For large capital investments, more is usually
better.

But I agree on that it's possible to waste money on frivolous
crap no matter where it comes from.

Post by Zdenek Dvorak
you know, we have tried it. During comunist times, everyone had
basically the same (except for a few people in who controled everything,
of course). We had no homeless people. We had no unemployment. And
nobody had motivation to do anything, which is basically why the things
collapsed after some time (regardless of the idealist's speaches about
freedom, the comunist regime collapsed purely for economical reasons).

One word: Stakhanovitches.

Yes, I agree that the Soviet Union collapsed due to economical
reasons, but to say this invalidates Koz's points is just stupid,
especially since the Soviet Union in many ways was a state-controlled
copy of a large corporation (the Taylor studies were much studied and
admired there, for a long time, eg). Note that "more even" is not
equal "same amount to everyone" (not that the Soviet Union did that
either).

Anyway, me agreeing with Kozlowski. Whodathunkit.

[steveo]

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by Zdenek Dvorak

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there
sure is. I wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that
concentration of wealth has enabled the development of an economy
that grows every year, raising everyone's absolute level of
prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Well, he has a point, in that you need a certain concentration
of wealth in order to generate capital. However, this can be
achieved in many different ways. Large infrastructure projects
(like the US highways) usually uses those novel concepts of
"taxes" and "government".

Government is the ONLY was to ammase enough capital for essential, but
non-revenue (or insufficient revenue) generating facilities. I like sewage
systems and water systems, and freeways, and fire departments, and such.
These types of projects are exactly what government is for.

For commercial endevours, however, you need to amass the capital in the
hands of a provate entity.

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by Zdenek Dvorak

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
Money that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous
crap, and is not used to generate more wealth. I know I would
blow a few million on "fun" if I won the lottery. If I were
wiser, then I would invest it all so as to keep my new-found
wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use. This
is a good reason to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

I think this can be argued two ways. For personal use, after
some point things just get silly, and a more even distribution
is called for. For large capital investments, more is usually
better.
But I agree on that it's possible to waste money on frivolous
crap no matter where it comes from.

Post by Zdenek Dvorak
you know, we have tried it. During comunist times, everyone had
basically the same (except for a few people in who controled everything,
of course). We had no homeless people. We had no unemployment. And
nobody had motivation to do anything, which is basically why the things
collapsed after some time (regardless of the idealist's speaches about
freedom, the comunist regime collapsed purely for economical reasons).

One word: Stakhanovitches.
Yes, I agree that the Soviet Union collapsed due to economical
reasons, but to say this invalidates Koz's points is just stupid,
especially since the Soviet Union in many ways was a state-controlled
copy of a large corporation (the Taylor studies were much studied and
admired there, for a long time, eg). Note that "more even" is not
equal "same amount to everyone" (not that the Soviet Union did that
either).

So would that make Stalin's purges "downsizing?"

Seriously? I did not know that. It seems clear that any corporation trying
to run itself like the USSR did would be bound to fail. There is a reason
that the head of R&D doesn't get paid the same as the mail boy or the
janitor.

steveo

[Karl-Johan Noren]

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there
sure is. I wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that
concentration of wealth has enabled the development of an economy
that grows every year, raising everyone's absolute level of
prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Well, he has a point, in that you need a certain concentration
of wealth in order to generate capital. However, this can be
achieved in many different ways. Large infrastructure projects
(like the US highways) usually uses those novel concepts of
"taxes" and "government".

Government is the ONLY was to ammase enough capital for essential, but
non-revenue (or insufficient revenue) generating facilities. I like sewage
systems and water systems, and freeways, and fire departments, and such.
These types of projects are exactly what government is for.
For commercial endevours, however, you need to amass the capital in the
hands of a provate entity.

Define "commercial".

Take housing. In Sweden we have a mix between self-ownership,
cooperatives, businesses and the local governments building
and maintaining houses. Only one of those is commercial, the
rest not.

Also, you might easily make a case that the US interstate is
among the largest revenue-generating systems in the world -
simply in its effects on the rest of the economy.

[ snip ]

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Yes, I agree that the Soviet Union collapsed due to economical
reasons, but to say this invalidates Koz's points is just stupid,
especially since the Soviet Union in many ways was a state-controlled
copy of a large corporation (the Taylor studies were much studied and
admired there, for a long time, eg). Note that "more even" is not
equal "same amount to everyone" (not that the Soviet Union did that
either).

So would that make Stalin's purges "downsizing?"

No. It does bear some resemblance to Pinkerton or KKK goons
assaulting or killing union activists or random workers, though.

Post by steveo
Seriously? I did not know that. It seems clear that any corporation trying
to run itself like the USSR did would be bound to fail. There is a reason
that the head of R&D doesn't get paid the same as the mail boy or the
janitor.

The Soviet Union _never_ enforced equal wages for everyone, I
even doubt they had equal wages for equal work.

The basic trouble is, once you reach a certain size old solutions
often become unworkable. The way you can plan, say, automobile
production and attendant things doesn't scale when you try to
encompass the economy as a whole.

[steveo]

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there
sure is. I wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that
concentration of wealth has enabled the development of an economy
that grows every year, raising everyone's absolute level of
prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Well, he has a point, in that you need a certain concentration
of wealth in order to generate capital. However, this can be
achieved in many different ways. Large infrastructure projects
(like the US highways) usually uses those novel concepts of
"taxes" and "government".

Government is the ONLY was to ammase enough capital for essential, but
non-revenue (or insufficient revenue) generating facilities. I like sewage
systems and water systems, and freeways, and fire departments, and such.
These types of projects are exactly what government is for.
For commercial endevours, however, you need to amass the capital in the
hands of a provate entity.

Define "commercial".

I was using the term loosely to mean a profit-making enterprise.

[TAN] Wow, I guess I rely on my spell-checker correctly interpreting my
meaning too heavily. Re-reading my post is awful. Sorry.

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Take housing. In Sweden we have a mix between self-ownership,
cooperatives, businesses and the local governments building
and maintaining houses. Only one of those is commercial, the
rest not.

Sweden, based on the little I know, seems to have had unusal success in
applying collectivist practices. Based on my experience here in the US,
whenever a government involves itself in a profit-making enterprise, it
bungles it badly. There are myriad causes for this bungling, but what I see
as the primary relevant one here is that government is beholden to the
people who got them into office (pressure groups and, yes, actual voters),
while corporations answer to stock-holders who are much less tolerant of
failure or delay.

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Also, you might easily make a case that the US interstate is
among the largest revenue-generating systems in the world -
simply in its effects on the rest of the economy.

Without a doubt! But it doesn't generate direct revenues. It is percicely
this fact that makes this appropriate for government and inappropriate for
business. Government is most successful in helping the economy to grow when
it sets the stage for others to perform well, like when it builds a port, or
gives loans for railroad construction, or negotiates favorable trade terms
with foreign powers.

<snip>

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
The basic trouble is, once you reach a certain size old solutions
often become unworkable. The way you can plan, say, automobile
production and attendant things doesn't scale when you try to
encompass the economy as a whole.

Good insight. Is that because the models are too simple at this point, do
you think, or is the inherent element of chaos just too difficult to control
and manage?

steveo

[Karl-Johan Noren]

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo
For commercial endevours, however, you need to amass the capital in the
hands of a provate entity.

Define "commercial".

I was using the term loosely to mean a profit-making enterprise.

Ah, but you still don't need a private entity. There are plenty
of profit-making government-owned or -started companies.

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Take housing. In Sweden we have a mix between self-ownership,
cooperatives, businesses and the local governments building
and maintaining houses. Only one of those is commercial, the
rest not.

Sweden, based on the little I know, seems to have had unusal success in
applying collectivist practices. Based on my experience here in the US,
whenever a government involves itself in a profit-making enterprise, it
bungles it badly. There are myriad causes for this bungling, but what I see
as the primary relevant one here is that government is beholden to the
people who got them into office (pressure groups and, yes, actual voters),
while corporations answer to stock-holders who are much less tolerant of
failure or delay.

Given Sweden, I can't say government-owned companies do any better
or worse than privately owned ones, and I think that is true in
the US as well. What might differ is the different visibility,
and biases among the observers.

Anyway, a short-term profit-making view (like many major
stockholders have today) is easily among the most detrimental
things a company can get stuck with.

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Also, you might easily make a case that the US interstate is
among the largest revenue-generating systems in the world -
simply in its effects on the rest of the economy.

Without a doubt! But it doesn't generate direct revenues.

It could easily do so, in the form of road tolls. It would
at the same time lessen part of its positive impact on the
economy as a whole, but not necessarily to a large degree.

Post by steveo
It is percicely
this fact that makes this appropriate for government and inappropriate for
business. Government is most successful in helping the economy to grow when
it sets the stage for others to perform well, like when it builds a port, or
gives loans for railroad construction, or negotiates favorable trade terms
with foreign powers.

Agreed, however, I'd say the most important contribution the
government can do to the economy is ensure if not a level,
at least a fair playing-field. No special rules for the big
boys.

