Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Lon
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:52:03 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> Carbonation? Most wines aren't carbonated.
>> I thought they were all naturally carbonated.
>
> Nope.
>
> Carbonated wines are called "sparkling," while non-carbonated wines
> are called "still." The vast majority of wines, especially good
> wines, are still; the only sparkling wines of any importance are
> champagne and its imitators.
One must wonder how much of California's excess CO2 could be sequestered
in turning average table wines into bubbly.
Robert Carnegie
Amongst many things wrong with this idea is the risk of setting off
the next big earthquake there by increased flatus. Unless you wear
cushioned insole shoes...
Keith F. Lynch
> One must wonder how much of California's excess CO2 could be
> sequestered in turning average table wines into bubbly.
It wouldn't stay sequestered for long. Maybe buyers should get credit
for every year that they store rather than drink anything carbonated.
And also a one-time credit for anything they buy that's sure to
eventually absorb CO2, e.g. lye and quicklime.
Better yet, credit for storing any form of reduced carbon, i.e.
anything that would release CO2 if it were discarded or burned, or if
it rotted. I have a fair number of books. If I were paid for each
year I held onto them, I could use the money to buy more books, and
more wooden furniture in which to shelve them. The furniture would
also pay for itself. I could then use the money to buy a (wooden)
house, with room enough to buy more and more books and furniture.
If everyone follows this route, everyone will become wealthier and
wealthier, and more and more carbon will be taken out of circulation
as trees are grown and converted into books and furniture. It would
also help the faltering newspaper and magazine insustries. What's
not to like? :-)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
chorl...@gmail.com
> Lon <lon.stow...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > One must wonder how much of California's excess CO2 could be
> > sequestered in turning average table wines into bubbly.
>
> It wouldn't stay sequestered for long. Maybe buyers should get credit
> for every year that they store rather than drink anything carbonated.
> And also a one-time credit for anything they buy that's sure to
> eventually absorb CO2, e.g. lye and quicklime.
Brilliant, except that Lye NaOH KOH and Quicklime Ca(OH)2
are generated by heating the carbonate salts and driving off the CO2
into the atmosphere
I like your subsequent Idea of making paper much better.
> Better yet, credit for storing any form of reduced carbon, i.e.
> anything that would release CO2 if it were discarded or burned, or if
> it rotted. I have a fair number of books. If I were paid for each
> year I held onto them, I could use the money to buy more books, and
> more wooden furniture in which to shelve them. The furniture would
> also pay for itself. I could then use the money to buy a (wooden)
> house, with room enough to buy more and more books and furniture.
>
> If everyone follows this route, everyone will become wealthier and
> wealthier, and more and more carbon will be taken out of circulation
> as trees are grown and converted into books and furniture. It would
> also help the faltering newspaper and magazine insustries. What's
> not to like? :-)
Well you are perpetuating the fraud of anthropogenic global warming...
Next is going to be sea acidification by the absorption of CO2 into
the oceans, which already contain a fifty-fold higher concentration of
CO2 than does the atmosphere.
Go figure: bad science promulgated by bad people in order to
impoverish the working man.
David
> --
> Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
> Please seehttp://keithlynch.net/email.htmlbefore emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Better yet, credit for storing any form of reduced carbon, i.e.
>> anything that would release CO2 if it were discarded or burned,
>> or if it rotted. �I have a fair number of books. �If I were paid
>> for each year I held onto them, I could use the money to buy more
>> books, and more wooden furniture in which to shelve them. �The
>> furniture would also pay for itself. �I could then use the money to
>> buy a (wooden) house, with room enough to buy more and more books
>> and furniture.
>> If everyone follows this route, everyone will become wealthier
>> and wealthier, and more and more carbon will be taken out of
>> circulation as trees are grown and converted into books and
>> furniture. �It would also help the faltering newspaper and magazine
>> insustries. �What's not to like? :-)
> Well you are perpetuating the fraud of anthropogenic global
> warming...
Shhh... Charlie Stross sometimes reads rasfw, and he puts skepticism
of AGW in the same category as Holocaust denial. If he were to
discover that I'm still open minded on the subject of AGW...
cryptoguy
wrote:
If I could.
Explain. Why would anyone *want* to "impoverish the working man" as a
primary goal?
pt
William December Starr
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> said:
> "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Go figure: bad science promulgated by bad people in order to
>> impoverish the working man.
