OT: President Match

Karen

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 6:49:08 PM1/27/04

to

A friend sent this to me, and I thought it was kind of fun and interesting.
It matches your opinions on issues against the candidates positions:

Go to the Q&A section:
www.presidentmatch.com

Karen

WhansaMi

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 7:27:05 PM1/27/04

to

Good lord. I must have misunderstood the questions. I was sure I'd come up
with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.

Sheila

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 7:29:00 PM1/27/04

to

In a previous article, whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi) said:

>Good lord. I must have misunderstood the questions. I was sure I'd come up
>with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.

I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

WhansaMi

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 7:38:15 PM1/27/04

to

>In a previous article, whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi) said:
>
>>Good lord. I must have misunderstood the questions. I was sure I'd come up
>>with Edwards. I came up totally matched with Kucinich instead.
>
>I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
>
>Vicki
>--

Yeah, me too. That one kind of scared me. :-O

I did the head to head comparison, and I think where I left the moderates and
went to the more liberal was in the last questions about prioritizing. There
were some things that I aligned exactly with Edwards on, but I think I
prioritized them as less important than the things I did with Kunicich.

Basically, I see myself as a moderate to conservative Democrat.

Sheila

Deborah M Riel

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 7:47:38 PM1/27/04

to

In article <20040127142705...@mb-m16.aol.com>,

Go Kucinich! In my ideal world, he'd actually stand a chance...

Deb R.

kitty

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 8:13:08 PM1/27/04

to

My match was John Kerry!

"Karen" <kat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bv6bc...@enews1.newsguy.com...

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 9:21:15 PM1/27/04

to

Hey, people were saying that about Clinton a year before the election!

Anne

Anne Robotti

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 9:22:03 PM1/27/04

to

Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
Jane.

Anne
Ducking and running for cover

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 10:07:35 PM1/27/04

to

>Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
>Jane.

Embrace it! You know you want to!

~~Geri~~

~Veni, vidi, visa~
I came, I saw, I shopped!

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 10:37:27 PM1/27/04

to

>In actuality, I plan on sitting out the next election - my vote is for None
>Of The Above!

I generally like President Bush, but if there was a candidate who would close
the borders, that one would get my vote.

_calinda_

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 11:31:18 PM1/27/04

to

Ya know.. I am so utterly shocked by the outcome that I can't even
state it. If you had asked me who I was going to vote for and
whichI disliked most.. well.. my "favored candidate" came in dead
last at 43%.. and my most disliked came in with a 100% match.
Hmm... good thing there is still time to think about this...

Interesting for sure!
Cal~

WhansaMi

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 11:34:03 PM1/27/04

to

No fair Cal! I told! You have to tell!

Sheila

Deborah M Riel

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 12:08:56 AM1/28/04

to

In article <20040127170735...@mb-m15.aol.com>,

Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>>Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
>>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
>>Jane.
>
>Embrace it! You know you want to!
>
>~~Geri~~
>

No, it makes me want to seek out an exorcism.

Deb R.

Melissa

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 12:18:02 AM1/28/04

to

>
>I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
>
>Vicki

Me too, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Love,
Melissa
"The old Tom didn't poison your fish either!"
-Carson Kressley, from Queer Eye

Melissa

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 12:19:01 AM1/28/04

to

>The worst for me was the 8% Bush
>which made me feel all cheap and icky inside.
>
>Deb R.

I had a lower match than that. 2% for Bush. :)

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 1:07:31 AM1/28/04

to

>No, it makes me want to seek out an exorcism.

That's right - get those liberal demons out, girl!

Kathy Cole

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 5:07:57 AM1/28/04

to

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:49:08 -0700, "Karen" <kat...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> A friend sent this to me, and I thought it was kind of fun and interesting.
> It matches your opinions on issues against the candidates positions:

Sharpton 100%
Dean 100%
Kerry 98%
Kucinich 98%
Clark 96%
Edwards 85%
Lieberman 79%
Bush 22% (eek!)

Thanks Karen, than was fun.

Kathleen

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 9:19:02 AM1/28/04

to

Me too, LOL.
Bush 100%
Lieberman 76%
Edwards 71%
Kerry 68%
Clark 64%

With hope and heart,
Kathleen
--
If you are humble nothing will touch you, neither praise nor disgrace,
because you know what you are.
~Mother Theresa

: BTW, I am 100% Bush! My next in line was Lieberman, as I suspected.

:

_calinda_

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 7:52:51 PM1/28/04

to

>> Ya know.. I am so utterly shocked by the outcome that I can't
even
>> state it. If you had asked me who I was going to vote for and

>> which I disliked most.. well.. my "favored candidate" came in

dead
>> last at 43%.. and my most disliked came in with a 100% match.
>> Hmm... good thing there is still time to think about this...
>>
>> Interesting for sure!
>> Cal~
>
> No fair Cal! I told! You have to tell!
>
> Sheila

Harder than I imagined... I voted for GWB last time, and had
planned on voting for him again. I came up with a 43% match for
him. I knew that I was moving away from his way of thinking, and of
that of the GOP as well. I've never felt comfortable with the way
abortion issue has been slowly moving back to the dark ages, due to
the republican party. But I felt on most issues I was more
conservative than this stupid quiz says I am.

This matches me up with John Kerry, senator from Massachusetts, who
I have never, ever liked. There is just something about him that
comes across as disingenuous to me!

Anyway.. I guess I need to do some rethinking of where my political
bent really lies, huh?

Cal~

Tracey

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 8:01:27 PM1/28/04

to

>But I felt on most issues I was more conservative
>than this stupid quiz says I am.

I took this 'stupid quiz', too and it's rigged. Rigged,
I tell you! When 7 out of 8 choices are Democrats, then
it's gotta be rigged.

But, you know what it is for me, I think? I've always
said that I've very conservative personally but I don't
presume to think that everyone else has to be conser-
vative. I know, as well as I can know, what I would do
in situation X, but that doesn't mean that what I would
do should necessarily be made into law so that everyone
else has to do the same as I would.

Tracey

WhansaMi

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 8:44:28 PM1/28/04

to

>Harder than I imagined... I voted for GWB last time, and had
>planned on voting for him again. I came up with a 43% match for
>him. I knew that I was moving away from his way of thinking, and of
>that of the GOP as well. I've never felt comfortable with the way
>abortion issue has been slowly moving back to the dark ages, due to
>the republican party. But I felt on most issues I was more
>conservative than this stupid quiz says I am.
>
>This matches me up with John Kerry, senator from Massachusetts, who
>I have never, ever liked. There is just something about him that
>comes across as disingenuous to me!

Well, I think you are looking at two different issues. One is agreement on the
issues, and the other is whether or not you feel comfortable with a particular
candidate's intregrity, honesty and character. I don't think that the two are
dependent on one another.

BTW, there is something I just don't like about Kerry too, but I can't put my
finger on it. I was disappointed with New Hampshire last night. The thing is,
it is truly visceral, because I really don't know that much about the man.
That may mean that he just doesn't give a good first impression (in terms of
what I expect from a president), or it may mean that there really is something
hinky about him. I guess I'll have to try to figure that out as time goes on.

>
>Anyway.. I guess I need to do some rethinking of where my political
>bent really lies, huh?

I tend to be liberal on some issues (abortion rights, gay rights), moderate on
some (capital punishment, welfare reform) and fairly conservative on other
(foreign relations, the military). I'm not sure where I fall anymore!

Sheila
>
>Cal~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 8:58:42 PM1/28/04

to

In a previous article, Tracey <rbran...@aol.com> said:

>I took this 'stupid quiz', too and it's rigged. Rigged,
>I tell you! When 7 out of 8 choices are Democrats, then
>it's gotta be rigged.

It's rigged in that, if you don't answer any questions you match
everyone 100%. So instead of starting out with no matches and adding
points for agreement, you start out agreeing with everyone completely,
and then you lose points for disagreements. The questions are so
broadly drawn as to be meaningless in many cases.

But it was kind of fun, anyway.

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

jane

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:00:18 AM1/29/04

to

>I came up with Kucinich too. And second was Al Sharpton!
>
>Vicki

Ditto, without the exclamation point. Who came after, though? I was surprised
that Kerry matched me better than Dean.

jane

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:01:49 AM1/29/04

to

>I don't even know who he is, but he came in last for me - 38%.
>
>Lynn

Bush came in last for me - 4%.

jane

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:08:09 AM1/29/04

to

>BTW, there is something I just don't like about Kerry too, but I can't put my
>finger on it.

He's an asshole. Still, I'm not looking for someone to hang out with. I'm
looking for someone to run the country.

jane

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:10:06 AM1/29/04

to

>The worst for me was the 8% Bush
>which made me feel all cheap and icky inside.
>
>Deb R.
>

Broken clock. You're good.

jane

Anne Robotti

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 8:25:42 AM1/29/04

to

Well, yeah, but is an asshole going to be the best person for the job?

Anne

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:13:00 PM1/29/04

to

>This time
>Bush dropped to 2%, which makes me feel much less cheap and icky.

Pretty wild that a silly internet poll can make you feel "cheap and icky". It
isn't like it really means anything.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:13:38 PM1/29/04

to

>Still though, there's gotta be a little corner of you wondering when
>that 2% is going to rear its ugly head...
>

Join us on the dark side ...

jane

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:15:08 PM1/29/04

to

>Well, yeah, but is an asshole going to be the best person for the job?
>
>Anne

Well, to be honest, I think they're probably all assholes.

But do I think it's a prerequisite for good presidenthood? No, I do not.
Because Lee's not an asshole, and I've got her earmarked for the job. After I
die, of course.

jane

Anne Robotti

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 11:24:58 PM1/29/04

to

See, I've always suspected this.

Anne

Deborah M Riel

unread,

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 1:44:37 PM1/30/04

to

>I like President Bush in a lot of ways, but he spends like a liberal and I
>don't like that.

He spends like a drunken sailor. Forget liberal. :)

>I don't like his illegal alien amnesty plan at all - which
>70% of the population opposes.

But it's not amnesty. That's what bugs me. I'd rather a real amnesty plan
that doesn't put immigration in the hands of corporations.

>I would like to see some politicians in office who actually represent their
>population's viewpoints. Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.
>
>~~Geri~~

Is Arnold doing things that he didn't campaign on now?

People in NY hate Bloomberg right now, which amazes me. He ran on the platform
of "I know better than you do because I'm a billionaire and you're not." and
that's exactly how he runs the city.

Kathy Cole

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 2:27:50 PM1/30/04

to

On 30 Jan 2004 00:42:26 GMT, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes
Brian) wrote:

> Lynn wrote:
> >And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing of
> >technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
> >keeping current with their job skills
>
> Is it true?

With respect to some specific individuals, sure. As a general statement
on the skill level of American IT workers, no, it's not true. It's a
line fed to allow businesses to save money exporting that work to
Bangalore and other, cheaper, areas. It's a handout to big business.

> I like President Bush in a lot of ways, but he spends like a liberal
> and I don't like that. I don't like his illegal alien amnesty plan
> at all - which 70% of the population opposes. OTOH, he seems to be
> the least of the evils.

I still wish McCain had won the republican nomination in 2000. He was
commenting in the last few days that his formerly conservative-spending
colleagues had started spending like drunken sailors, if I recall the
quote correctly.

And I strongly disagree that Bush is the least of the evils, but you
knew that. It does, however, seems like every last pandering one of
them has 37,000 spending programs without documenting how they're going
to pay for them, so I'm starting to tune out.