This goes for international trade as well. I have nothing
against Tanzania having import levies in order to protect
their industry and agriculture - but the USA or Sweden should
certainly don't have them, unless they can give damned good
reasons.

[ the Soviet Union's economic troubles ]

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
The basic trouble is, once you reach a certain size old solutions
often become unworkable. The way you can plan, say, automobile
production and attendant things doesn't scale when you try to
encompass the economy as a whole.

Good insight. Is that because the models are too simple at this point, do
you think, or is the inherent element of chaos just too difficult to control
and manage?

Both, I'd say, but mostly the latter.

[steveo]

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo
For commercial endevours, however, you need to amass the capital in the
hands of a provate entity.

Define "commercial".

I was using the term loosely to mean a profit-making enterprise.

Ah, but you still don't need a private entity. There are plenty
of profit-making government-owned or -started companies.

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Take housing. In Sweden we have a mix between self-ownership,
cooperatives, businesses and the local governments building
and maintaining houses. Only one of those is commercial, the
rest not.

Sweden, based on the little I know, seems to have had unusal success in
applying collectivist practices. Based on my experience here in the US,
whenever a government involves itself in a profit-making enterprise, it
bungles it badly. There are myriad causes for this bungling, but what I see
as the primary relevant one here is that government is beholden to the
people who got them into office (pressure groups and, yes, actual voters),
while corporations answer to stock-holders who are much less tolerant of
failure or delay.

Given Sweden, I can't say government-owned companies do any better
or worse than privately owned ones, and I think that is true in
the US as well. What might differ is the different visibility,
and biases among the observers.
Anyway, a short-term profit-making view (like many major
stockholders have today) is easily among the most detrimental
things a company can get stuck with.

True. It ("short-term profit-making view") is a symptom of a bigger issue
in humankind: apathy. When people don't care about what is going to happen
to themselves, their families, their nations, their world a year from now,
how could we expect otherwise?

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Also, you might easily make a case that the US interstate is
among the largest revenue-generating systems in the world -
simply in its effects on the rest of the economy.

Without a doubt! But it doesn't generate direct revenues.

It could easily do so, in the form of road tolls. It would
at the same time lessen part of its positive impact on the
economy as a whole, but not necessarily to a large degree.

The impact would, in my opinion, actually be POSITIVE, but only IF total
taxes were reduced by exactly the amount that currently funds the entire
transportation network and the fees charged covered exactly the costs of
maintaining and upgrading the transportation network. This would reduce
pollution (people are more contientious when they have to pay
'out-of-pocket,' which would reduce healthcare costs. Thus, there would be
less need for roads or expansion of existing roads, saving more. With fewer
roads, population density goes up, saving in costs for public works (smaller
coverage areas improve efficiency of use) and increase the amount of
unspoiled land (or enable the rehabilitation of sprawled lands).

It is the answer to all of our prayers! Well, no, but it would be a good
thing. However, what would really happen is that the taxes would remain
exactly the same and then the tolls would be added on top of that, thus
further reducing our purchasing power and deteriorating our quality of life.

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo
It is percicely
this fact that makes this appropriate for government and inappropriate for
business. Government is most successful in helping the economy to grow when
it sets the stage for others to perform well, like when it builds a port, or
gives loans for railroad construction, or negotiates favorable trade terms
with foreign powers.

Agreed, however, I'd say the most important contribution the
government can do to the economy is ensure if not a level,
at least a fair playing-field. No special rules for the big
boys.

Agreed. Rule of law is IMO the single most important thing that a
government can provide, and for it to be effective, it must be (relatively)
level.

steveo

[Tim Bruening]

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by steveo

Post by Karl-Johan Noren

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there
sure is. I wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that
concentration of wealth has enabled the development of an economy
that grows every year, raising everyone's absolute level of
prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Well, he has a point, in that you need a certain concentration
of wealth in order to generate capital. However, this can be
achieved in many different ways. Large infrastructure projects
(like the US highways) usually uses those novel concepts of
"taxes" and "government".

Government is the ONLY was to ammase enough capital for essential, but
non-revenue (or insufficient revenue) generating facilities. I like sewage
systems and water systems, and freeways, and fire departments, and such.
These types of projects are exactly what government is for.
For commercial endevours, however, you need to amass the capital in the
hands of a provate entity.

Define "commercial".

I was using the term loosely to mean a profit-making enterprise.
[TAN] Wow, I guess I rely on my spell-checker correctly interpreting my
meaning too heavily. Re-reading my post is awful. Sorry.

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Take housing. In Sweden we have a mix between self-ownership,
cooperatives, businesses and the local governments building
and maintaining houses. Only one of those is commercial, the
rest not.

Sweden, based on the little I know, seems to have had unusal success in
applying collectivist practices. Based on my experience here in the US,
whenever a government involves itself in a profit-making enterprise, it
bungles it badly. There are myriad causes for this bungling, but what I see
as the primary relevant one here is that government is beholden to the
people who got them into office (pressure groups and, yes, actual voters),
while corporations answer to stock-holders who are much less tolerant of
failure or delay.

Post by Karl-Johan Noren
Also, you might easily make a case that the US interstate is
among the largest revenue-generating systems in the world -
simply in its effects on the rest of the economy.

Without a doubt! But it doesn't generate direct revenues. It is percicely
this fact that makes this appropriate for government and inappropriate for
business. Government is most successful in helping the economy to grow when
it sets the stage for others to perform well, like when it builds a port, or
gives loans for railroad construction, or negotiates favorable trade terms
with foreign powers.

Easy to solve. Set up toll booths.

[BunnyThor]

Post by Bill
There is a reason
that the head of R&D doesn't get paid the same as the mail boy or the
janitor.

If you could only get scientists to unionize, they wouldn't have this
problem.

--Thor

[steveo]

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is.
I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Yes, there is. I will give you an example.

Studying the growth of the mercantile economies will show you that the
accumlation of wealth in Europe enabled their economies to make a successful
transition to the beginnings of the modern economies they have today. The
reason that Britian started the Industrial Revolution was because they had a
need for faster production because their ships were the most prevelant, and
were sailing all over (themselves, the product of successful accumulation of
capital) and they were selling a lot. The mechanized factories they built
would not have been possible if no single entity had sufficient capital to
invest.

This produced a snowball effect that poured moeny into the hands of the
factory owners. The owners, having more money, decided to build more
factroies. To operate them, they hired more people. To entice them, they
had to make the factory work more desirable (i.e. pay more) than farming.
More people made more money.

Now, these workers had more money than they were accoustomed to having, and
living in the city brought different challenges than the farm. They had to
buy a lot of food and supplies that they would have created themselves back
on the farm. This employs other people, who produce those supplies, thus
raising their standard of living.

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use. This
is a good reason to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

Usually the vast amounts of money are not self-generated and are passed
down, thus "unearned wealth." People who make themselves usually are work
horses who keep at it until their dying day.

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is the tragedy of children born to worthless pieces of garbage
masquerading as human beings. These children should be taken away
immediately and placed in high quality homes until permanent arrangements
can be made for them to be part of a real family.

Alas, it's too late to help Jenna Bush now.

Heh. But seriously, it is sad that so many kids lead lives of quiet
despair. A lady in the city I live in drilled holes in her car trunk lid so
her kid could breath when she put him in there to sleep in the parking lot
while she got slammed at her favorite bar.

steveo

[Michael Hoye]

Post by steveo

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is.
I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Yes, there is. I will give you an example.

Furthermore, consider this: as the dollar value of gold has increased
steadily over the last century, prominent Irish holders of bullion,
the leprechauns, have had their net worth increase substantially.
Combined with the effects of trickle-down economics and global
warming causing an upswing in the Irish rainbow-termination gradient,
it's clear that the driving forces behind Ireland's burgeoning modern
economy are the per-ounce cost of gold and the favorable climate.

If you're going to give an example, you should try an academic
reference, and not a thought experiment.

[steveo]

Post by Michael Hoye

Post by steveo

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is.
I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Yes, there is. I will give you an example.

Furthermore, consider this: as the dollar value of gold has increased
steadily over the last century, prominent Irish holders of bullion,
the leprechauns, have had their net worth increase substantially.
Combined with the effects of trickle-down economics and global
warming causing an upswing in the Irish rainbow-termination gradient,
it's clear that the driving forces behind Ireland's burgeoning modern
economy are the per-ounce cost of gold and the favorable climate.
If you're going to give an example, you should try an academic
reference, and not a thought experiment.

Hmm. It would appear that you are more clever at lobbing insults and
creating entertaining hyperbole than critical analysis and discourse. Pity.

I avoid using the mental crutch of regurgitation of someone else's work as
much as possible. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

Could you lower yourself to my, admittedly, nigh mentally retarded level and
tell me what portion(s) of my example so deviated from history that you felt
it necessary to cease reasonable conversation?