>
> If I could.
>
> Explain. Why would anyone *want* to "impoverish the working man"
> as a primary goal?
1. Impoverish the working man.
2. ?????
3. Profit!
-- wds
Keith F. Lynch
> Explain. Why would anyone *want* to "impoverish the working man" as
> a primary goal?
I don't know that anyone does. But it wouldn't surprise me, since so
many goals are so inexplicable.
I can think of lots of reasons why someone might want to do it as a
secondary goal: Governments prefer people to be dependent rather
than free and self-sufficient, since dependent people tend to lobby
governments to be more powerful and intrusive. Wealthy people may
want to keep working men out of their neighborhood, and improverishing
them so they can't afford housing in the neighbood is an obvous way.
People who want cheap and dependable employees might prefer for
working people to be poor, and for each of them to know that they
can easily be replaced.
William December Starr
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Explain. Why would anyone *want* to "impoverish the working man"
>> as a primary goal?
>
> I don't know that anyone does. But it wouldn't surprise me, since
> so many goals are so inexplicable.
>
> I can think of lots of reasons why someone might want to do it as
> a secondary goal: Governments prefer people to be dependent rather
> than free and self-sufficient, since dependent people tend to
> lobby governments to be more powerful and intrusive.
And governments in turn listen to these dependent people because
they're so powerful.
-- wds
John F. Eldredge
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Explain. Why would anyone *want* to "impoverish the working man" as a
>> primary goal?
>
> I don't know that anyone does. But it wouldn't surprise me, since so
> many goals are so inexplicable.
>
> I can think of lots of reasons why someone might want to do it as a
> secondary goal: Governments prefer people to be dependent rather than
> free and self-sufficient, since dependent people tend to lobby
> governments to be more powerful and intrusive. Wealthy people may want
> to keep working men out of their neighborhood, and improverishing them
> so they can't afford housing in the neighbood is an obvous way. People
> who want cheap and dependable employees might prefer for working people
> to be poor, and for each of them to know that they can easily be
> replaced.
The mercantilist economic theory, popular from the 16th through 18th
centuries, held, in part, the idea that the working class should be paid
as little as possible, in order to produce goods as cheaply as possible.
The emphasis was on foreign trade, not domestic consumption.
Manufacturers finally realized that their employees were also potential
customers, provided that they were paid enough to spend money on more
than just basic survival.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Strobe
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:55:06 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Explain. Why would anyone *want* to "impoverish the working man" as a
>>> primary goal?
>>
>> I don't know that anyone does. But it wouldn't surprise me, since so
>> many goals are so inexplicable.
>>
>> I can think of lots of reasons why someone might want to do it as a
>> secondary goal: Governments prefer people to be dependent rather than
>> free and self-sufficient, since dependent people tend to lobby
>> governments to be more powerful and intrusive. Wealthy people may want
>> to keep working men out of their neighborhood, and improverishing them
>> so they can't afford housing in the neighbood is an obvous way. People
>> who want cheap and dependable employees might prefer for working people
>> to be poor, and for each of them to know that they can easily be
>> replaced.
>
>The mercantilist economic theory, popular from the 16th through 18th
>centuries, held, in part, the idea that the working class should be paid
>as little as possible, in order to produce goods as cheaply as possible.
>The emphasis was on foreign trade, not domestic consumption.
>Manufacturers finally realized that their employees were also potential
>customers, provided that they were paid enough to spend money on more
>than just basic survival.
A corollary is that it's also in your best interest to ensure that the foreign
customers become and remain prosperous enough to buy your products.
Wars and corrupt governments undermine your profits.
Keith F. Lynch
> centuries, held, in part, the idea that the working class should be
> paid as little as possible, in order to produce goods as cheaply as
> possible.
Of course, all else being equal, employers will pay as little as they
can, just as employees will ask for as much as they can and shoppers
will buy for as low a price as they can. That's always been the case
and always will be the case.
> Manufacturers finally realized that their employees were also
> potential customers, provided that they were paid enough to spend
> money on more than just basic survival.
That doesn't make much sense. If everyone was suddenly paid twice the
wages, that just means the value of currency would halve, and nothing
would really change. Anyhow, any one employer increasing wages would
lose more in wages than they'd gain in sales, even if their employees
spent *all* the increase on their own products.