That, and fer pete's sake, did those ludicrous people think that selling
my name to every tom, dick and harry liberal cause after I gave to one
of them think that it would actually increase the amount of money I give
to various charitable or issue-based organizations?? I sent a few
dollars to one lobbying group in late fall, and I've been completely
drowned by solicitations ever since. So I opted out of mailed marketing
crap from the DMA, just to have random political groups make up the
slack *sigh*.

> I would like to see some politicians in office who actually represent
> their population's viewpoints. Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.

Arnold had to become a turncoat. The state budget is a disaster, and
him making unpopular choices was inevitable. Sorry.

Karen

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 2:30:15 PM1/30/04

to

"Lynn Randall" <ly...@aikidocenters.com> wrote in message
news:84mcnX3xpa4...@ptd.net...

>
> > I don't like any of them and I consider myself a Libertarian - less
taxes,
> less government, and strong 2nd amendment.
>

> Lynn
>

I wish that in this election, I was voting for a candidate, and not just
against the opponent.

Karen

Melissa

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 2:52:41 PM1/30/04

to

>I wish that in this election, I was voting for a candidate, and not just
>against the opponent.
>
>Karen
>

I'll be doing that in the primary, but probably not in the general election.

Melissa

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 2:56:05 PM1/30/04

to

>I still wish McCain had won the republican nomination in 2000. He was
>commenting in the last few days that his formerly conservative-spending
>colleagues had started spending like drunken sailors, if I recall the
>quote correctly.

I could have gone with McCain. Partly because I was more to the center in 2000
and partly because I've always felt that he was a man with integrity even if I
don't agree with alot of his views.

>
>That, and fer pete's sake, did those ludicrous people think that selling
>my name to every tom, dick and harry liberal cause after I gave to one
>of them think that it would actually increase the amount of money I give
>to various charitable or issue-based organizations?? I sent a few
>dollars to one lobbying group in late fall, and I've been completely
>drowned by solicitations ever since.

That happened to me once too. Now I always make certain that there's an opt
out policy on selling lists before I donate.

jane

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 3:33:17 PM1/30/04

to

>And me! Ha, I'm more liberal than Jane!
>Love,
>Melissa

I'm moderate!

jane

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 4:29:19 PM1/30/04

to

>I'd rather a real amnesty plan
>that doesn't put immigration in the hands of corporations.

I would prefer that *illegals* want to be citizens of this country, they do it
the way *legal* immigrant citizens do/did it. Anything else is a slap in the
face to the people who follow the laws.

Actually, the first thing that needs to be done is apply much stricter border
control, remove all free services to illegals so it is less attractive to be
one, and kick the violators out. In terms of what they do for the labor force
financially, they negate it (and over) in the burden they place on the country.
Not only that, the idea that they do jobs that would not otherwise get done is
also malarkey. There was not enough unskilled labor during various periods of
history of economic growth of the US, and the result was a higher degree of
invention and creation of labor saving ideas.

>Is Arnold doing things that he didn't campaign on now?
>

He appears to be going along with the new version of SB60 (the illegal
immigrant driver's license bill) even though the majority of people in the
state are *against* it. It appears to have been tweaked to put more controls
on security issues, but the bottom line is that the population is against
this.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 4:31:01 PM1/30/04

to

>Arnold had to become a turncoat. The state budget is a disaster, and
>him making unpopular choices was inevitable. Sorry.
>

So far I have not had any problem with his budgetary choices.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 4:31:58 PM1/30/04

to

>I could have gone with McCain.

One of my favorite candidates ever was Steve Forbes. I loved his flat tax
plan.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 4:33:07 PM1/30/04

to

>I'm moderate!

Pffft ... and I am a monkey's uncle.

Rupa Bose

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 6:46:41 PM1/30/04

to

Kathy Cole <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote

> (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:
>
> > Lynn wrote:
> > >And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing of
> > >technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
> > >keeping current with their job skills
> >
> > Is it true?
>
> With respect to some specific individuals, sure. As a general statement
> on the skill level of American IT workers, no, it's not true. It's a
> line fed to allow businesses to save money exporting that work to
> Bangalore and other, cheaper, areas. It's a handout to big business.

The main value to outsourcing is that there's a huge cost and wage
differential between the US and the outsourcee countries, mainly
India. We're talking of wage differentials of a factor of perhaps
5-10x, so that even after you build in the cost of remote management,
a company can look to halve its costs or better. That's tempting to
any company, and if you're talking of an environment of competition,
there's always the issue that if you don't do it, your competitor
will.

It really, to my mind at least, has nothing to do with job skills.
Even if one has fabulous job skills, unless they are so unique that a
smart Indian youngster can't learn them, the wage competition will
continue.

I think it's a lot simpler: Can the job be outsourced (in other words,
can it be done remotely)? And is it cost-efficient to do so?

I think there are some jobs which can't be outsourced because they
require performance of services on the spot: Nursing, for instance.

But, for instance, I can visualize a time when you get an x-ray taken
in, say, California; it's electronically transmitted to a doctor in
Bangalore who reads and interprets it, and the next morning you have a
diagnosis by e-mail...

Rupa

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 6:55:42 PM1/30/04

to

>I think there are some jobs which can't be outsourced because they
>require performance of services on the spot: Nursing, for instance.

I wish that could be done with a remote from my house.

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 7:49:46 PM1/30/04

to

In article <e5619372.04013...@posting.google.com>,

Rupa Bose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
>But, for instance, I can visualize a time when you get an x-ray taken
>in, say, California; it's electronically transmitted to a doctor in
>Bangalore who reads and interprets it, and the next morning you have a
>diagnosis by e-mail...

Actually, I believe this kind of thing is already happening.

As a software engineer, the subject of outsourcing is near and dear to my
heart. ;-) I've no doubt there are people in India, and China, and Russia,
and Sri Lanka that are just as skilled as many of the people here. I do
object to anyone who suggests that any company NEEDS to go outside the
U.S. simply to obtain the skill set. That's simply untrue - especially
now, with unemployment in the software sector so high.

(BTW, I don't know if Mr. Bush said anything like that. I do know that Carly
Fiorina, CEO of HP, made a statement to that effect.)

Currently, there are some huge cultural barriers to outsourcing certain
types of software - not in terms of skill set, or even of language; but in
explaining flow-control paradigms to a drastically different society.
This kind of overhead, from what I've seen, is rarely taken into account
by executives and stockholders who just want to hear they can slash 50%
off their R&D budget with no consequences.

Those barriers won't be in place forever, of course; the world is becoming
smaller and smaller. And I can't begrudge my company if they decide at
some point they can get what they get from me for less money from someone
else - here, or overseas. I do think, though, that when that time comes
there are going to be repercussions in our economy that haven't really been
thought through.

And I don't have any answers.

JMO,

Liz

--
li...@world.std.com
"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 10:43:32 PM1/30/04

to

In a previous article, li...@TheWorld.com (Elizabeth H Bonesteel) said:

>Those barriers won't be in place forever, of course; the world is becoming
>smaller and smaller. And I can't begrudge my company if they decide at
>some point they can get what they get from me for less money from someone
>else - here, or overseas. I do think, though, that when that time comes
>there are going to be repercussions in our economy that haven't really been
>thought through.
>
>And I don't have any answers.

By the time the world becomes small enough for outsourcing to be equal
to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.

My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
in our house.

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

Lynn Randall

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:33:34 AM1/31/04

to

"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comspamzap> wrote in message
news:20040130084437...@mb-m15.aol.com...

Even Arnold is becoming a turncoat.
> >
> >~~Geri~~
>
> Is Arnold doing things that he didn't campaign on now?
>

He's letting illegal immigrants get driver licenses.

Lynn

Lynn Randall

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:38:31 AM1/31/04

to

"Kathy Cole" <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote in message
news:vopk10ljkdi8ulm4m...@4ax.com...

> On 30 Jan 2004 00:42:26 GMT, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes
> Brian) wrote:
>
> > Lynn wrote:
> > >And I will never vote for Bush since he characterized the out-sourcing
of
> > >technical jobs to India as the fault of American technical workers not
> > >keeping current with their job skills
> >
> > Is it true?
>

My God - this is Too Funny! I thought Geri was asking is it true that Bush
said this!

Of course it's not true that IT workers are not keeping current with their
job skills. As we have been told as employees of Lucent Technologies, the
corporate overhead for 1 American IT person is $179,000 per year; for 1
Indian, it is $40,000!!!!!

My husband and I are both in the position of clinging on to our jobs by our
fingernails, after a combined 40 years in the industry and much education
and experience.

Lynn

Lynn Randall

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:39:25 AM1/31/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040130113158...@mb-m15.aol.com...

>
> One of my favorite candidates ever was Steve Forbes. I loved his flat tax
> plan.
>

I agree.

Lynn

Lynn Randall

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:42:30 AM1/31/04

to

> (BTW, I don't know if Mr. Bush said anything like that. I do know that
Carly
> Fiorina, CEO of HP, made a statement to that effect.)
>

> Liz
>

If you google around the June timeframe, you will see that Mr. Bush did
indeed say exactly that.

His speech was widely quoted on the IEEE website, and inspired an email
campaign of complaints against it.

Lynn

Lynn Randall

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:43:23 AM1/31/04

to

> My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
> in our house.
>
> Vicki

Yes!

Lynn

Rupa Bose

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:58:38 AM1/31/04

to

li...@TheWorld.com (Elizabeth H Bonesteel) wrote in message

>
> Currently, there are some huge cultural barriers to outsourcing certain
> types of software - not in terms of skill set, or even of language; but in
> explaining flow-control paradigms to a drastically different society.
> This kind of overhead, from what I've seen, is rarely taken into account
> by executives and stockholders who just want to hear they can slash 50%
> off their R&D budget with no consequences.
>
> Those barriers won't be in place forever, of course; the world is becoming
> smaller and smaller. And I can't begrudge my company if they decide at
> some point they can get what they get from me for less money from someone
> else - here, or overseas. I do think, though, that when that time comes
> there are going to be repercussions in our economy that haven't really been
> thought through.
>
> And I don't have any answers.
>

I'm not sure anyone has. Economists explain it in terms of structural
changes and buggy-whips. Companies explain it in terms of Shareholder
Value. Politicians talk of globalization.

It is going to mean a distinctly different economy. One possibility is
one that has stars and support staff: A few people, with unique
skills, make a lot of money; others, who may have good skills but are
not unique, will make a lot less (perhaps fractions of a percent of
the star salaries).

Or it might mean more leisure time for Americans, if they own the
corporations which deepen their profit margins. Then we become a
nation of capitalists, and all the work is done by the people in or
from poorer countries. (Some oil-rich countries de facto function on
this model.)

But the period of transition, well, it's going to be - interesting.

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:59:46 AM1/31/04

to

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote in message news:<20040130135542...@mb-m15.aol.com>...

> >I think there are some jobs which can't be outsourced because they
> >require performance of services on the spot: Nursing, for instance.
>
> I wish that could be done with a remote from my house.
>

Perhaps. Then, it could also be done with a remote from Gurgaon, India.

Rupa

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:07:44 AM1/31/04

to

In article <hx2dnXFdo8V...@ptd.net>,

Lynn Randall <ly...@aikidocenters.com> wrote:
>
>His speech was widely quoted on the IEEE website, and inspired an email
>campaign of complaints against it.

Ah. Well, I suppose I'm unsurprised.

Thanks for the reference, Lynn.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:08:30 AM1/31/04

to

>> I wish that could be done with a remote from my house.
>>
>Perhaps. Then, it could also be done with a remote from Gurgaon, India.

That would be alright, too.

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:12:06 AM1/31/04

to

In article <e5619372.04013...@posting.google.com>,
Rupa Bose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>

>Or it might mean more leisure time for Americans, if they own the
>corporations which deepen their profit margins. Then we become a
>nation of capitalists, and all the work is done by the people in or
>from poorer countries. (Some oil-rich countries de facto function on
>this model.)