Or is the answer the trusty "I hate the US" line? If that's the case, we
can call this conversation and proceed on to better engagements of our time.

steveo

[Michael Hoye]

Post by steveo

Post by Michael Hoye
Furthermore, consider this: as the dollar value of gold has increased
steadily over the last century, prominent Irish holders of bullion,
the leprechauns, have had their net worth increase substantially.
Combined with the effects of trickle-down economics and global
warming causing an upswing in the Irish rainbow-termination gradient,
it's clear that the driving forces behind Ireland's burgeoning modern
economy are the per-ounce cost of gold and the favorable climate.
If you're going to give an example, you should try an academic
reference, and not a thought experiment.

Hmm. It would appear that you are more clever at lobbing insults and
creating entertaining hyperbole than critical analysis and discourse. Pity.

Piteous, no. Entertaining, yes!

Post by steveo
I avoid using the mental crutch of regurgitation of someone else's work as
much as possible. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

Making shit up out of thin air offends me more.

Post by steveo
Could you lower yourself to my, admittedly, nigh mentally retarded level and
tell me what portion(s) of my example so deviated from history that you felt
it necessary to cease reasonable conversation?

- Your example begins with "the accumulation of wealth in Europe", which
has almost exactly zero bearing on the question at hand, that being
the accumulation of a disproportionate amount of wealth in the hands of
a small number of private individuals.

- Your argument that "mechanized factories ... would not have been possible
if no single entity had sufficient capital" is very clearly gibberish
until you define what an "entity" is. A person? A corporation? Again,
if it's not "a person", it's irrelevant to this discussion.

- Your "snowball effect" paragraph makes far, far too many assumptions
about the state of the labor market, skilled v. unskilled labor, local
economies, national and international economy for me to point to just
one. Given that your leadup to it is enterprisingly avoiding every
available point, though, I'm going to rebut it by doing precisely what
you did to create it, and just wave my hands around. Fair is fair.

- To sum up, your little fabricated history of early-industrial Europe
is very obviously made up out of whole cloth to justify the things you
want to believe, rather than to express any kind of insight into the
question you're being asked. Which, let me say this again, doesn't have
the tiniest fucking thing to do with your limp, pedantic reply.

In short, making shit up about how Reaganomics started the industrial
revolution is not only bullshit, it's bullshit that isn't even vaguely
related to the topic you're ostensibly addressing.

That better?

[steveo]

Post by Michael Hoye

Post by steveo

Post by Michael Hoye
Furthermore, consider this: as the dollar value of gold has increased
steadily over the last century, prominent Irish holders of bullion,
the leprechauns, have had their net worth increase substantially.
Combined with the effects of trickle-down economics and global
warming causing an upswing in the Irish rainbow-termination gradient,
it's clear that the driving forces behind Ireland's burgeoning modern
economy are the per-ounce cost of gold and the favorable climate.
If you're going to give an example, you should try an academic
reference, and not a thought experiment.

Hmm. It would appear that you are more clever at lobbing insults and
creating entertaining hyperbole than critical analysis and discourse.
Pity.

Piteous, no. Entertaining, yes!

Post by steveo
I avoid using the mental crutch of regurgitation of someone else's work as
much as possible. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

Making shit up out of thin air offends me more.

Being an ass who deliberately turns a conversation into an argument offends
me more.

Post by Michael Hoye

Post by steveo
Could you lower yourself to my, admittedly, nigh mentally retarded level and
tell me what portion(s) of my example so deviated from history that you felt
it necessary to cease reasonable conversation?

- Your example begins with "the accumulation of wealth in Europe", which
has almost exactly zero bearing on the question at hand, that being
the accumulation of a disproportionate amount of wealth in the hands of
a small number of private individuals.

If you will read, my reply was on a tangent that was made by Mike Kozlowski,
which I will re-quote here, as you have cut it:

--------

Post by Michael Hoye

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is.
I wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Yes, there is. I will give you an example.
--------

So, it would seem that you are the one who has made a reply that "has almost
exactly zero bearing on the question at hand" (quote is yours).

If, in my reply to that point that Mike Kozlowski made, I was not clearly
referencing what I was addressing, I apologize. I thought it was clear, but
perhaps it was not.

Post by Michael Hoye
- Your argument that "mechanized factories ... would not have been possible
if no single entity had sufficient capital" is very clearly gibberish
until you define what an "entity" is. A person? A corporation? Again,
if it's not "a person", it's irrelevant to this discussion.

See below for my definition. I specifically used the word because there
were different entities that utilized factories--some were indiviudals, some
were collective groups, and some were formal corporations. Even an
individual was not acting individually, however, because it took the
resources of an entire household to build and run a factory.

Post by Michael Hoye
- Your "snowball effect" paragraph makes far, far too many assumptions
about the state of the labor market, skilled v. unskilled labor, local
economies, national and international economy for me to point to just
one. Given that your leadup to it is enterprisingly avoiding every
available point, though, I'm going to rebut it by doing precisely what
you did to create it, and just wave my hands around. Fair is fair.

I don't have the time or the willingness to go through the ardous process of
looking for substatiation of my points. Pick up any college-level history
book that deals with the time period, however, and you can see for youself
that the trends occured as I have indicated. Of course I left out a lot of
the intricacies and even major developments. One can't make a fully
representitive summary of events of a major socioeconomic shift that
occurred over 200 years in a paragraph. Again, this was meant to be
conversation-level, not me going before the panel.

Post by Michael Hoye
- To sum up, your little fabricated history of early-industrial Europe
is very obviously made up out of whole cloth to justify the things you
want to believe, rather than to express any kind of insight into the
question you're being asked. Which, let me say this again, doesn't have
the tiniest fucking thing to do with your limp, pedantic reply.

What are the fabrications? I'm not trying to produce a doctoral thesis on
the economic underpinnings of pre-Industrial Revolution Europe and its
legacy on modern global economics. I don't care to invest the time to dig
up statistical data on 18th century Farmer Bob's household production of
cloth pre-water wheel and post. We both know that it is a lot more, and
that is good enough in this context.

We also know that this change from hand-craft production to mechanized or
powered production led to the formation of collective effort, sometimes
realized in guilds, sometimes in corporations. This is the "entity" of
which I speak. I don't need to give a detailed definition of every single
term I use, because, again, this is not a doctoral thesis and is supposed to
be enjoyable conversation.

Post by Michael Hoye
In short, making shit up about how Reaganomics started the industrial
revolution is not only bullshit, it's bullshit that isn't even vaguely
related to the topic you're ostensibly addressing.

Well, I addressed the issue of topicallity, so the last issue left is
"making shit up about how Reagonomics started the Industrial Revolution."
I'll leave the vulgarity out of my reply, seeing as it doesn't add much to
the discussion and might hopefully guide this thread back to an enjoyable
conversation from an argumentative one.

I suppose that by Reagonomics, you mean 'trickle-down theory.' If so, that
is not what I was saying. I was saying that the events were
self-reinforcing. That success bred more success. This success led to an
accumulation of capital, which was then used to produce more, which produced
more, and so on. This is exactly how it happened. There was no argument
made by me that when the 'wealthy fat-cats who own and controll everything
get richer, they let a little dribble down to the poor, downtrodden prols.'
(Typical 'analysis' of said theory by those of a socialist bent)

Capital used effectively generates more capital. That is what I was saying
in this specific post that you replied to. I was did make a statement in a
previous post that this does in fact benefit everyone, but that was not what
you replied to.

We can have that conversation (not a well-researched parlimentary style
debate moderated by 3 professors of economics, sociology, and history
though) if you want to.

Post by Michael Hoye
That better?

Yes. Now we can have a conversation if you would care to.

steveo

[Bill]

I don't believe that the notion "concentration
of wealth leads to capital accumulation" is
necessarily correct.

I don't believe that the fact that Bill Gates has
billions means that anyone has to starve anywhere
on the earth, either.

Everyone could work, earn enough income to avoid
starving, and Bill Gates could earn billions.

Apparently some _feel_ that since people are
starving, Bill Gates shouldn't be able to earn
billions.

It would be quite easy to keep people like Bill
Gates from earning billions. But there would
be no guarantee that no one would starve.

I do support a system that allows people to
obtain billions. It isn't what they will do with
the billions once they have them that is important.

It is rather that letting them gain rewards equal
to a fraction of the value they produce results in
motivation to generate value for the rest of us.

The carrot and stick of competition and
entrepreneurship provides a strong
motivation to continually introduce better
ways of producing better products.

I wouldn't support taxing everyone and giving
the revenues to one individual so he or she
would save, allow for the accumulation
of capital, and that capital would increase
production.

I know quite a bit about economics. I have
a doctorate in it and have taught it for
23 years (19 at Robert Jordan's alma
mater.)

Perhaps our failure to take proper account
of the physics of production leads to excessive
optimism. I can assure you that economists
don't pay much mind to the physics of production,
so a theory that the third word must be poor to allow
for wealth in the West based on the physics of
production isn't a matter of being ignorant of
economics. Really, you have an opportuntity
to revolutionize the entire field!

Crack open any economics text. Find
the place where it explains that the only
way people in the West can keep a high
standard of living is to prevent economic
growth in the rest of the world. Find the
place where it bases this on the physics of
production. Find the sections where it describes
the policies the West does (and should?)
use to keep the rest of the world poor.

Anyway, the general response is that production
in economics is about creating value. It isn't
necessarily true that it takes more energy or
matter to create more value.

For example, improving the taste of food
doesn't require more food.

A beautiful painting doesn't require
more paint and canvas than an ugly
painting.

Figuring out ways to produce products with
less matter and energy is a cost cutting
technological improvement--just as is
"saving labor."

The purpose of economic activity isn't
to "accumulate capital"--even in a capitalist
system. It is to create value--satisfy wants.
Accumulating capital may be an effective
means to that end.

But the real reason for economic growth
is and has been the discovery of better
methods of creating value. Rewarding those
that succeed (and "punishing" those who
try and fail) has resulting in a constant
revolution of production methods that has
resulted in high and rising standards of
living for millions--even billions today.

The biggest story of the least two decades
is the vast number of people who have
improved their standards of living due to
the change in policy in China. India
is making progress as well.

And it hasn't led to poverty in the West.

So, I think there is some ignorance here
about _E_conomics. Admittedly, it
could be that _E_conomics is just too
optimistic about the possibility on world-
wide economic prosperity. But that is
the situation--economists believe that
world-wide prosperity is possible, that
no one need starve, that progressively
higher standards of living are quite possible--
leaving current living standards of living
in the west, far behind.

And yes, this is all quite consistent with
having a few people obtain fabulous wealth
at the same time.

[steveo]

Post by Bill
Apparently some _feel_ that since people are
starving, Bill Gates shouldn't be able to earn
billions.

And therein lies the whole fallacy of socialism: it depends on "feeling"
over causality. If one does not work, or does work inefficiently or
ineffectively, than the results of the work (or lack thereof) will be poor.

Why should Bill Gates (or Warren Buffet or George Soros for you lefties)
have the fruits of their labors forcibly taken away (i.e. stolen) because of
others' inadequacies? Note: the previous statement precludes unethical
behavior.

Post by Bill
It would be quite easy to keep people like Bill
Gates from earning billions. But there would
be no guarantee that no one would starve.

In fact, it would be garunteed that more people would have a poorer quality
of life. The point of my argument above, though perhaps poorly written, was
that accumulation of wealth properly managed actually generates more wealth
at every level of the economy, from the lowest workers to the management to
the government collecting taxes. It is in our best interests that capital
is allowed to accumulate because it enables large enterprises to form, which
benefit from size and economies of scale.

Post by Bill
I do support a system that allows people to
obtain billions. It isn't what they will do with
the billions once they have them that is important.

To them it might be. It seems like a lot of people have pet projects that
they support, and seem to give continuing drive to them. Ted Turner gave
$1,000,000,000 to the UN. Bill Gates has put in just as mich into various
charities.

Post by Bill
It is rather that letting them gain rewards equal
to a fraction of the value they produce results in
motivation to generate value for the rest of us.
The carrot and stick of competition and
entrepreneurship provides a strong
motivation to continually introduce better
ways of producing better products.

That is why the US economy has far outstripped those of western Europe.

Post by Bill
I wouldn't support taxing everyone and giving
the revenues to one individual so he or she
would save, allow for the accumulation
of capital, and that capital would increase
production.

No, because that is exactly the same as redistribution of wealth, which we
dismissed above. Implicit and explicit in my argument was that the
accumulation of capital MUST be accompanied by effectiveness in using it to
generate more wealth.

Post by Bill
I know quite a bit about economics. I have
a doctorate in it and have taught it for
23 years (19 at Robert Jordan's alma
mater.)
Perhaps our failure to take proper account
of the physics of production leads to excessive
optimism. I can assure you that economists
don't pay much mind to the physics of production,
so a theory that the third word must be poor to allow
for wealth in the West based on the physics of
production isn't a matter of being ignorant of
economics. Really, you have an opportuntity
to revolutionize the entire field!
Crack open any economics text. Find
the place where it explains that the only
way people in the West can keep a high
standard of living is to prevent economic
growth in the rest of the world. Find the
place where it bases this on the physics of
production. Find the sections where it describes
the policies the West does (and should?)
use to keep the rest of the world poor.

None of the economic texts I have studied as part of my progression towards
an MBA have stated such a theory. That kind of lackwit thinking could only
be 'reasonably' suggested in a class that didn't actually have anything to
do with economics.

OTOH, perhaps I an naive and have lucked out in missing such classes....

Post by Bill
Anyway, the general response is that production
in economics is about creating value. It isn't
necessarily true that it takes more energy or
matter to create more value.
For example, improving the taste of food
doesn't require more food.
A beautiful painting doesn't require
more paint and canvas than an ugly
painting.
Figuring out ways to produce products with
less matter and energy is a cost cutting
technological improvement--just as is
"saving labor."

I always looked at it as developing a system that efficiently converts raw
materials into finished products that satisfy a need expresed in the market.
The "efficiency" covers the enhanced value the compents as part of a larger
whole have, and also connotes that enhanced efficiency improves
profitability.

Post by Bill
The purpose of economic activity isn't
to "accumulate capital"--even in a capitalist
system. It is to create value--satisfy wants.
Accumulating capital may be an effective
means to that end.

Yes. I was merely stating that pools of capital facilitate this, and that
the larger the pool, the more potentiality it has.

Post by Bill
But the real reason for economic growth
is and has been the discovery of better
methods of creating value. Rewarding those
that succeed (and "punishing" those who
try and fail) has resulting in a constant
revolution of production methods that has
resulted in high and rising standards of
living for millions--even billions today.

Witness: the Industrial and Technology Revolutions.

Post by Bill
The biggest story of the least two decades
is the vast number of people who have
improved their standards of living due to
the change in policy in China. India
is making progress as well.

Every nation that at least tries to embrace the concepts of rule-of-law and
transparency has experienced these benefits. Without the large accumulation
of capital, and without the expertise applied to it by westerners in general
and the US in particular, this would not have been possible, or at least as
great as they have been.

Post by Bill
And it hasn't led to poverty in the West.

Yup. Those who are in poverty are either truely unfortunate souls or those
who would be poor no matter what the circumstance they found themselves in.

Post by Bill
So, I think there is some ignorance here
about _E_conomics. Admittedly, it
could be that _E_conomics is just too
optimistic about the possibility on world-
wide economic prosperity. But that is
the situation--economists believe that
world-wide prosperity is possible, that
no one need starve, that progressively
higher standards of living are quite possible--
leaving current living standards of living
in the west, far behind.

Especially once we develop a source of clean, renewable, and cheap power as
an alternate for oil.

Post by Bill
And yes, this is all quite consistent with
having a few people obtain fabulous wealth
at the same time.

Of course.

Thanks for bringing your experienced contributions to the conversation.

steveo

[The Great Gray Skwid]

Post by steveo

Post by Michael Hoye
If you're going to give an example, you should try an academic
reference, and not a thought experiment.

I avoid using the mental crutch of regurgitation of someone else's work as
much as possible. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

That is, no shit, the sorriest cite dodge I have ever seen.

Damn.

--
Evan "Skwid" Langlinais
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
http://www.thehumblest.net/

[Jasper Janssen]

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it

Wow.

|which featured an ice sculpture of Michelangelo's David spewing vodka from
|his penis and a birthday cake in the shape of a woman's breasts with
|sparklers mounted on top

You'd think they were British. No relation, I trust?


Jasper

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Mike Kozlowski

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use.

Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

Did not some workman get *paid* to do the ice sculpture? Did not
someone get *paid* to procure the food and prepare it?

Why do you wish to take money from the workers who were paid to bring
the party to life, as it were?

Post by Mike Kozlowski
This is a good reason to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Mike Kozlowski

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use.

Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

My, aren't you an angry little bunny of vengance.


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:17:15 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Mike Kozlowski

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use.

Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

My, aren't you an angry little bunny of vengance.

You never were any good at reading moods on Usenet, Ilya...

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:17:15 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Mike Kozlowski

Post by Mike Kozlowski

Post by steveo
There is a disparity in the distribution of wealth. Yup, there sure is. I
wish I had the last name "Gates." BUT, that concentration of wealth has
enabled the development of an economy that grows every year, raising
everyone's absolute level of prosperity.

There's actually no evidence for this, you know, despite it being an
article of faith for many people.

Post by steveo
Money
that comes to you unearned is usually wasted on frivolous crap, and is not
used to generate more wealth. I know I would blow a few million on "fun" if
I won the lottery. If I were wiser, then I would invest it all so as to
keep my new-found wealth productive and increasing.

More likely is that vast amounts of money are wasted on frivolous crap
(take a look at Dennis Kozlowski's infamous party), no matter where it
comes from; whereas more modest sums are put to productive use.

Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

My, aren't you an angry little bunny of vengance.

You never were any good at reading moods on Usenet, Ilya...

See, that's not a productive post either. It's not even remotely
creative, and doesn't include any kind of amusing content or imagery
that would constitute a productive use of your time.


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:12:53 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:17:15 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

My, aren't you an angry little bunny of vengance.

You never were any good at reading moods on Usenet, Ilya...

No, you're just incredibly bad at writing them.