You're more of an optimist than I am. I see this trend as continuing to
decimate the middle class, leaving us with little more than extremely
wealthy corporation owners and those who cut their grass.

And no, I've nothing against either wealthy corporation owners or
landscapers. I just think a society made up predominantly of these two
financial classes won't be nearly as stable as one with a healthy middle
class.

It will be interesting to see if the downsides of some types of outsourcing
mitigate this trend in the future. (There's a Chinese curse in there
somewhere! ;-))

Melissa

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 2:02:34 AM1/31/04

to

>By the time the world becomes small enough for outsourcing to be equal
>to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
>commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.
>
>My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
>in our house.
>
>Vicki

SO is amazed by how much technical stuff his company outsources. No joke, when
his printer at work is broken he calls support people in India.

WhansaMi

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 2:08:36 AM1/31/04

to

>>By the time the world becomes small enough for outsourcing to be equal
>>to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
>>commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.
>>
>>My husband is a software developer, and outsourcing is a bitter topic
>>in our house.
>>
>>Vicki
>
>SO is amazed by how much technical stuff his company outsources. No joke,
>when
>his printer at work is broken he calls support people in India.
>Love,
>Melissa

My DH does pricing for bids for tech support in the public and private sector.
At least in the companies he works with, he doesn't see as much of it as it
sometimes sounds like in the media. Maybe it is the companies he works with;
he says that most of them don't want their data going to unsecure places, and
they feel that US companies are more reliable in that way.

Sheila

Rupa Bose

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:21:36 PM1/31/04

to

vjr...@xcski.com (Vicki Robinson) wrote

>
> By the time the world becomes small enough for outsourcing to be equal
> to domestic software development, Indian software engineers will be
> commanding similar salaries to American or European engineers.

So we hope. But, realistically, the only bottleneck to having hordes
of software engineers is training. And training software engineers is
again mainly about having people to train them (and to a lesser
extent, having hardware to train them on).

India has 1 billion people, about half of them under 30. Let's say
only 10% of them have the kind of talent you need for software
development. That's 100 million people, of which around 50 million are
under 30 (and presumably flexible enough to learn new stuff).

where I think the transformation will occur is in allowing industry to
do things it could not otherwise do: Write more specialized code; have
special software developed for individual companies and so on.

I also think similar kinds of outsourcing will occur in biotech and in
pharmaceutical research, but will take a while -- I would guess about
another 10-15 years -- before it really takes off.

I think the government needs to think through the transitional period.
I read in the latest Time magazine that there's some assistance given
to people who have lost manufacturing jobs to outsourcing that is not
available to people who have lost service jobs. Doesn't sound fair to
me.

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:23:02 PM1/31/04

to

whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote >

> My DH does pricing for bids for tech support in the public and private sector.
> At least in the companies he works with, he doesn't see as much of it as it
> sometimes sounds like in the media. Maybe it is the companies he works with;
> he says that most of them don't want their data going to unsecure places, and
> they feel that US companies are more reliable in that way.
>
> Sheila

They're right -- for now.
Some Indian company is going to come up with some way of assuring data security.

Rupa

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:29:46 PM1/31/04

to

In article <e5619372.04013...@posting.google.com>,
Rupa Bose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:

>Some Indian company is going to come up with some way of assuring data security.
>

I kinda hope they already have - according to a "60 Minutes" segment a few
weeks ago, they're expecting to process 200,000 tax returns in India this
year.

Lori

unread,

Feb 1, 2004, 3:31:56 AM2/1/04

to

"Karen" <kat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bv6bc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> A friend sent this to me, and I thought it was kind of fun and
interesting.
> It matches your opinions on issues against the candidates positions:
>
> Go to the Q&A section:
> www.presidentmatch.com
>
>

No big surprise here, I left off party choice and everything, came up 100%
Bush. :-)
Lori

unread,

Feb 1, 2004, 3:43:55 AM2/1/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040127172436...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >>Don't fight it Deb, there's a little Bush in all of us. Except me. I'm
> >>pure. But the rest of you all have a little bit. Even Melissa and
> >>Jane.
> >
> >Embrace it! You know you want to!
>
> BTW, I am 100% Bush! My next in line was Lieberman, as I suspected. (I
didn't
> type in a party, just to see what would happen.) I am actually more
> conservative than President Bush, because I hate his amnesty program for
> illegal aliens. If only our Senator Tom McClintock out here would run for
> President some day. He would rock.
>
> Geri
> (blowing kisses to all of you socialist lefties - KISS, KISS, KISS)
>

My next in line was Lieberman, too, I also left out party choice to see what
would happen. And i also think I'm even more conservative than Bush. I
think we'd get along pretty well, Geri, if we lived close enough to meet in
real life! :-)

Lori

unread,

Feb 1, 2004, 3:45:56 AM2/1/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040127173727...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >In actuality, I plan on sitting out the next election - my vote is for
None
> >Of The Above!
>
> I generally like President Bush, but if there was a candidate who would
close
> the borders, that one would get my vote.
>
> ~~Geri~~

Same here, Geri, same here.

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 1:41:16 AM2/2/04

to

>And i also think I'm even more conservative than Bush. I
>think we'd get along pretty well, Geri, if we lived close enough to meet in
>real life! :-)

Indeed! :-)

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 1:43:19 AM2/2/04

to

>Whereas I see it as corporate terrorism.

I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make money
for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 1:44:47 AM2/2/04

to

>Exactly, they are without morals - the drive for profit supercedes their
>sense of responsibility towards the people they employ. Employment rules
>have a cost and they'll do anything to avoid paying the price.
>

So what?

Wendy

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 8:16:53 AM2/2/04

to

"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message

news:bvjvib$2pm$1...@pcls4.std.com...

> Right now, sure they will. CEOs and the levels underneath them aren't
paid
> to think about individual workers and the conditions in which they live.
> For public companies, the Board of Directors can put tremendous pressure
on
> the executive team to slash the budget, whatever it takes, in the grand
> tradition of putting the stockholders first.

One of the fundamental flaws of capitalism.

Pre-globalization, and pre-
> dot-com bust, they had to maintain a careful balance between keeping costs
> down and spending enough to attract and keep talented people. There's no
> need for that balance anymore; but the old system is still in place, with
> zero incentive for those involved to change it.

It's also true that when a company works within the confines of one country,
government can take an interest and labour can organise to counterbalance
the selfishness of stockholder greed.

Strong international laws are increasingly essential.

> I could get angry about it.

I already am, and I suspect that it's not an insignificant factor in the
increase of other sorts of terrorism we're seeing.

When it finally affects me, I'm sure I will get
> angry about it.

How can you not get angry when you see child labour in third world companies
going into the products you buy, guerilla tactics being taken against any
trades union activities, bribery of officials in third world countires,
cooking the books to mislead the public at large, a lack of concern for the
environment we all have to live in, and destroying the stability of nations
in the pursuit of profit for the few?

Right now, though, there isn't a damn thing I can do about
> it - and I'm not sure what I'd want anybody else to do.

Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy
and who we vote for at the very least.

I don't think it's
> possible to tell a company they cannot outsource work - not in the uber-
> capitalist USA, anyway - but it seems to me that unrestricted outsourcing
> of higher and higher paying jobs is an unsustainable economic model.

It seems ludicrous to wait for collapse before people wake up and smell the
coffee.

I just
> don't know how to solve the problem - you can't legislate social
consciousness
> into CEOs and Boards of Directors. (And truthfully, I'd be afraid of
whose
> brand of social consciousness would end up being legislated.)

But not to apply any controls gives them license to use and abuse and they
will.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 8:18:35 AM2/2/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040201204319...@mb-m16.aol.com...

> >Whereas I see it as corporate terrorism.
>
> I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make
money
> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.

Preferably?!

Wendy

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 3:18:24 PM2/2/04

to

In article <bvl0l6$gmr$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:bvjvib$2pm$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>

>> I could get angry about it.
>
>I already am, and I suspect that it's not an insignificant factor in the
>increase of other sorts of terrorism we're seeing.

I assume you're talking about standards of living here, and not outsourcing in
particular.

>
> When it finally affects me, I'm sure I will get
>> angry about it.
>
>How can you not get angry when you see child labour in third world companies
>going into the products you buy, guerilla tactics being taken against any
>trades union activities, bribery of officials in third world countires,
>cooking the books to mislead the public at large, a lack of concern for the
>environment we all have to live in, and destroying the stability of nations
>in the pursuit of profit for the few?

Yikes. I put it badly.

When I said "I could get angry about it," what I mean is that I could sit
here and think about it and get myself upset at this very moment. I have
good friends who have been directly affected by the issue of outsourcing
software jobs, one of whom has given up the industry entirely.

However, I would like to separate, if possible, the general issue of
outsourcing with exploitative labor. While outsourcing does drop a job in
the US in favor of paying someone less to do the same thing in another
country, it's not always at an exploitative wage. When comparing cost of
living, the wages paid are often pretty equivalent. That's not to say
that there isn't horrible exploitation; but I think that's a subset of
outsourcing, and not the whole issue. (And I may be mistaken; but I believe
there are regulations, at least about the most egregious examples?)

> Right now, though, there isn't a damn thing I can do about
>> it - and I'm not sure what I'd want anybody else to do.
>
>Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy
>and who we vote for at the very least.

Yes. And I do both of these things. But - to invoke some step-parenting
language here! - I try to remember my circle of control.

When I'm sick, or tired, or especially hormonal (which seems to happen a lot
these days!), I can lie awake at night worrying about things like this, about
what will happen to the world and what kind of species humanity thinks it is.
(Not to mention who the hell am I to be bringing a child into this mess.)
But that is not only useless, it's counterproductive - how can I do anything
about anything if I'm constantly exhausted and fighting things in my head
I can't affect? I can learn about what I spend my money on, and I can get
out and vote, and I can share my concerns with people who will listen. But
making myself constantly nuts over it gets me worse than nowhere - it renders
me powerless.

> I don't think it's
>> possible to tell a company they cannot outsource work - not in the uber-
>> capitalist USA, anyway - but it seems to me that unrestricted outsourcing
>> of higher and higher paying jobs is an unsustainable economic model.
>
>It seems ludicrous to wait for collapse before people wake up and smell the
>coffee.

Welcome to the human race. When has *anything* changed on a global scale
without it directly affecting a critical mass of the population? Objects
at rest tend to stay at rest. The expanding affect of outsourcing actually
gives me a little hope that things *will* change. If your neighbor files for
bankruptcy - well, he should've thought ahead, shouldn't he? If *you* have
to do it - hey! This system has some problems, doesn't it?

> I just
>> don't know how to solve the problem - you can't legislate social
>consciousness
>> into CEOs and Boards of Directors. (And truthfully, I'd be afraid of
>whose
>> brand of social consciousness would end up being legislated.)
>
>But not to apply any controls gives them license to use and abuse and they
>will.

This is true. But as I said - whose controls? The US in particular doesn't
have a terribly good record choosing standards that actually make a
difference. (To raise another hot point - abstinence-only education, anyone?)
If I were Jane's theoretical Queen of the World, I know some of the things
I'd do. I also suspect most of the voters in this country would disagree
with me.

Liz
(BTW, I fundamentally agree with you, Wendy. And if I seem like I'm arguing -
well, much to my horror I find I'm a lot like my dad as I get older. ;-))

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 4:04:30 PM2/2/04

to

>> I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make
>money
>> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
>
>Preferably?!
>

Yep.

~~Geri~~

"The song "Omaha" by Counting Crows has nothing to do with the city. If you
need to talk about music, hum the Husker fight song and eat your steak."
--Nebraska Tourism Bureau

Wendy

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 7:45:06 PM2/2/04

to

"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message

news:bvlpo0$fkb$1...@pcls4.std.com...

> >I already am, and I suspect that it's not an insignificant factor in the
> >increase of other sorts of terrorism we're seeing.
>
> I assume you're talking about standards of living here, and not
outsourcing in
> particular.

You assume wrong then, what I'm talking about is corporate terrorism and
corporate greed of which outsourcing is but another example, not standards
of living at all.

> Yikes. I put it badly.
>
> When I said "I could get angry about it," what I mean is that I could sit
> here and think about it and get myself upset at this very moment. I have
> good friends who have been directly affected by the issue of outsourcing
> software jobs, one of whom has given up the industry entirely.

Okay, I'm sorry. I have to work at not being angry a lot of the time. I'm
in IT too, as are many of my friends, but for me it's about principle.

> However, I would like to separate, if possible, the general issue of
> outsourcing with exploitative labor. While outsourcing does drop a job in
> the US in favor of paying someone less to do the same thing in another
> country, it's not always at an exploitative wage. When comparing cost of
> living, the wages paid are often pretty equivalent.

No, it may not be, but the cost of employing someone is vastly greater than
their salary. People use the line that children in sweatshops making Adidas
are earning money to keep food on the table for their family as
justification for allowing companies to exploit those children. Would they
do that if the factories were in America? Is outsourcing really so
different?

That's not to say
> that there isn't horrible exploitation; but I think that's a subset of
> outsourcing, and not the whole issue. (And I may be mistaken; but I
believe
> there are regulations, at least about the most egregious examples?)

In principle, it doesn't at first seem a bad thing to share the wealth with
other countries, but there are similarities with other more egregious
examples. Do we really want multinationals to be above the law and
uncontrollable by government and by the standards we have set for human
rights and employment rights in the western world?

> When I'm sick, or tired, or especially hormonal (which seems to happen a
lot
> these days!),

Hey, that happens to me too, but for very different reasons.

I can lie awake at night worrying about things like this, about
> what will happen to the world and what kind of species humanity thinks it
is.
> (Not to mention who the hell am I to be bringing a child into this mess.)
> But that is not only useless, it's counterproductive - how can I do
anything
> about anything if I'm constantly exhausted and fighting things in my head
> I can't affect? I can learn about what I spend my money on, and I can get
> out and vote, and I can share my concerns with people who will listen.
But
> making myself constantly nuts over it gets me worse than nowhere - it
renders
> me powerless.

If there is one thing that made me even more passionate and idealistic about
the way the world ought to be, it was bringing a new life into it.

> Welcome to the human race. When has *anything* changed on a global scale
> without it directly affecting a critical mass of the population? Objects
> at rest tend to stay at rest. The expanding affect of outsourcing
actually
> gives me a little hope that things *will* change. If your neighbor files
for
> bankruptcy - well, he should've thought ahead, shouldn't he? If *you*
have
> to do it - hey! This system has some problems, doesn't it?

Indeed.

> This is true. But as I said - whose controls?

International ones.

The US in particular doesn't
> have a terribly good record choosing standards that actually make a
> difference. (To raise another hot point - abstinence-only education,
anyone?)

You'll have to clarify that one for me, I'm not sure what you're referring
to.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 7:45:58 PM2/2/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040202110430...@mb-m15.aol.com...

> >> I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make
> >money
> >> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
> >
> >Preferably?!
> >
> Yep.

In my book, if it's illegal than there's no preferrably about it.

Wendy

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 8:02:00 PM2/2/04

to

In article <bvm8vi$9ko$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:bvlpo0$fkb$1...@pcls4.std.com...

>> I assume you're talking about standards of living here, and not
>outsourcing in
>> particular.
>
>You assume wrong then, what I'm talking about is corporate terrorism and
>corporate greed of which outsourcing is but another example, not standards
>of living at all.

But is it really so black-and-white? Are all corporations greedy terrorists?
And where is the dividing line?

I think these decisions fall along a continuum. There is a big company based
in Massachusetts that, some years ago, blackmailed the government into giving
it a tax break by threatening to move a bunch of jobs out of state. The
government gave in, and the jobs started moving anyway, due to a "No, really,
we *can't* afford to keep these people here" loophole. Should the state have
given in to this company? I sure don't think so; what was going to happen was
pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain. Should the company have kept the
jobs in-state? Well...I honestly don't know. They can pay lower wages in
Tennessee because the cost of living is lower, and they get just as good a
talent pool. But boy, did it suck for the people here.

To me, I guess the line is drawn when they're utilizing countries where the
standard of living is really horrible, and people ARE grateful to get fifty
cents a day because it means they might get bread this week. That's
unconscionable, I agree. But to pay someone in, for example, India ten times
the average middle-class salary doesn't seem so unethical. Sucks for me,
sure; but I can't agree that's exploitative.

>No, it may not be, but the cost of employing someone is vastly greater than
>their salary. People use the line that children in sweatshops making Adidas
>are earning money to keep food on the table for their family as
>justification for allowing companies to exploit those children. Would they
>do that if the factories were in America? Is outsourcing really so
>different?

As I said above, I think it depends. Employing adults in India at an
extremely good local wage is not the same as Adidas using children in
sweatshops. That's why it's a standard-of-living issue for me.

>In principle, it doesn't at first seem a bad thing to share the wealth with
>other countries, but there are similarities with other more egregious
>examples. Do we really want multinationals to be above the law and
>uncontrollable by government and by the standards we have set for human
>rights and employment rights in the western world?

I agree, and as I said earlier I'd likely support an effort to set minimum
standards for the countries to which we outsource. As far as employment
rights go - they differ drastically even in the Western world. My company
wins awards in the U.S. for its maternity benefits, and they're a joke
compared with what employees in Great Britain and Canada can choose from.

>If there is one thing that made me even more passionate and idealistic about
>the way the world ought to be, it was bringing a new life into it.

You'd probably be surprised, after all this, at how idealistic I am. ;-) I
am more liberal than Jane, actually (I was only 3% Bush!). But I have come
to view U.S. society as the Titanic - it can turn, but boy does it take a long
time. And it might have to rip a hole in its side before it gets there.

>> This is true. But as I said - whose controls?
>
>International ones.

Hey, I'm in the land of "screw the Kyoto treaty," remember? The U.S. may
someday get on the international bandwagon, but I'm betting not in my lifetime.
(And no, that doesn't mean we should stop pushing for it.)

>The US in particular doesn't
>> have a terribly good record choosing standards that actually make a
>> difference. (To raise another hot point - abstinence-only education,
>anyone?)
>
>You'll have to clarify that one for me, I'm not sure what you're referring
>to.

A personal pet peeve of mine, also as I think of raising my own child: many
studies have shown abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, yet the
government still throws money at it. Thank you for using my tax dollars so
wisely </sarcasm>. It's a "standard" they cling to that has no basis in
fact.

Liz

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 9:06:15 PM2/2/04

to

In a previous article, li...@TheWorld.com (Elizabeth H Bonesteel) said:

>>How can you not get angry when you see child labour in third world companies
>>going into the products you buy, guerilla tactics being taken against any
>>trades union activities, bribery of officials in third world countires,
>>cooking the books to mislead the public at large, a lack of concern for the
>>environment we all have to live in, and destroying the stability of nations
>>in the pursuit of profit for the few?
>

>However, I would like to separate, if possible, the general issue of
>outsourcing with exploitative labor. While outsourcing does drop a job in
>the US in favor of paying someone less to do the same thing in another
>country, it's not always at an exploitative wage. When comparing cost of
>living, the wages paid are often pretty equivalent. That's not to say
>that there isn't horrible exploitation; but I think that's a subset of
>outsourcing, and not the whole issue. (And I may be mistaken; but I believe
>there are regulations, at least about the most egregious examples?)

And eventually, the society whose children are being exploited will
have attained a general standard of living that will enable it to say
"No more. None of us is so poor anymore that we *must* send our
children to work in dangerous conditions" just as we did in the US and
Europe at the end of the 19th Century.

I don't believe that any country in the future will be as wealthy as
the US is, and that includes the US, but there will also be either no
Third World standards of living or the Third World will be shrinking
rapidly. Everyone on Earth will eventually have a lower-middle-class
standard of living; it will fall in the US, Canada and Europe and rise
in Asia and Africa. Outsourcing will be moot at that point.

It's going to take a few generations, though.

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 9:14:53 PM2/2/04

to

>If there is one thing that made me even more passionate and idealistic about
>the way the world ought to be, it was bringing a new life into it.

For completely different reasons than yours, this is partially why I chose
never to do so.

>> This is true. But as I said - whose controls?
>
>International ones.

Negatory on that. We don't need a bunch of socialists and banana republics
telling our businesses what to do.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 2, 2004, 9:17:32 PM2/2/04

to

>But I have come
>to view U.S. society as the Titanic - it can turn, but boy does it take a
>long
>time.

This was somewhat of a fallacy perpetuated by the Cameron movie.

>And it might have to rip a hole in its side before it gets there.

Actually a series of small holes.

jane

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 5:08:14 AM2/3/04

to

> We don't need a bunch of socialists

Now see, that's exactly what I think we need.

jane

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 6:30:35 AM2/3/04

to

>> We don't need a bunch of socialists
>
>Now see, that's exactly what I think we need.

Good idea! We could be another Soviet Union - a shining example of why
socialism doesn't work.

~~Geri~~

"The song "Omaha" by Counting Crows has nothing to do with the city. If you
need to talk about music, hum the Husker fight song and eat your steak."
--Nebraska Tourism Bureau

jane

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 12:56:29 PM2/3/04

to

>Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy
>and who we vote for at the very least.

My life is defined by choosing food lately. Have I mentioned this here? The
supermarkets are still on strike, and I'd prefer to die without ever having
crossed a picket line, so I lost the stores where I did 80-90% of my food
shopping. 7-11 is doing great.

But Lee, my precious child, is a vegetarian, and they don't carry tofu. Dairy
products have to come from animals treated humanely. Not a problem, we can get
organic cagefree eggs at the farmers market on the other side of town on
Sundays. Unfortunately, they don't carry organic cheese and milk, which I get
at the food coop on the other other side of town.

Then there's the low carb diet and the braces to factor in. Food has lost all
its convenience. There is nowhere to dash out and grab something anymore.
There's nothing to keep around the house to snack on.

jane

Wendy

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 2:32:59 PM2/3/04

to

"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bvmabo$ucb$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> But is it really so black-and-white? Are all corporations greedy
terrorists?
> And where is the dividing line?

No doubt someone somewhere can give an example of a corporation which isn't,
but from what I've read I'm disillusioned with globalisation. There's too
high a price to pay, from the destruction of small family farms and the
village communities they support, to the increasing divide between the
extremely rich and the poor. There is something obscene about individuals
earning more money than many small nations combined. We need a new economic
model for the world which is founded upon ethics. So, in my book, yes, it's
that black and white.

> I think these decisions fall along a continuum. There is a big company
based
> in Massachusetts that, some years ago, blackmailed the government into
giving
> it a tax break by threatening to move a bunch of jobs out of state. The
> government gave in, and the jobs started moving anyway, due to a "No,
really,
> we *can't* afford to keep these people here" loophole. Should the state
have
> given in to this company? I sure don't think so; what was going to happen
was
> pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain. Should the company have kept
the
> jobs in-state? Well...I honestly don't know. They can pay lower wages in
> Tennessee because the cost of living is lower, and they get just as good a
> talent pool. But boy, did it suck for the people here.