Jasper

[David Loewe, Jr.]

Post by Jasper Janssen
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:12:53 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:17:15 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

My, aren't you an angry little bunny of vengance.

You never were any good at reading moods on Usenet, Ilya...

No, you're just incredibly bad at writing them.

<snort>

Like you *and* Ilya don't have an agenda on this issue, Jasper...

But, I'll bite. I have *copied* text, as an experiment, that a
particular poster used in one group that elicited a particular
response/mood and gotten a completely different response in a
different group.

It's all based on your (you being the reader) attitude towards the
poster at that moment. Face it, people... those who oppose your view
are much more likely to be labeled by you as whining or angry by you
than would otherwise be expected.

Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Jasper Janssen
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:12:53 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:17:15 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Who are you to pontificate from on high what constitutes "productive
use"?

My, aren't you an angry little bunny of vengance.

You never were any good at reading moods on Usenet, Ilya...

No, you're just incredibly bad at writing them.

<snort>
Like you *and* Ilya don't have an agenda on this issue, Jasper...

I'm sure you think Jasper or I (or anyone - insert <name> here) should
be terribly concerned about an ice-sculpture that has a penis which
ejaculates cabernet sauvignon as an expression of personal productive
use, but I am under no legislative requirement to give a shit, and
therefore, am quite content wiith simply making pithy comments that
make vague and loose allusions to Farscape and a bunny named Harvey.

Which is to say - sheesh, Dave. Sheesh. Can you try for a funny
comment in response to one of my posts one of these days?

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
But, I'll bite. I have *copied* text, as an experiment, that a
particular poster used in one group that elicited a particular
response/mood and gotten a completely different response in a
different group.
It's all based on your (you being the reader) attitude towards the
poster at that moment. Face it, people... those who oppose your view
are much more likely to be labeled by you as whining or angry by you
than would otherwise be expected.

That's called the logical fallacy of the consequent. A position is
disliked therefore the person espousing given position is logically
going to be ridiculed. And thus if person is ridiculed, therefore
position is disliked.

And that's just silly.

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

I want to see your silly mood. Seriously. Bring out your bag of
happiness sometime. Let's have a show & tell, eh?


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[Chucky & Janica]

Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

Or is that just an extension of your default mood? I never bothered to
find out.


C&J

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML

However, it's not true.

Post by Chucky & Janica
Or is that just an extension of your default mood? I never bothered to
find out.

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML

Ah. Turing Machine Markup Language. Of course.

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
However, it's not true.

What is then?

Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:54:01 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML

Ah. Turing Machine Markup Language. Of course.

<heh>

Try this: This Made Me Laugh

Post by Ilya the Recusant

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
However, it's not true.

What is then?

I'm a happy camper. I sing a lot.

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:54:01 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML

Ah. Turing Machine Markup Language. Of course.

<heh>
Try this: This Made Me Laugh

My Google Skillz did not greet such results.

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
However, it's not true.

What is then?

I'm a happy camper. I sing a lot.

In the shower?

*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:33:40 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:54:01 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML

Ah. Turing Machine Markup Language. Of course.

<heh>
Try this: This Made Me Laugh

My Google Skillz did not greet such results.

<shrug>

The 10th result off of "TMML" gives it in context.

Post by Ilya the Recusant

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
However, it's not true.

What is then?

I'm a happy camper. I sing a lot.

In the shower?

Not often. There are people still asleep then. Mostly in the car.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:33:40 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:54:01 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML

Ah. Turing Machine Markup Language. Of course.

<heh>
Try this: This Made Me Laugh

My Google Skillz did not greet such results.

<shrug>
The 10th result off of "TMML" gives it in context.

Missed the boat on that one.

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
However, it's not true.

What is then?

I'm a happy camper. I sing a lot.

In the shower?

Not often. There are people still asleep then. Mostly in the car.

A good place.

Public is good too. Headphones and a discman make for good company.

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

www.darwilliams.net

Female folk-rock singer. Also of the sometimes a band Cry Cry Cry.


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[Roy G. Ovrebo]

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:33:40 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

[snip]

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
My Google Skillz did not greet such results.

<shrug>
The 10th result off of "TMML" gives it in context.

[and then...]

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
--
Roy

Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[Roy G. Ovrebo]

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences, but
suddenly won't do so himself.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On 21 Sep 2005 20:33:26 GMT, "Roy G. Ovrebo"

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences,

Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
but suddenly won't do so himself.

I have to care who Dar Williams is before I'll do a Google search.

[Jasper Janssen]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:11:31 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

The difference is that both of those are defined -- correctly -- *in the
first freaking google hit*.

"it's there in result 10!" is a really, really bad excuse.


Jasper

[David Loewe, Jr.]

Post by Jasper Janssen
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:11:31 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

The difference is that both of those are defined -- correctly -- *in the
first freaking google hit*.
"it's there in result 10!" is a really, really bad excuse.

Well excuse the FUCK out of me that I used a bit of Usenet Jargon -
from another group I post to - that has another, more important,
definition *that I've never heard of*.

[Chucky & Janica]

Once upon a time - for example, Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:49:12 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Jasper Janssen

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

The difference is that both of those are defined -- correctly -- *in the
first freaking google hit*.
"it's there in result 10!" is a really, really bad excuse.

Well excuse the FUCK out of me that I used a bit of Usenet Jargon -
from another group I post to - that has another, more important,
definition *that I've never heard of*.

That's alright, Lurks. You said it to me, after all.

*excuses the fuck out of Lurks*




C&J

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 21 Sep 2005 20:33:26 GMT, "Roy G. Ovrebo"

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences,

Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
but suddenly won't do so himself.

I have to care who Dar Williams is before I'll do a Google search.

I told you who she is.

A folk-rock singer.


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:52:13 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 21 Sep 2005 20:33:26 GMT, "Roy G. Ovrebo"

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences,

Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
but suddenly won't do so himself.

I have to care who Dar Williams is before I'll do a Google search.

I told you who she is.
A folk-rock singer.

And that was good of you.

But, that hardly makes any difference as to whether or not I was
*going to* Google up "Dar Williams," Ilya.

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:52:13 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 21 Sep 2005 20:33:26 GMT, "Roy G. Ovrebo"

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences,

Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
but suddenly won't do so himself.

I have to care who Dar Williams is before I'll do a Google search.

I told you who she is.
A folk-rock singer.

And that was good of you.
But, that hardly makes any difference as to whether or not I was
*going to* Google up "Dar Williams," Ilya.

Remember when you were surprised that I couldn't find the definition
for 'TMML' and you said it was the 10th hit on google?

Dar's the first.


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:12 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:52:13 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 21 Sep 2005 20:33:26 GMT, "Roy G. Ovrebo"

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences,

Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
but suddenly won't do so himself.

I have to care who Dar Williams is before I'll do a Google search.

I told you who she is.
A folk-rock singer.

And that was good of you.
But, that hardly makes any difference as to whether or not I was
*going to* Google up "Dar Williams," Ilya.

Remember when you were surprised that I couldn't find the definition
for 'TMML' and you said it was the 10th hit on google?

THAT'S an interesting reading of my comment...

Post by Ilya the Recusant
Dar's the first.

You aren't getting this, are you?

There has to be a *want to* in order for me *to do* a Google search on
Dar Williams.

The "Who?" was rhetorical. I didn't care.

[Ilya the Recusant]

In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:12 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:52:13 -0500, Ilya the Recusant

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "David

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 21 Sep 2005 20:33:26 GMT, "Roy G. Ovrebo"

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, "Roy G.

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo

Post by Ilya the Recusant
*sings along to new Dar Williams album*

Who?

Physician, heal thyself...

Wha?

I was just trying to subtly hint that Dave Loewe is relying on others to
do Google searches when he can't be arsed to type whole sentences,

Would you type out Your Mileage May Vary, Roy? How about Snip All
Content As Is Good And Proper? Would you jump on others who didn't?

Post by Roy G. Ovrebo
but suddenly won't do so himself.

I have to care who Dar Williams is before I'll do a Google search.

I told you who she is.
A folk-rock singer.

And that was good of you.
But, that hardly makes any difference as to whether or not I was
*going to* Google up "Dar Williams," Ilya.

Remember when you were surprised that I couldn't find the definition
for 'TMML' and you said it was the 10th hit on google?

THAT'S an interesting reading of my comment...

<shrug>

Whatever. You bothered to count to the 10th google-listing.

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
Dar's the first.

You aren't getting this, are you?
There has to be a *want to* in order for me *to do* a Google search on
Dar Williams.
The "Who?" was rhetorical. I didn't care.

A small bit of advice for the next time a situation like this crops
up: If you don't care, don't say "Who?"


Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya

[Chucky & Janica]

Once upon a time - for example, Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:45:21 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
Dar's the first.

You aren't getting this, are you?
There has to be a *want to* in order for me *to do* a Google search on
Dar Williams.

No there doesn't.

I didn't even want to know who Dar Williams was *or* do a Google
search, and yet now, I know anyway.

Mmmm. That's good logic.