I don't think anyone should ever give in to blackmail. Within a nation, it
is their right to relocate, despite the ramifications to the local economy.
But if you equate this to transferring the employment to another country,
what are you really doing? These companies will pay in American dollars.
The local currency will be devalued. It creates instability there as much as
it does in the USA.

> To me, I guess the line is drawn when they're utilizing countries where
the
> standard of living is really horrible, and people ARE grateful to get
fifty
> cents a day because it means they might get bread this week. That's
> unconscionable, I agree. But to pay someone in, for example, India ten
times
> the average middle-class salary doesn't seem so unethical. Sucks for me,
> sure; but I can't agree that's exploitative.

How can it not be when free trade is protective of individual worker's
rights in one country and denying them in another? How can it not be when
what really happens through these expansionist policies is the suppression
of competition and the destruction of local economies and cultural
traditions and skills? How can it not be when they can establish a reliance
upon an industry which can just as easily up and go with no thought of the
devastation left behind?

> As I said above, I think it depends. Employing adults in India at an
> extremely good local wage is not the same as Adidas using children in
> sweatshops. That's why it's a standard-of-living issue for me.

It's just as destructive, even if it doesn't have the same effect on our
sensibilities.

> I agree, and as I said earlier I'd likely support an effort to set minimum
> standards for the countries to which we outsource.

That would only solve one problem, when the root problem is globalisation.

As far as employment
> rights go - they differ drastically even in the Western world. My company
> wins awards in the U.S. for its maternity benefits, and they're a joke
> compared with what employees in Great Britain and Canada can choose from.

My sister lives in Conneticut and I can't believe how few holidays she gets
a year.

> You'd probably be surprised, after all this, at how idealistic I am. ;-)
I
> am more liberal than Jane, actually (I was only 3% Bush!).

Yay! What the world needs is more Janes.

But I have come
> to view U.S. society as the Titanic - it can turn, but boy does it take a
long
> time. And it might have to rip a hole in its side before it gets there.

But some wonderful things come out of the US too. If you want to read
something meaty on this topic, though not specifically about outsourcing,
The_Case_Against_The_Global_Economy_&_For_A_Turn_Towards_Localization,
edited by Edward Goldsmith and Jerry Mander, Earthscan, 2001 is an
exceptional book. An earlier edition (1996) focussed on North America was
published in the States and won the American Political Science Association
award for the Best Book in Ecological and transformational Politiics.

> A personal pet peeve of mine, also as I think of raising my own child:
many
> studies have shown abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, yet the
> government still throws money at it. Thank you for using my tax dollars
so
> wisely </sarcasm>. It's a "standard" they cling to that has no basis in
> fact.

I like the Dutch model in their approach to sex and sex education.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 3:38:46 PM2/3/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040202161453...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> Negatory on that. We don't need a bunch of socialists and banana
republics
> telling our businesses what to do.

If you want to play in international markets, I don't think it unreasonable
for you to consider international opinions.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 3:41:14 PM2/3/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040203013035...@mb-m27.aol.com...

> Good idea! We could be another Soviet Union - a shining example of why
> socialism doesn't work.

And capitalism works so much better?

Wendy

Geri and sometimes Brian

Feb 3, 2004, 6:11:51 PM2/3/04

to

In article <20040202110430...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:

> >> I call it making money. If you have a corporation, your job is to make
> >money
> >> for yourself and your stockholders, preferably legally.
> >
> >Preferably?!
> >
> Yep.
>

But Geri, don't you think that corporations should make money *legally*?
Isn't anything else a slap in the face to the people who follow the laws?

Put another way: Why wouldn't the same line of thinking you apply to
immigrants apply also to capitalists?

Martha

Melissa

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 6:24:33 PM2/3/04

to

>But Geri, don't you think that corporations should make money *legally*?
>Isn't anything else a slap in the face to the people who follow the laws?
>
>Put another way: Why wouldn't the same line of thinking you apply to
>immigrants apply also to capitalists?
>
>Martha

Immigrints are far easier targets.

Kind of like how corporations aren't expected to show accountability but
individuals are, despite how much more a lack of corporate accountability costs
us.
Love,
Melissa
"The old Tom didn't poison your fish either!"
-Carson Kressley, from Queer Eye

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 6:47:22 PM2/3/04

to

>Immigrints are far easier targets.
>

Illegal ones are.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 6:46:39 PM2/3/04

to

>But Geri, don't you think that corporations should make money *legally*?

Yes. That's why I said preferably.

filipic...@osu.edu

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 7:39:43 PM2/3/04

to

In article <20040203134639...@mb-m29.aol.com>,

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:

> >But Geri, don't you think that corporations should make money *legally*?
>
> Yes. That's why I said preferably.

Sure. And it would be preferable if illegal immigrants could get into this
country legally. But we put so many hurdles in their way that this would
be an impossible path for most of them. So, one could advocate stronger
enforcement against illegal immigration (as you have) or one could shrug
his/her shoulders and say "it would be >preferable< if they could do it
legally, but what the heck."

You don't seem to advocate stronger enforcement to make sure capitalists
make their money legally. Again, my question remains: Why the disparity?

--Martha

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 8:31:44 PM2/3/04

to

>You don't seem to advocate stronger enforcement to make sure capitalists
>make their money legally. Again, my question remains: Why the disparity?

Sigh. My "preferably" initially was tongue-in-cheek.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 10:57:22 PM2/3/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040203075629...@mb-m24.aol.com...

> My life is defined by choosing food lately. Have I mentioned this here?
The
> supermarkets are still on strike, and I'd prefer to die without ever
having
> crossed a picket line, so I lost the stores where I did 80-90% of my food
> shopping. 7-11 is doing great.

You haven't mentioned this here. Why are the supermarkets on strike?

I can understand not wanting to cross a picket line.

> But Lee, my precious child, is a vegetarian, and they don't carry tofu.
Dairy
> products have to come from animals treated humanely. Not a problem, we
can get
> organic cagefree eggs at the farmers market on the other side of town on
> Sundays. Unfortunately, they don't carry organic cheese and milk, which I
get
> at the food coop on the other other side of town.

I only buy organic dairy produce too, as the hormones they pump cows full of
are highly suspect in terms of the effect they'll have on your offspring.
Well done Lee.

> Then there's the low carb diet and the braces to factor in. Food has lost
all
> its convenience. There is nowhere to dash out and grab something anymore.
> There's nothing to keep around the house to snack on.

Saw a good programme on the Atkins Diet. Apparently some Danish research
suggests that it's really about reduced calorie intake, as people don't eat
as much when they are on it.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 10:59:05 PM2/3/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040203110759...@mb-m27.aol.com...

> >If you want to play in international markets, I don't think it
unreasonable
> >for you to consider international opinions.
>
> The bottom line is that they don't have to.

But adults often do things they don't have to, Geri.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 11:06:41 PM2/3/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040203111835...@mb-m27.aol.com...

> I think it does.

Okay, explain the huge increase in organised crime in the Soviet bloc, and
the fact that people are still going hungry. Explain how price actually is
a reflection of efficiency.

Not only that, if I lived in a socialist environment, I might
> lose all incentive to work. Why not - someone else will just give me
handouts
> anyway.

That's your own deluded intrepretatino of socialism.

I might lose all incentive to invent something new or create anything
> innovative. Why bother - I can't profit from it, since all my profits
would be
> redistributed.

Life isn't always about what you can get for yourself, Geri.

> I don't really see the United States as ever going too far in that
direction.
> Besides the fact that, in general, we prize our individualism pretty
highly,
> additionally, we all prize our big cars and other items of conspicuous
> consumerism and we want to get the most stuff for our dollars.

But the Americans aren't all without conscience!

This is why, in
> spite of the naysayers, the big corporations flourish. It is all about
supply
> and demand. I would guess that most US consumers don't really care if
some
> nine year old in Indonesia is working sixteen hours a day to put together
the
> stuff as long as we can get lots of it and as cheap as possible.

Nor are they all lacking in sensibility.

Wendy

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 11:37:26 PM2/3/04

to

On 03 Feb 2004 16:06:12 GMT, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and
sometimes Brian) wrote:

>>The
>>supermarkets are still on strike, and I'd prefer to die without ever having
>>crossed a picket line, so I lost the stores where I did 80-90% of my food
>>shopping.
>
>I make a point to cross them whenever possible.

I think it's as stupid to just "never cross a picket line" as it is to
"make a point to cross them whenever possible." I've personally never
crossed a picket line. I've had two opportunities, once when the AT&T
workers were on strike and once when the teachers in our school
district were.

Both times, I made it a point to educate myself about the issues, and
made the choice not to cross the line. But sometimes "the
administration" are the ones with the point! Now, there are supposed
to be people picketing outside of Wegman's because Wegman's isn't
unionized. The Wegman's workers are extremely happy with their jobs
and working conditions, it's people from other stores, with unions,
who are upset. I could give a damn. That line I'd cross in a hot
flash.

OTOH, I brought Brooke's kindergarten teacher Danish on the picket
line to show my support. That was totally bullshit, what they were
doing to the teachers that year and are setting up to do again.

Anne

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 11:53:23 PM2/3/04

to

>> The bottom line is that they don't have to.
>
>But adults often do things they don't have to, Geri.

If they want to.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 3, 2004, 11:55:34 PM2/3/04

to

>But the Americans aren't all without conscience!

>Nor are they all lacking in sensibility.

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 4:11:50 PM2/4/04

to

>Besides, I want the store to be union for my shopping convenience.

The best grocery stores I have been in are Hy-Vee stores. The selection and
cleanliness are outstanding. There is nothing that comes even remotely as
close in Southern CA. These stores are employee owned, to top it off, so you
don't get all of the union bullshit.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 4:19:02 PM2/4/04

to

>And I belonged to a
>teachers' union in a world far away from here. We were told what to
>vote on contract votes, and those who didn't vote the union way found
>their cars vandalized and dog shit in their school mailboxes. Forget
>about a teacher who crossed the lines. It was ugly. I belonged
>because
>I had no choice.)

This is the reason I am part of the C(osa) N(ostra) Association. If I want to
keep my job, I am forced to be in it. We don't have "right to work" laws out
here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. I crossed the line and worked
when we struck because I was the single income for our family and those CNA
fat-asses in Oakland weren't going to be paying my rent or buying my daughter
Christmas presents - they are too busy donating our dues money to various
socialist politicians in the state. Brian drove me to work on those days. I
never fail to send scathing letters along with my union dues checks, even
though I know it doesn't do any good, but just to make myself feel a little
better.

rebecca

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 4:46:32 PM2/4/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040204111902...@mb-m05.aol.com...

> or buying my daughter
> Christmas presents

Oh, Geri, you have so totally lost the right to ever call yourself
child-free. Hee-hee.

rebecca

jane

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 4:47:16 PM2/4/04

to

> But Wegmans workers aren't on strike, they never have been
>during the 25 years I've lived here in Rochester,

Wait a second. They have a union contract?

jane

>Vicki

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 4:55:04 PM2/4/04

to

>Oh, Geri, you have so totally lost the right to ever call yourself
>child-free. Hee-hee.

Well, technically I am, but not according to ASCF standards. Oh, well.

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 5:14:32 PM2/4/04

to

In a previous article, janel...@aol.com (jane) said:

No, they don't. And they are not expressing any dissatisfaction with
their working conditions.

I'm quite sure the organizers have been around, but no one's
interested.

Here's a letter dated Feb. 23, 2003 from teamsters.org (can't get more
union than that):

In response to the Jan. 24 letter "Wegmans' award holds lesson on
labor unions'': Wegmans store employees may not be members of a
union. However, Wegmans does employ more than 300 members of the
Bakers Union Local 116 and more than 600 members of the Teamsters
Union Local 118, 400 who work as warehousemen and 200 who deliver the
store's product as truck drivers. Union members have been a part of
Wegmans for more than 30 years.

Wegmans-brand baked goods, such as breads, cookies and hotdog and
hamburger rolls, are baked daily by hardworking union members. Fresh
produce, dairy products, frozen foods and dry grocery items are
selected to store order, loaded on trailers and delivered daily to
the stores by hardworking union members.

Wegmans was named the 10th best company in America to work for by
Fortune magazine, an honor we are all proud of, an honor well earned
and shared by more than 1,000 local Rochester area union members.

The text is at http://www.teamster.org/03news/hn_030203_1.htm

The UFCW pickets Wegmans stores in NJ, but it doesn't seem to faze the
Wegmans employees.

jane

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 5:32:21 PM2/4/04

to

>No, they don't.

Then I'm not sure what significance you attach to them not striking.

> And they are not expressing any dissatisfaction with
>their working conditions.
>
>I'm quite sure the organizers have been around, but no one's
>interested.

This is what makes me crazy. Of course people are expressing dissatisfaction,
and of course people are interested. How can you make these blanket
statements? This is so not like you.

I'm not saying Wegman's should be unionized, or even that things would be
better if they were. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among
employees on this issue.

You can cross a line. You can shop at non-union stores. Hell, you can shop at
WalMart. It's your decision, based on your values. Just don't kid yourself
that you're doing what the employees want. You're doing what some of the
employees, maybe most of the employees, want. People who don't cross the line
are doing what some of the employees want, too.

>Here's a letter dated Feb. 23, 2003 from teamsters.org (can't get more
>union than that):

I read this twice. I don't get your point. The Teamsters' point seems to be
that some Wegman's employees *are* unionized.

jane

>Vicki

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 6:01:33 PM2/4/04

to

In a previous article, janel...@aol.com (jane) said:

>>No, they don't.
>
>Then I'm not sure what significance you attach to them not striking.
>
>> And they are not expressing any dissatisfaction with
>>their working conditions.
>>
>>I'm quite sure the organizers have been around, but no one's
>>interested.
>
>This is what makes me crazy. Of course people are expressing dissatisfaction,
>and of course people are interested. How can you make these blanket
>statements? This is so not like you.

Because when the majority of employees are happy, I'm comfortable with
saying that Wegmans employees are happy. I don't feel the need to add
"...with the exception of Shirley in Floral, and Leon in Meats and
Fish." Sure, some are unhappy. They'll quit Wegmans and get a job in
one of the union stores in Rochester. And complain there, too, I'll
bet.

>I'm not saying Wegman's should be unionized, or even that things would be
>better if they were. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among
>employees on this issue.

Some, probably. Not a lot.

>You can cross a line. You can shop at non-union stores. Hell, you can shop at
>WalMart. It's your decision, based on your values. Just don't kid yourself
>that you're doing what the employees want. You're doing what some of the
>employees, maybe most of the employees, want. People who don't cross the line
>are doing what some of the employees want, too.

I'm sure that Wegmans employees want me to shop non-union shops
because that means I'm shopping at their store. Why would they want
me to shop at a different chain?

>>Here's a letter dated Feb. 23, 2003 from teamsters.org (can't get more
>>union than that):
>
>I read this twice. I don't get your point. The Teamsters' point seems to be
>that some Wegman's employees *are* unionized.

And that most of them aren't and the union employees don't seem to be
uncomfortable with that, and they don't seem to be kicking against
Fortune's "10 Best Places To Work in the US" designation. In fact,
they agree with it.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 6:11:24 PM2/4/04

to

>Why would they want
>me to shop at a different chain?

This is one think I don't quite get about the grocery store workers striking
here who want people to shop elsewhere. Do they want their stores to lose so
much money that they have to close? Then they end up with no jobs at all.

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 6:14:53 PM2/4/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>>Why would they want
>>me to shop at a different chain?
>
>This is one think I don't quite get about the grocery store workers striking
>here who want people to shop elsewhere. Do they want their stores to lose so
>much money that they have to close? Then they end up with no jobs at all.

Most businesses will cave before they'll go out of business. In fact,
I think publicly-held businesses have a duty to get their people back
to work, and not hold out so long that they fold. The stockholders
may grumble at the union getting what it wants, but they grumble a lot
louder when their stock becomes worthless. They grumble, and they
file suit.

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 7:06:24 PM2/4/04

to

On 04 Feb 2004 17:32:21 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

>This is what makes me crazy. Of course people are expressing dissatisfaction,
>and of course people are interested. How can you make these blanket
>statements? This is so not like you.
>

I don't see that there's any "of course" about people being interested
in a union. Of course people are expressing dissatisfaction with their
jobs, duh. They work in a grocery store. I'd kill myself. But there
are going to be malcontents and whiners anywhere. That doesn't mean
that if you walked up to those people and said, "Here's some paperwork
to fill out so we can get a union started here," they'd go for it.
They'd be apathetic, they'd be too busy, they wouldn't care one way or
the other. People want unions when their working conditions are
unsatisfactory. Other than that, they want to go to work, go home, and
go on with their lives.

The workers at Wegman's have resisted all attempts to unionize them by
the local branches of the supermarket unions around here. They don't
want to hear it, they don't care that the picketers are mad that they
don't have a union. The Wegman's managers didn't even bother throwing
the shop steward from Grand Union out of there when he was
distributing his literature!

>I'm not saying Wegman's should be unionized, or even that things would be
>better if they were. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among
>employees on this issue.

There is disagreement among employees about whether Wegman's is a
perfect employer or whether they love their jobs. People who want to
be in a union go to stores with unions and work there, I dare say. And
get a *lot* worse deal than they get at Wegman's too!

>
>You can cross a line. You can shop at non-union stores. Hell, you can shop at
>WalMart. It's your decision, based on your values. Just don't kid yourself
>that you're doing what the employees want. You're doing what some of the
>employees, maybe most of the employees, want. People who don't cross the line
>are doing what some of the employees want, too.
>

They're doing what employees of *other* stores want. The Wegman's
employees are not picketing.

Has it ever even come up in court, that Wegman's fought unionization
of their employees? I bet it hasn't. Wegman's is a kick-ass place to
work from everything I hear from people who work there.

We never unionized at RadiSys either. Does that mean that there were
some employees who were harboring secret pro-union desires, or
couldn't it just mean that there was no reason to?

Anne

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 10:25:24 PM2/4/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvof2a$f1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> "Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

> news:20040203013035...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> > Good idea! We could be another Soviet Union - a shining example of why
> > socialism doesn't work.
>
> And capitalism works so much better?
>
> Wendy

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...

who determines need, and who determines whose need is greater, and what
gives someone else the license to My ability without my permission?

here's a book for ya-Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...

Jess

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 10:29:40 PM2/4/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bvp95h$mup$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Okay, explain the huge increase in organised crime in the Soviet bloc, and
> the fact that people are still going hungry. Explain how price actually
is
> a reflection of efficiency.

there is a direct correlation between education and crime-the lower the one,
the higher the second...additionally, if these people have been getting a
set amount for so long, regardless of what they do, where was their
incentive to improve themselves if everything over and above some
predetermined "need" of theirs was given away and they weren't ever going to
advance?

Jess

jane

unread,

Feb 4, 2004, 11:35:08 PM2/4/04

to

>
>> This is so not like you.
>
>Because when the majority of employees are happy, I'm comfortable with
>saying that Wegmans employees are happy.

Right, that's what is not like you. Usually, you are precise, you take care to
say what you mean. If you mean "most workers" you say "most workers." You
don't say "the workers."

>And complain there, too, I'll bet.

Are you implying that if a person is dissatisfied with something about working
at Wegman's then they will be dissatisfied whereever they go?

>Why would they want me to shop at a different chain?

If people only shop at union chains, all chains will be union. Besides, if
companies fear a union they generally improve working conditions and benefits.

jane

>Vicki

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 5, 2004, 12:16:27 AM2/5/04

to

On 04 Feb 2004 23:35:08 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

>>Why would they want me to shop at a different chain?
>
>If people only shop at union chains, all chains will be union. Besides, if
>companies fear a union they generally improve working conditions and benefits.

And so the workers get improved working conditions adn benefits,
without union dues.

I'm not seeing the downside.

Anne

jane

unread,

Feb 5, 2004, 3:15:51 PM2/5/04

to

>They'd be apathetic, they'd be too busy, they wouldn't care one way or
>the other. People want unions when their working conditions are
>unsatisfactory. Other than that, they want to go to work, go home, and
>go on with their lives.

People vary on this like they vary on other political involvement. Some are
active, informed, and involved, others are apathetic. It really bugs me that
you are using this broad brush.

>The workers at Wegman's

Again, there is nothing you can accurately or fairly say about "the workers at
Wegman's." You saying that the workers at Wegman's don't want a union makes
as much sense as you saying that they don't want the war in Iraq or they don't
want gay marriage or they don't want NAFTA

>The Wegman's employees are not picketing.

But Wegman's employees are not in the union. Why would they be picketing?
You're talking about union workers picketing a non-union shop. They want the
shop unionized. I'll support that.

>We never unionized at RadiSys either. Does that mean that there were
>some employees who were harboring secret pro-union desires,

Of course. There are mes and geris everywhere. Possibly not at your
Thanksgiving table, but other than that, you can count on different opinions
on this issue just like any other. I don't even understand why we're arguing
about this. It's in the "stuff we all know" category for me.

>or couldn't it just mean that there was no reason to?

There are always reasons for unionization. Collective bargaining can be a
powerful tool. I think probably no union was interested in them. Too many
different kinds of workers, specialized fields, etc.

jane
>Anne

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 5, 2004, 3:19:16 PM2/5/04

to

>I think probably no union was interested in them. Too many
>different kinds of workers, specialized fields, etc.
>

... not enough potential to charge exhorbitant dues ...

jane

unread,

Feb 5, 2004, 3:20:06 PM2/5/04

to

>And so the workers get improved working conditions adn benefits,
>without union dues.

Right.

>
>I'm not seeing the downside.

The workers don't have the other benefits that come with unionization. They
don't have a shop steward to file grievances with or tell the store that union
members won't work with the dicey meat slicer, etc.

The union doesn't get the dues. Without dues, the union will be less powerful,
have fewer resources to sponsor legislation, negotiate with companies, etc.

jane
>
>Anne

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 5, 2004, 9:23:43 PM2/5/04

to

On 05 Feb 2004 15:15:51 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

>>They'd be apathetic, they'd be too busy, they wouldn't care one way or
>>the other. People want unions when their working conditions are
>>unsatisfactory. Other than that, they want to go to work, go home, and
>>go on with their lives.
>
>People vary on this like they vary on other political involvement. Some are
>active, informed, and involved, others are apathetic. It really bugs me that
>you are using this broad brush.

It's really bugging me that you just don't believe that the workers at
Wegman's don't want a union.

>
>>The workers at Wegman's
>
>Again, there is nothing you can accurately or fairly say about "the workers at
>Wegman's." You saying that the workers at Wegman's don't want a union makes
>as much sense as you saying that they don't want the war in Iraq or they don't
>want gay marriage or they don't want NAFTA

It's light years apart. If workers at Wegman's wanted a union they'd
go work somewhere where they could be part of a union. What is so hard
about that?

>
>>The Wegman's employees are not picketing.
>
>But Wegman's employees are not in the union. Why would they be picketing?
>You're talking about union workers picketing a non-union shop. They want the
>shop unionized. I'll support that.
>
>>We never unionized at RadiSys either. Does that mean that there were
>>some employees who were harboring secret pro-union desires,
>
>Of course. There are mes and geris everywhere. Possibly not at your
>Thanksgiving table, but other than that, you can count on different opinions
>on this issue just like any other. I don't even understand why we're arguing
>about this. It's in the "stuff we all know" category for me.