C&J

[Tom Kelsall]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:26:16 +0300, the keys started rattling, and

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:45:21 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
Dar's the first.

You aren't getting this, are you?
There has to be a *want to* in order for me *to do* a Google search on
Dar Williams.

No there doesn't.
I didn't even want to know who Dar Williams was *or* do a Google
search, and yet now, I know anyway.
Mmmm. That's good logic.
C&J

What the holy fuck are you lot talking about?!

[Chucky & Janica]

Once upon a time - for example, Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:32:00 GMT - there
was this guy, or something, called Tom Kelsall

Post by Tom Kelsall

Post by Chucky & Janica

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
There has to be a *want to* in order for me *to do* a Google search on
Dar Williams.

No there doesn't.
I didn't even want to know who Dar Williams was *or* do a Google
search, and yet now, I know anyway.
Mmmm. That's good logic.

What the holy fuck are you lot talking about?!

That guy who played Lando Calrissian.

I think.



C&J

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:26:16 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:45:21 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Ilya the Recusant
Dar's the first.

You aren't getting this, are you?
There has to be a *want to* in order for me *to do* a Google search on
Dar Williams.

No there doesn't.
I didn't even want to know who Dar Williams was *or* do a Google
search, and yet now, I know anyway.
Mmmm. That's good logic.

That's *horrible* logic.

The question was "Why did Dave do a Google search on "Dar Williams?"
The answer is "Because Dave doesn't care about Dar Williams." That I
found out anyway is immaterial to that.

[Chucky & Janica]

Once upon a time - for example, Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:38:42 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Chucky & Janica
Mmmm. That's good logic.

That's *horrible* logic.

Horribly good.




C&J

[D. Todd Caslick]

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:25:38 +0300, Chucky & Janica

Post by Chucky & Janica
Once upon a time - for example, Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:35:31 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Hint: The mood I was in when I wrote the phrase under scrutiny was
disdain.

As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML
However, it's not true.

Post by Chucky & Janica
Or is that just an extension of your default mood? I never bothered to
find out.

I think you are likely to see Loewe's humour in the quotes he choose's

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
--
"I pissed a lot of people off today. I'm good at that."
-- Tim Masterson

This one seemed ironic-funny to me and I can't believe Loewe didn't do
that on purpose. YMMV.


Todd

[Chucky & Janica]

Once upon a time - for example, Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:18:25 -0500 -
there was this guy, or something, called "David Loewe, Jr."

Post by David Loewe, Jr.

Post by Chucky & Janica
As opposed to your default mood: grumpy.

TMML
However, it's not true.

Hee hee. Really.



C&J

[Jeroen Geilman]

Post by Bill
I don't agree that the high material standards of living in the West
are caused by lower standards of living in other parts of the world.
High standards of living could be generated world wide.

That's a fantasy.

There are universal laws that govern growth and production, and they're
actually quite simple.

For every single material thing a society produces, more energy has to
go into the process than comes out of it.

That energy (source material, labor, whatever) has to come from
*somewhere* - but if it came from the rich societies themselves, then it
would cost more to make the materials, so less could be produced, or the
ratio between input and output would go up even further.
It is economically trivial to list the kinds of produced goods and
services that can *only* subsist on the assumption that there is cheap
labor available.

Post by Bill
There is no need for people to starve in the street in the West.

Exactly - in the West.

Post by Bill
High per capita incomes are due to high labor productivity which is due
to sophisticated technology.

Utter crap.
High per capita income is a function of the social economy - which has
never rewarded hard work with more pay.
Smart bastards that have no qualms about selling out their family and
friends - those are the ones that get the rewards.
Yes, also people that take the risks the others are not willing to take
- but do a compare and see which is the larger contingent...

What is the net worth Christina Aguilera adds to my existence ?
Zero.
Then why is she paid such absurd amounts for providing it ?
Because influences in the economy (the music industry, in this case) act
to make it so.

Post by Bill
All that is necessary is to spread the
use of that technology across the world, increasing labor productivity
across the world and raising material standards of living for all.

You lack a basic grasp of economics, dude.

<snip blabber>

A thought experiment:

The one provable way to increase the standard of living across the board
for every inhabitant of a society is to have the society decide to
/provide/ a certain standard of living to said inhabitants.

Take television: what is needed to provide every inhabitant with a
television ? (We wil assume this is actually desirable for the sake of
argument...)
Three things: a receiver, a transmitter, and power.

The receiver is actually the easiest to provide, since when the society
decides to provide it you have a known market size and can then invest
in producing that many *durable* units for the lowest price possible.
Why the lowest price possible ?
For one, it has to be entirely manufactured locally to stay within the
requirements for every society on Earth to be able to do this.
For another - nothing needs to be spent on advertising or ware-peddling,
as these are all by-products of a surplus economy.

The transmitting takes a bit more thought, since it will have to provide
for programming to actually transmit, too - which costs way more than
the technology does.
But there are plenty of countries that have very successful PBS
stations, of which the US is a rather sad example.

The energy required to make all this go is the most tricky one, since
how do you easily get power to every television without it impinging on
every other aspect of the local economy ?


Anyhoo - extrapolate that to every single covenience needed to provide a
standard of living we can all live with, and see what you get.

The whole will be insanely interconnected - so what ? Let's put those
computers to use for once.

fnah.

[Karl-Johan Noren]

Post by Jeroen Geilman

Post by Bill
I don't agree that the high material standards of living in the West
are caused by lower standards of living in other parts of the world.
High standards of living could be generated world wide.

That's a fantasy.
There are universal laws that govern growth and production, and
they're actually quite simple.

Universal laws, my ass. There is _nothing_ universal about
any economical "laws".

Post by Jeroen Geilman
For every single material thing a society produces, more energy has to
go into the process than comes out of it.

What has the second thermodynamical law to do with economics?

Post by Jeroen Geilman
That energy (source material, labor, whatever) has to come from
*somewhere* - but if it came from the rich societies themselves, then
it would cost more to make the materials, so less could be produced,
or the ratio between input and output would go up even further.
It is economically trivial to list the kinds of produced goods and
services that can *only* subsist on the assumption that there is cheap
labor available.

"Cheap labour" is a red herring. What is really interesting is
the productivity per worker.

To make a simple example: say that you need to move 10 tons of
materials, using good roads, 10 kilometers.

You have the choice, either hire a single truck driver, working
for 100 x minimum wage (including money to pay for gas, truck
maintenance, mortgage etc), or 100 guys with wheelbarrows
working for minimum wage.

Which do you choose?

Post by Jeroen Geilman

Post by Bill
There is no need for people to starve in the street in the West.

Exactly - in the West.

Neither in the south nor east. Most famines have other causes
besides drought or crop failure. There might be outside
interference that makes farmers dependant on a single cash
crop (you can't live on coffee beans alone), the produce is
all bought up beforehand (this was the case of the famines
in Bangladesh in the 1970's - with record rice yields) et c.

The Irish potato famine is illustrative.

Post by Jeroen Geilman

Post by Bill
High per capita incomes are due to high labor productivity which is due
to sophisticated technology.

Utter crap.
High per capita income is a function of the social economy - which has
never rewarded hard work with more pay.

That depends on how you organise the social economy. Like
all things human, it's not set in stone, whatever the
economists think.

Post by Jeroen Geilman
What is the net worth Christina Aguilera adds to my existence ?
Zero.
Then why is she paid such absurd amounts for providing it ?
Because influences in the economy (the music industry, in this case)
act to make it so.

It doesn't have anything to do with that plenty of people listen
to her? (Not that the music industry is a good example of a
well-functioning market, or of little else but greed, but I
digress.)

Post by Jeroen Geilman

Post by Bill
All that is necessary is to spread the
use of that technology across the world, increasing labor productivity
across the world and raising material standards of living for all.

You lack a basic grasp of economics, dude.

So do you.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Peter Reid

Post by Bill
In the real world, with no magic, it is entirely possible for
the poorest to have plenty of material goods and services.

Not necessarily, see below
<snip>

Post by Bill
If we consider the development of the wealthy countries of the west,
we have moved from a situation in which the majority lived in
single roomed hovels and mostly ate grain to a situation
in which the majority of the poor have automobiles, live in homes with
at least one room per person, central air conditioning, televisions,
etc.

Well, yes...but mainly by exploiting the nations around us. _Worldwide_
this would be impossible to do. And note that even in North America we
have poor people who starve on our very own streets.

The next logical step is exploiting space. Traveling through Gateways would
make it easy to reach space.

[c***@yahoo.com]

This thread got off pace pretty quickly.
First of all you are thinking in terms of no imagination or fantasy.
WOT is a fantasy but for the sake of argument I will look at the AOL
economy and the words mentioned above and respond.

Think in terms that if there was so much magic used that anyone could
have anything at anytime, even the most simple people would live like
kings.