Yeah, for me too. Have you ever known anyone who's worked at a
Wegman's?

>
>>or couldn't it just mean that there was no reason to?
>
>There are always reasons for unionization. Collective bargaining can be a
>powerful tool. I think probably no union was interested in them. Too many
>different kinds of workers, specialized fields, etc.

Right, but I've already told you that's not the case. Grand Union's
union sent two union reps in there that I personally know of, and the
Wegman's managers just rolled their eyes and let them talk to anybody
they wanted.

The unions were interested. The workers weren't. What is so
complicated about that?

Anne

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 5, 2004, 9:24:44 PM2/5/04

to

On 05 Feb 2004 15:20:06 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

>>And so the workers get improved working conditions adn benefits,
>>without union dues.
>
>Right.
>>
>>I'm not seeing the downside.
>
>The workers don't have the other benefits that come with unionization. They
>don't have a shop steward to file grievances with or tell the store that union
>members won't work with the dicey meat slicer, etc.

That's because, at Wegman's, the dicey meat slicer would be off the
floor before anyone had a chance to get concerned about it. There's an
open-door policy right up to the president of the company for
grievances. These problems are dealt with.

Anne

lilblakdog

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 4:34:01 AM2/6/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040129000018...@mb-m02.aol.com...

> Ditto, without the exclamation point.

Jeez...did everybody come up with this guy?

lil (who isn't an American but would apparently be a democrat if she was)

Wendy

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 8:42:15 AM2/6/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XkeUb.7648$IF1.5502@fed1read01...

> there is a direct correlation between education and crime-the lower the
one,
> the higher the second...

That's not necessarily true of organised crime.

additionally, if these people have been getting a
> set amount for so long, regardless of what they do, where was their
> incentive to improve themselves if everything over and above some
> predetermined "need" of theirs was given away and they weren't ever going
to
> advance?

Sure some people may only do it for what they think they can get, but lots
of people do things because they feel passionate about doing them, doctors
who care about life and people, no matter who they are and how much they can
pay isn't a stretch for me, teachers who just love children and for who
empowering children to find the best in themselves is a reward are two
examples.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 8:49:28 AM2/6/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:YgeUb.7647$IF1.3911@fed1read01...

> > And capitalism works so much better?

> "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...

>
> who determines need, and who determines whose need is greater, and what
> gives someone else the license to My ability without my permission?

I think some needs are pretty obvious.

Besides, all you've said is what you think is wrong about socialism from a
capitalistic perspective. You haven't said why you think capitalism works
better.
Are people in the former Soviet Union still going hungry?

> here's a book for ya-Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...

Read it in my early teens.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 11:10:46 AM2/6/04

to

"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bvomg6$6iq$1...@pcls4.std.com...

Sorry not to have responded more promptly to this, you may see why in
another post.

> I guess I still wouldn't go with the "greedy terrorists" generalization.
I
> think people can differ about what they think the outcome will be without
> being bad people.

That would be fine if they then took account and accepted responsibility for
the outcomes of their actions. How do we get corporations and the
individual people who make them up to recognise the real costs of things?

> I suppose I believe that there are some corporations that really do
believe
> they can make globalization work for everybody. Doesn't mean I have to
agree
> with them. One think that *is* certain, IMHO, is that the genie is out of
> the bottle and globalization isn't going away.

We could make a start by introducing international controls. We could
revisit the WTO and the IMF and World Bank.

The irony is that America wants free trade with the rest of the world but
then introduces trade barriers in the form of government compensation and
tarrif barriers when it comes to themselves. The logging industry is a good
example with their own free trade partner, Canada.

> I think I see what you're getting at, although I don't think it'd cause
> devaluation of the local currency so much as inflation (more people with
more
> disposable income = increase in prices).

Either way, it still becomes a high price to pay for the majority.

> Which is not going to go away, IMHO. Take the case of India, since it
seems
> to be so popular these days. Not only will the US government - even a
more
> liberal one - not regulate this to any degree that would change how we're
> affecting the Indian economy, but the Indian government would be royally
> pissed off if we pulled out.

Certainly governments and multinationals are complicit.

> I guess, on this subject, my idealism takes this form: I don't believe for
> one second that globalization and outsourcing is going to stop, ever. For
> better or for worse, that's the direction the world is going. So rather
than
> rail against it - what can I do to make it less damaging? How can we work
> with this system to make it help people instead of hurt them?

The only way is to try to measure the true cost of each endeavour, whether
it be the ecological cost, the human cost, or whatever, not just the
financial cost which isn't a good measure of efficiency.

> I don't know what the Dutch model is precisely, but they do seem to have a
> much healthier attitude about the whole thing than we do here.

Exactly, there is a healthy openness about sex and sexuality, and somehow
that translates into a much lower teenaged pregnancy and abortion rate.

Wendy

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 12:17:33 PM2/6/04

to

In a previous article, "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> said:

>> I don't know what the Dutch model is precisely, but they do seem to have a
>> much healthier attitude about the whole thing than we do here.
>
>Exactly, there is a healthy openness about sex and sexuality, and somehow
>that translates into a much lower teenaged pregnancy and abortion rate.

But let's remember that a great deal of energy in American sex ed
goes into making sure that kids aren't having sex. It's not teen
pregnancy, it's not the abortion rate. Those are secondary. If you
could put something in the water that would magically protect everyone
from unwanted consequences, be they pregnancy or disease, it would be
seen as a "license to have sex" and banned.

It's not the consequences of sex that sex ed is meant to change. It's
the actual having of sex that's supposed to stop. Hence,
abstinance-only sex ed.

Kathy Cole

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 12:52:40 PM2/6/04

to

On 05 Feb 2004 15:15:51 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

> But Wegman's employees are not in the union. Why would they be
> picketing? You're talking about union workers picketing a non-union
> shop. They want the shop unionized. I'll support that.

If the majority of the actual employees of the company have considered
and rejected unionization, why on earth would you support the picketers?
There are companies who run themselves well so as to make unionization
unattractive for their employees; what is the point of forcing a union
on a majority-unwilling population.

I'm all for getting a union in where the employees really want it. But
the union doesn't have any right to be in all stores of a particular
class just because they want to be there.

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 2:35:59 PM2/6/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bvvk29$ct5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> > here's a book for ya-Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...
>
> Read it in my early teens.

then she does address what's wrong with socialism from a socialist
perspective...

Jess

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 5:22:27 PM2/6/04

to

In article <20040206101239...@mb-m01.aol.com>,

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:

> Check this out. The grocery worker union dipshits

Oh, that's nice, Geri.

who want us to shop at other
> stores to honor their picket line have the following on their web site -
> telling people to boycott all of the other stores. So where are they supposed
> to shop? Idiots.
>
> http://www.ufcw770.org/boycotts.htm

They also have this, under the "Shop Union" button on their strike page:

http://saveourhealthcare.org/altshop.html

--Martha

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 5:47:09 PM2/6/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>>It's not the consequences of sex that sex ed is meant to change. It's
>>the actual having of sex that's supposed to stop. Hence,
>>abstinance-only sex ed.
>
>Well, you know, some of us actually don't want our kids to be having sex. (OH
>NO!!!)
>We think they ought to wait until they are old enough to deal with all of the
>ramifications.

Oh, I'm with you. I think it's a smart thing to teach sexual
responsibility and the arguments for maturity. Absolutely. But
there's more than a whiff of "Sex is bad!" about these programs. I've
taught my kids to wait with the "sex is wonderful, and worth waiting
for" information, *and* clear and complete information about their
bodies, birth control and STDs.

I have to admit that I've left any discussions about technique to
their own initiative.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 7:44:34 PM2/6/04

to

>They also have this, under the "Shop Union" button on their strike page:

I've read their propaganda before. There used to be a copy of the original
contract offered by the stores on a northern union site - I don't know whether
it is still there, since I don't have the link anymore. In any case, what they
are whining about and what the contract said different. Witnesses were
interviewed on the radio that told about union thugs getting really angry if
anyone tried to give the strikers an actual copy of the contract to read.

In any case, I have no sympathy for their cause.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 7:45:38 PM2/6/04

to

>Oh, I'm with you. I think it's a smart thing to teach sexual
>responsibility and the arguments for maturity. Absolutely. But
>there's more than a whiff of "Sex is bad!" about these programs. I've
>taught my kids to wait with the "sex is wonderful, and worth waiting
>for" information, *and* clear and complete information about their
>bodies, birth control and STDs.
>
>I have to admit that I've left any discussions about technique to
>their own initiative.

ITA on all that.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 7:47:55 PM2/6/04

to

>They also have this, under the "Shop Union" button on their strike page:
>
>http://saveourhealthcare.org/altshop.html

Oh, BTW nothing close to me. In any case, I never shop union just on
principle.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 6, 2004, 8:06:37 PM2/6/04

to

>Oh, BTW nothing close to me. In any case, I never shop union just on
>principle.

This is what I get for multi-tasking. What I meant to type was that I never
purposefully shop union, just on principle. Obviously, until the grocery store
strike, I didn't know or care that they were unionized.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 8:57:43 AM2/7/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c000kt$u7$1...@allhats.xcski.com...

> But let's remember that a great deal of energy in American sex ed
> goes into making sure that kids aren't having sex. It's not teen
> pregnancy, it's not the abortion rate. Those are secondary. If you
> could put something in the water that would magically protect everyone
> from unwanted consequences, be they pregnancy or disease, it would be
> seen as a "license to have sex" and banned.
>
> It's not the consequences of sex that sex ed is meant to change. It's
> the actual having of sex that's supposed to stop. Hence,
> abstinance-only sex ed.

You talk in another post about maturity and responsibility, but what is
maturity and responsibility if not considering the consequences of your
actions before you take an action?

Wendy

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 8:59:01 AM2/7/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:UANUb.7944$IF1.4953@fed1read01...

As I recall, she's American, Jess. She's writing about an interpretation of
socialism from someone who has been raised in a capitalist society.

Wendy

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 1:36:09 PM2/7/04

to

In a previous article, "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> said:

>You talk in another post about maturity and responsibility, but what is
>maturity and responsibility if not considering the consequences of your
>actions before you take an action?

That seems like a non-sequitur, so I'm not sure how to answer it. But
abstinence-only programs figure that if you don't take the action,
there won't be any consequences. And, actually, the only sure and
certain way of avoiding STDs and pregnancy is abstinence. The logic
is immpecable. But it also ignores human nature.

jane

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 2:41:06 PM2/7/04

to

>They also have this, under the "Shop Union" button on their strike page:
>
>http://saveourhealthcare.org/altshop.html
>
>--Martha

Hey! Food 4 Less! There's a bunch of them too. Thanks, Martha.

jane

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 5:44:44 PM2/7/04

to

li...@TheWorld.com (Elizabeth H Bonesteel) wrote

>
> I think I see what you're getting at, although I don't think it'd cause
> devaluation of the local currency so much as inflation (more people with more
> disposable income = increase in prices).

I think it would only cause inflation if the supply of goods and
services was constrained -- then there would be too much money chasing
the same goods.

Otherwise, it just boosts the economy -- people buy more, so the
people who supply those things make more, and their profits also rise,
and they therefore buy more. And even if more goods cannot be produced
locally, they can be imported -- which is happening in India to a much
greater extent than it used to do.

>It definitely does have an economic
> affect on the host country, although I don't think it's much different than
> the affect it has on the US - a greater separation between rich and poor, and
> disappearance of the middle class. It is likely to happen faster, certainly,
> in countries whose poor population is higher to begin with.