In a society like ours where things have to be manufactured, serviced,
or made in some way, it requires people to make them. People take jobs
because they have to attain money in order to buy the very goods they
make or the very services they provide. Some take more prestigious jobs
than others and therefore earn more money to buy more services, so on
and so forth. If everyone tomorrow received 1 million dollars in turn
making everyone rich, nobody would need to do the jobs, or perform the
services to attain that money. This is self defeating since if nobody
worked to provide products or services we would have nothing since
nothing would be made and society would collapse. So in essence you
have to have people working and creating stuff or providing services to
make the economy work thus not everyone can be rich in a society like
that. **Phew** I hope I explained that properly and bow to anyone who
can strike it down.

Anyway, in a society like the AOL were humans may not be required to
make things or provide services since it seems magical devices were
available for just about anything and everything, right down to
controlling the weather. The class ( Aile) perhaps provided maid and
general services to the most powerful but it seems even those with no
power would still be able to get things and receive services many of us
can only dream of since it could simply be created.

Look at the following example and lets assume money doesn't exist in
the AOL. Much like the Star Trek form of economy. Also take the Rome
citizenry in the past.
Take Joe Blow AOL citizen who can't use the OP at all. Probably is put
into an AOL school at an early age, is provided a house by his/her
parents and food is provided as well. Ma and Pa doubtful need to go to
work or anything since food is created with the OP with no need for
them to do anything to get it other than going to the shop and picking
it up, or having it delivered in some way blah blah blah. Joe Blow
grows up and graduates from school he can probably move anywhere he
wants, do anything he wants within the rules of society. His status
probably depends on his family name and he gets what he wants based on
that. He can probably marry a girl and get a house made for him from an
AS somewhere, he can get a jo-car or jo-wing probably whenever he wants
it, and food is abundant. Or he could join an Army, adventure
elsewhere, or research with the AS scientists. We don't know enough
about society in that time to know how people gained prestige or passed
through their daily lives to understand what people in a situation like
the AOL, getting everything they want or need provided, do with with
their lives. I am assuming AS probably sat at the upper level of
society with everyone else doing whatever they wanted and for the most
part contributed in some way. Yet whatever work they performed in that
time was something they "wanted" to do because money was not the
motivation.

My point being is he/she would have no need to work for money since
money is used to buy services and money is attained through working a
job. What job would you need to perform where everything is provided?
In our society people go to school to get a job somewhere to earn money
to put food on the table and buy grown up toys like corvettes, big
houses and such. In the AOL everything is already made so literally
when you reached a certain age I'm sure you would get approached and
told "What do you want to do?" and you would go do or learn whatever
skill was required to do that and you received food and a place to live
regardless.

Perhaps more prestigious or intelligent people gained better housing or
the like. If you think about it in that term then the statement
financial gain meant little makes sense. Since then even the most
lowest of the low person in the AOL probably still was able to get 3
square meals a day by simply pressing the button on the "food making"
ter'angreal and would have a roof over his head every night,
entertainment, and whatever else he/she wanted without having to work a
day in their lives. A person in the AOL could probably sit and do
nothing for their entire lives and yet still be fed, sleep comfortably,
and do whatever they wanted. A true utopian. That is what that
statement meant.
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society"

Why would I need to scratch and work in a kitchen for 80 hours a week
cleaning dishes to buy a loaf of bread for my family when I could sit
at home, do nothing, and simply get food from some magical device? AKA
material things were plentiful meaning no work is needed to achive
them. Reward was based on contributions to society. That is what the
statement meant.

Taking Aviendas words from TDR - Maybe I explained it completely and
yet missed it entirely.

Anyway, just my opinion no need to take it seriously.

Thanks

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Tom Kelsall
(Guide, Orbit Paperback, PP39)
OK... is it just me, or does Jordan have absolutely NO IDEA about how
economies work?
What he describes would be impossible to maintain; and impossible to
achieve.
For instance:-
"Financial gain was not difficult to achieve, but meant little in a
world where material things were plentiful. Individuals gained
financial reward based on their work and it's value to society".
It's absolute nonsense... he contradicts himself in about 5 different
ways without even realising it. How is financial recompense "a
reward" if it is meaningless? (Can anyone say "Inflation"??)
And then:-
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work. Some will be poor,
and destitute, and some will be disproportionately rich. The majority
will be somewhere sensible in between.
This has to be the worst, for me, of what (in Jordan's writing)
sometimes comes across as ill-researched, utterly nonsensical crap.
Why on EARTH wouldn't he create a Utopia which had an economy based on
other than finance? Or research how financial economies work just a
*little bit* to make it believable?!

I imagine that RJ was imagining an economy with a much higher per capita
GDP then our current economy. I expect that the high tech AOL world would
have gotten most of its resources from space (solar power satellites, raw
materials from the Moon, asteroids, and Mars). It would have been as easy
to Travel to the Moon as it was to Travel between cities. IIRC, Moggy was
hinting that the AOL had space travel in tSR.

I wouldn't have put it past the people of the AOL to have colonies in
other solar systems. How much would such colonies have been affected by
the whole Bore drilling/War of the Shadow/Breaking sequence? Surely the
DO can't affect other solar systems since he could only reach out through
the Bore on Earth.

RJ was also probably imagining a robust welfare system and a British style
Universal Health Care system.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Tom Kelsall
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible.  Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work.

This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth. Some will be richer than others, but some cavemen are more
prosperous than other as well. It's just the nature of the
universe.

Ask yourself, is anyone in America poor? Minimum wage is $7 an hour.
UN defines poverty as less that $1 a DAY.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tom Kelsall
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible. Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work.

This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth. Some will be richer than others, but some cavemen are more
prosperous than other as well. It's just the nature of the
universe.
Ask yourself, is anyone in America poor? Minimum wage is $7 an hour.
UN defines poverty as less that $1 a DAY.

I think $7.25/hr, but lots of people are unemployed.

The UN doesn't take American costs of living into account. The Federal
poverty line is higher then $7.00/hr, let alone $1 a day.

I have definetely seen poor and homeless folks with my own two eyes.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Tim Bruening

Ask yourself, is anyone in America poor?  Minimum wage is $7 an hour.
UN defines poverty as less that $1 a DAY.

I think $7.25/hr, but lots of people are unemployed.
The UN doesn't take American costs of living into account.  The Federal
poverty line is higher then $7.00/hr, let alone $1 a day.

The Federal Poverty line is a meaningless number. It doesn't measure
anything. it doesn't mean anything.

Post by Tim Bruening
I have definetely seen poor and homeless folks with my own two eyes.

You missed my point. 'Poor' in the US is rich by the standards of
many countries. Poor in this countries means starving to death.
Starving to death is functionally impossible in the US.

Anyway, economies don't create poverty anymore than fires create
cold.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tim Bruening
I think $7.25/hr, but lots of people are unemployed.
The UN doesn't take American costs of living into account.  The Federal
poverty line is higher then $7.00/hr, let alone $1 a day.

The Federal Poverty line is a meaningless number. It doesn't measure
anything. it doesn't mean anything.

ALL numbers are meaningless in and of themselves. It takes people to give
things meaning. See, now a REAL economist would be explaining that the
Federal Poverty Line has MULTIPLE meanings, some contradictory, and giving
the reasoning behind each one...

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tim Bruening
I have definetely seen poor and homeless folks with my own two eyes.

You missed my point.

No, I think you're missing the point of everyone else here.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Starving to death is functionally impossible in the US.

... ... OKthen. Clearly the interuniverse routers are up and running
smoothly once again.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Anyway, economies don't create poverty anymore than fires create cold.

Dave "someone is not thinking enough about flow patterns here" DeLaney

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by David DeLaney

The Federal Poverty line is a meaningless number.  It doesn't measure
anything.  it doesn't mean anything.

ALL numbers are meaningless in and of themselves. It takes people to give
things meaning. See, now a REAL economist would be explaining that the
Federal Poverty Line has MULTIPLE meanings, some contradictory, and giving
the reasoning behind each one...

Sorry, it just has no meaning. It is a politically set and
politically adjusted number that measures nothing. In the real world
there is no level that you can point to and say 'below this is
poverty'.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Tim Bruening
I have definetely seen poor and homeless folks with my own two eyes.

You missed my point.

No, I think you're missing the point of everyone else here.

In the real world merely being poor and homelss isn't poverty.
Starving to death is poverty. Everything above that is gravy.

[trag]

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Shawn Wilson
The Federal Poverty line is a meaningless number. It doesn't measure
anything. it doesn't mean anything.

ALL numbers are meaningless in and of themselves. It takes people to give
things meaning. See, now a REAL economist would be explaining that the
Federal Poverty Line has MULTIPLE meanings, some contradictory, and giving
the reasoning behind each one...

Sorry, it just has no meaning. It is a politically set and
politically adjusted number that measures nothing. In the real world
there is no level that you can point to and say 'below this is
poverty'.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tim Bruening
I have definetely seen poor and homeless folks with my own two eyes.

You missed my point.

No, I think you're missing the point of everyone else here.

In the real world merely being poor and homelss isn't poverty.
Starving to death is poverty. Everything above that is gravy.

So if folks aren't starving because they're practicing cannibalism as
the only viable alternative, is that poverty?

[Tim Bruening]

Post by trag

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Shawn Wilson
The Federal Poverty line is a meaningless number. It doesn't measure
anything. it doesn't mean anything.

ALL numbers are meaningless in and of themselves. It takes people to give
things meaning. See, now a REAL economist would be explaining that the
Federal Poverty Line has MULTIPLE meanings, some contradictory, and giving
the reasoning behind each one...

Sorry, it just has no meaning. It is a politically set and
politically adjusted number that measures nothing. In the real world
there is no level that you can point to and say 'below this is
poverty'.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tim Bruening
I have definetely seen poor and homeless folks with my own two eyes.

You missed my point.

No, I think you're missing the point of everyone else here.

In the real world merely being poor and homelss isn't poverty.
Starving to death is poverty. Everything above that is gravy.

So if folks aren't starving because they're practicing cannibalism as
the only viable alternative, is that poverty?

The people of Bandar Eban in Arad Doman in the Wheel of Time will soon be eating
eachother, since the food Rand had the Sea Folk bring in has spoiled.

[Michael Stemper]

Post by trag

Post by Shawn Wilson
In the real world merely being poor and homelss isn't poverty.
Starving to death is poverty. Everything above that is gravy.

So if folks aren't starving because they're practicing cannibalism as
the only viable alternative, is that poverty?

If they've chosen cannibalism, it was obviously a rational choice, since
they really wanted to be cannibals.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tom Kelsall
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible.  Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work.

This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth. Some will be richer than others, but some cavemen are more
prosperous than other as well. It's just the nature of the
universe.
Ask yourself, is anyone in America poor? Minimum wage is $7 an hour.
UN defines poverty as less that $1 a DAY.

The UN actually does no such thing, of course; its definition
isn't even monetary, but functional. But the World Bank named
that figure, back in 1993. So, hey, one of them thar big ol'
international thingies did say that, even if it was a while back;
with Shawn, accuracy is where you find it. Or where you imagine
it. Whatever.

[Mad Hamish]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson

Post by Shawn Wilson

Post by Tom Kelsall
"Even a person in the least-valued position gained enough money to
assure a comfortable standard of living".
Utterly impossible.  Economies create poverty; that's an unfortunate
fact of the way in which financial economies work.

This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth. Some will be richer than others, but some cavemen are more
prosperous than other as well. It's just the nature of the
universe.
Ask yourself, is anyone in America poor?

Hell yes.

Post by Shawn Wilson
Minimum wage is $7 an hour.
UN defines poverty as less that $1 a DAY.

That depends on what everything costs.
If the minimum amount you need to spend to survive is $0.10 a day then
$1 a day wouldn't be poor.
If the mimumum you need to spend to survive a day is $100 then $7 an
hour will leave you needing to work 15 hour days 7 days a week to keep
eating

[D.F. Manno]

In article

Post by Shawn Wilson
This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth.

Economies routinely _destroy_ wealth, as far back as the Dutch tulip
mania and as recently as the 2008 housing crash and subsequent
recession. In the process, they impoverish a number of people, thus
_creating_ poverty (e.g., the people who lost their jobs and/or their
homes in the current recession).

[Nicolas George]

"D.F. Manno" wrote in message

Post by D.F. Manno
Economies routinely _destroy_ wealth

And weathers make people wet.

[Jonathan Schattke]

Post by D.F. Manno
In article

Post by Shawn Wilson
This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth.

Economies routinely _destroy_ wealth, as far back as the Dutch tulip
mania and as recently as the 2008 housing crash and subsequent
recession. In the process, they impoverish a number of people, thus
_creating_ poverty (e.g., the people who lost their jobs and/or their
homes in the current recession).

For everyone who lost money, there was someone that made it. Economies
redistribute wealth, which has to come from real production activity.

The home builders made money during the boom, and if they over-extended,
were left with a stock of homes that they could not sell. The homes are
intrinsically valuable, as places to stay, but their value on the market
depends on the current demand. So a home builder building a home for
$100 a square foot might get $180 a square foot in a great neighborhood
in good times, but be forced to sell for $50 a square foot if they built
with loans and the market bad.
In any case, the workers got paid their wages week by week, the
suppliers got their money, and the home builder's personal money was
kept safe by the magic of corporations. What's more, those houses are
not going to be demolished by the bank if the company goes into
receivership, they will be sold at auction. The production of those
homes will not be worth the amount put into them, but they are not
worthless.

Speculative activity always runs the risk that the market will not stay.
All stock gains are ephemeral until the stock is actually sold. Not
everyone with stock in a company could sell it at the market price,
unless the company is bought entirely by someone who wishes to take it
private.

One reason I am in favor of gold and silver as currency is that those
metals have retained a strong market, no matter what governments do.
they are easy to check for purity, and a pure gold sample from one place
can be simply traded for a pure gold sample from another place. A
silver dollar could be traded quite simply for English shillings, just
by comparing the silver contents. Paper currency is an inherently
speculative market.

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by Jonathan Schattke
One reason I am in favor of gold and silver as currency is that those
metals have retained a strong market, no matter what governments do.
they are easy to check for purity, and a pure gold sample from one place
can be simply traded for a pure gold sample from another place.  A
silver dollar could be traded quite simply for English shillings, just
by comparing the silver contents.  Paper currency is an inherently
speculative market.

So is 'precious' metal, just ask the Hunt brothers. Part of the cause
of the recession was the notion that property was intrinsicly
valuable.

NOTHING has intrinsic value. It is worth only what people are willing
to pay for it.

Gold and silver are no more or less speculative than paper is. Paper
is, at least, not subject to supply altering forces the way gold and
silver are. We left the precious metal standard for a damn good
reason.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:31:29 -0500, Jonathan Schattke

Post by Jonathan Schattke
One reason I am in favor of gold and silver as currency is that those
metals have retained a strong market, no matter what governments do.
they are easy to check for purity, and a pure gold sample from one place
can be simply traded for a pure gold sample from another place. A
silver dollar could be traded quite simply for English shillings, just
by comparing the silver contents. Paper currency is an inherently
speculative market.

The supply of gold and silver don't correspond with the supply of
wealth. Usually wealth increases more rapidly, but when technology
changes opened up new continents full of the stuff, the reverse
happened. Technology may change it again.

But whenever you have accounting for the gold without the gold
actually being there, it really doesn't matter if the gold actually
exists in a vault in Fort Knox or somewhere, or if aliens emptied the
vaults out 50 years ago.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Howard Brazee
But whenever you have accounting for the gold without the gold
actually being there, it really doesn't matter if the gold actually
exists in a vault in Fort Knox or somewhere, or if aliens emptied the
vaults out 50 years ago.

ObSF: _Secret of the Sixth Magic_, Hardy.

Dave

[Rast]

Post by Howard Brazee
The supply of gold and silver don't correspond with the supply of
wealth.

That isn't a problem. The supply of green paper (physical and
computerized) doesn't directly correspond to the supply of real-world
wealth either.

Post by Howard Brazee
Usually wealth increases more rapidly, but when technology
changes opened up new continents full of the stuff, the reverse
happened. Technology may change it again.

Incremental improvements in mining technology aren't a problem. The main
risk with gold seems to me to be that eventually someone will discover
how to cheaply mass-produce it by fusing together lesser elements.

This is still less than the risk that the Fed will "discover" how to mass
produce paper currency Zimbabwe-style with a printing press or a few
mouse clicks.

Oh, and paper money is less likely to give you cancer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001517_pf.html

Post by Howard Brazee
But whenever you have accounting for the gold without the gold
actually being there, it really doesn't matter if the gold actually
exists in a vault in Fort Knox or somewhere, or if aliens emptied the
vaults out 50 years ago.

Right up until the time when it does matter. That time always does come
eventually.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Jonathan Schattke
One reason I am in favor of gold and silver as currency is that those
metals have retained a strong market, no matter what governments do.
they are easy to check for purity, and a pure gold sample from one place
can be simply traded for a pure gold sample from another place. A
silver dollar could be traded quite simply for English shillings, just
by comparing the silver contents. Paper currency is an inherently
speculative market.

Surely in this infodumpmationbahn age you can just compare the paper-trail
content?

Dave

[Howard Brazee]

Post by D.F. Manno

Post by Shawn Wilson
This is utterly false. Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth.

Economies routinely _destroy_ wealth, as far back as the Dutch tulip
mania and as recently as the 2008 housing crash and subsequent
recession. In the process, they impoverish a number of people, thus
_creating_ poverty (e.g., the people who lost their jobs and/or their
homes in the current recession).

Where did that wealth come from?

[Shawn Wilson]

Post by D.F. Manno

This is utterly false.  Economies don't create poverty, they create
wealth.

Economies routinely _destroy_ wealth, as far back as the Dutch tulip
mania

Which did not destroy any waelth.




and as recently as the 2008 housing crash and subsequent

Post by D.F. Manno
recession.

Neither of which destroyed any wealth. Wealth is not 'I have a piece
of paper witha large number written on it. Wealth is STUFF.

Post by D.F. Manno
In the process, they impoverish a number of people, thus
_creating_ poverty (e.g., the people who lost their jobs and/or their
homes in the current recession).

Sigh. By your argument fires create cold. You might want to think it
through some more...