Actually, it has the effect of expanding the middle class by providing
more middle-class work opportunities. The real issue isn't too many
incoming jobs, it's too few. India has a billion people. Outsourcing
from the US provides maybe 2-2.5 million jobs.

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 5:54:39 PM2/7/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

> Sure some people may only do it for what they think they can get, but lots
> of people do things because they feel passionate about doing them, doctors
> who care about life and people, no matter who they are and how much they can
> pay isn't a stretch for me, teachers who just love children and for who
> empowering children to find the best in themselves is a reward are two
> examples.
>

I think you're right.

The weakness of socialism, IMO, isn't the weakening of personal
incentives so much as the supportive and controlling bureaucracy that
becomes its main infrastructure. Once you have a lot of government
controls, it puts a lot of power in the hands of the bureacracy, who
are answerable to no one.

I once used to think that capitalism was bad for the environment,
because most of the costs are 'externalities' -- they don't feed into
the company's cost structure.

But time after time, it's apparent that socialist governments have
been at least equally bad for the environment. In China. In India
(which is partly socialist, or used to be). In Russia.

Perhaps the Scandinavian model is a better model of success. But then
again, I think Geri may have a point about Americans prizing
individualism and the right to buy goods at the cheapest price.

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 6:06:54 PM2/7/04

to

Anne Robotti <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote

There's an
> open-door policy right up to the president of the company for
> grievances. These problems are dealt with.
>
> Anne

It would be nice if all corporations were like that. But most of them
aren't; and even those that started out that way have often lost the
tradition of caring for their workers as they change hands, or start
to feel competitive pressure, or just plain change their management
style.

Some of it is the zeitgeist. At one time, companies talked of
stake-holders, and maximising profits. Now the talk is of increasing
shareholder value, which focuses management on one particular group.
It's also a much trickier goal to pursue, and puts more pressure on
managers. IMO.

I don't think Unions will work any more, either -- not because I see
anything wrong with them, but because it's too easy to circumvent
them.

Rupa

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 7:30:43 PM2/7/04

to

>Once you have a lot of government
>controls, it puts a lot of power in the hands of the bureacracy, who
>are answerable to no one.

Plus, just to give an example. Think how efficient (not) they are at the DMV.
Do you want your whole life controlled this way? Not me!

>Perhaps the Scandinavian model is a better model of success.

Don't they lose about 50% of their income to taxation, though? That would
depress me so badly I wouldn't want to work at all - at least now I only lose
25-30% of my income. Either that or I would find something I could do under
the table and not declare for tax purposes.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 7:32:29 PM2/7/04

to

>I don't think Unions will work any more, either -- not because I see
>anything wrong with them, but because it's too easy to circumvent
>them.

How?? How??

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 8:09:40 PM2/7/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:c02908$4qb$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

> As I recall, she's American, Jess. She's writing about an interpretation
of
> socialism from someone who has been raised in a capitalist society.

no, she's not-she's Russian....she expatriated to the States when she was
20...she's writing about the flaws of socialism from someone who was raised
in a socialist society...

http://www.aynrand.org/aynrand/biography.shtml

Jess

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 8:10:30 PM2/7/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040207094106...@mb-m19.aol.com...

we had a F4L here, and i loved 'em...they closed down for some reason...:(

Jess

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 8:16:29 PM2/7/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bvvk29$ct5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> I think some needs are pretty obvious.

that's your opinion...

> Besides, all you've said is what you think is wrong about socialism from a
> capitalistic perspective. You haven't said why you think capitalism works
> better.

because capitalism encourages growth and competition...socialism doesn't...

> Are people in the former Soviet Union still going hungry?

we have people here that go hungry...and? the standard of living here is
still so much higher than it is in the former Soviet Union, and if you track
history back, while the concept was a noble one, their standard of living
was the pits...you don't recover from that in less than a generation...it
takes a while...

> Read it in my early teens.

have the 25th anniversary edition, and am about to get mike the recent
anniversary edition...was my first exposure to objectivism...

Jess

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Feb 7, 2004, 10:01:23 PM2/7/04

to

In article <bvvsb7$5r4$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Sorry not to have responded more promptly to this, you may see why in
>another post.

Sorry you've been going through rough times, Wendy. :-( Life is much
more important than abstract political discussions on Usenet, you know.

>How do we get corporations and the
>individual people who make them up to recognise the real costs of things?

I think the problem is that people disagree on what the "real costs" are.
As with many points in history, we're facing situations that have no
precedent. We can try to predict the costs, but everybody is going to come
into it with different assumptions, all of which might very well be sincerely
altruistic.

>The irony is that America wants free trade with the rest of the world but
>then introduces trade barriers in the form of government compensation and
>tarrif barriers when it comes to themselves. The logging industry is a good
>example with their own free trade partner, Canada.

See, as I understand it, globalization and outsourcing are part and parcel of
free trade. I don't think you get one without the other. (And certainly,
I agree the U.S. has made some boneheaded moves wrt tarrifs.)

>Certainly governments and multinationals are complicit.

As are the individuals in places like India who are suddenly making ten times
the average middle-class wage. I just don't think it's a black-and-white good/
bad situation. It might suck for me; it might be the chance of a lifetime
for the Indian/Russian/Sri Lankan/etc. woman who just landed a job doing what
I used to do. It might be a precursor to serious problems with their local
currency. Where do we strike a balance?

>The only way is to try to measure the true cost of each endeavour, whether
>it be the ecological cost, the human cost, or whatever, not just the
>financial cost which isn't a good measure of efficiency.

True enough. But the U.S. is an unapologetically capitalist society. As
idealistic as I am, I'd rather it stay capitalist, although I think a little
socialism mixed in doesn't hurt.

I don't think you're going to see major change until the average U.S.
taxpayer feels a significant bite in his/her wallet. That could take a
while. Even with the rising price of gasoline, people are still buying
Hummers.

>Exactly, there is a healthy openness about sex and sexuality, and somehow
>that translates into a much lower teenaged pregnancy and abortion rate.

This is no surprise to me. I don't ever remember not knowing the mechanics
of how babies were made, although the love/lust/sex-as-recreation bits were
added slowly as I got older. All my friends in high school - even the
head librarian's daughter! - came to me for facts, and boy did I get some
stupid question from some otherwise bright girls. And when it came down
to it, I was 24 when I lost my virginity, to a nice man whom I loved very
much (although he was not an idea life-partner). Amazingly enough, I even
used appropriate protection. ;-)

*My* kid will know this stuff. Might not change his/her decisions, but
at least they'll be informed ones. I'm sure not counting on the school
system to teach anything useful.

Liz

--
li...@world.std.com
"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963

Melissa

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 1:37:28 AM2/8/04

to

>
>Plus, just to give an example. Think how efficient (not) they are at the
>DMV.
>Do you want your whole life controlled this way? Not me!

The NYC DMV is one of the most efficient agencies I've ever dealt with though.
:) No joke, it's amazing.

Love,
Melissa
"The old Tom didn't poison your fish either!"
-Carson Kressley, from Queer Eye

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 6:36:08 AM2/8/04

to

>we had a F4L here, and i loved 'em...they closed down for some reason...:(

Isn't that the place you have to bag your own groceries? No thanks on that.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 6:38:43 AM2/8/04

to

>:) No joke, it's amazing.

Definitely the exception, I would think. Any time I have to deal with them out
here it is a multi-hour process.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 8:54:50 AM2/8/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message

news:c02pk9$dbj$2...@allhats.xcski.com...

> That seems like a non-sequitur, so I'm not sure how to answer it. But
> abstinence-only programs figure that if you don't take the action,
> there won't be any consequences.

I don't believe prohibition works, not with alcohol and other drugs and not
with sex.

And, actually, the only sure and
> certain way of avoiding STDs and pregnancy is abstinence. The logic
> is immpecable. But it also ignores human nature.

I'm sure I've posted this on this forum before, but I don't want my
daughters to be virgins when they marry. I don't care how much you love
someone and are committed to working at it, you don't really know your own
sexuality until you've had some sex. Learning about yourself after you've
made the commitment for life seems ass backwards.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:34:57 AM2/8/04

to

"Rupa Bose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0402...@posting.google.com...

> I think it would only cause inflation if the supply of goods and
> services was constrained -- then there would be too much money chasing
> the same goods.

Inflation can result from both changes in demand or supply, or changes in
the amount of currency.

> Otherwise, it just boosts the economy -- people buy more, so the
> people who supply those things make more, and their profits also rise,
> and they therefore buy more. And even if more goods cannot be produced
> locally, they can be imported -- which is happening in India to a much
> greater extent than it used to do.

Sure, but that is the short term scenario. The longer term one is one of
issues with Balance of Payments and potential devaluation of currency to
counteract those.

> Actually, it has the effect of expanding the middle class by providing
> more middle-class work opportunities. The real issue isn't too many
> incoming jobs, it's too few. India has a billion people. Outsourcing
> from the US provides maybe 2-2.5 million jobs.

And what happens when these multinationals find that they can make economic
savings by shifting to outsourcing somewhere else?

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:47:18 AM2/8/04

to

"Rupa Bose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0402...@posting.google.com...

> The weakness of socialism, IMO, isn't the weakening of personal

> incentives so much as the supportive and controlling bureaucracy that
> becomes its main infrastructure. Once you have a lot of government
> controls, it puts a lot of power in the hands of the bureacracy, who
> are answerable to no one.

I accept that that is a possibility, but with capitalism you put the power
into the hands of corporations and they are answerable to no one.

> I once used to think that capitalism was bad for the environment,
> because most of the costs are 'externalities' -- they don't feed into
> the company's cost structure.
>
> But time after time, it's apparent that socialist governments have
> been at least equally bad for the environment. In China. In India
> (which is partly socialist, or used to be). In Russia.

I don't believe it is a choice of one or the other, I believe that it is
within the ability of humanity to find ways of measuing costs which don't
have a monetary value at the outset.

> Perhaps the Scandinavian model is a better model of success. But then
> again, I think Geri may have a point about Americans prizing
> individualism and the right to buy goods at the cheapest price.

At any price?

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:55:20 AM2/8/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:JzbVb.9228$IF1.9061@fed1read01...

Thanks for that, I guess I always assumed she was American from her
philosophic point of view. Despite that, I still don't think that arguing
the potential deficiencies of one system necessarily means capitalism is
better.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 11:06:57 AM2/8/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:5GbVb.9241$IF1.2997@fed1read01...

>
> "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bvvk29$ct5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I think some needs are pretty obvious.
>
> that's your opinion...

People's need for food, water, clothing and housing/warmth seem very
fundamental to me.

> because capitalism encourages growth and competition...socialism
doesn't...

Growth of what? Growth isn't necessarily a benefit, unless you are talking
about individual growth. Nor is competition, other than that of striving
for what is best in the individual. It doesn't follow that either are
necessarily of benefit to humanity. The growth of one is often at the
expense of another.

Take Walmart, for example. It has expanded and expanded, seemingly, but its
expansion has led to contraction elsewhere. It's growth actually crushes the
competition, so overall there is no real growth, only a change of who
benefits.

> > Are people in the former Soviet Union still going hungry?
>
> we have people here that go hungry...and?

It was estimated in 2000 that 70% of the Russian population was below the
poverty line.

the standard of living here is
> still so much higher than it is in the former Soviet Union,

To use your own terminology, so what?

and if you track
> history back, while the concept was a noble one, their standard of living
> was the pits...you don't recover from that in less than a generation...it
> takes a while...

Have you read anything by Jeffrey Sachs? As I understand it, he was a big
proponent of remaking Russia in the American image, but I believe he's done
something of an about face. Have you read any Keynes? He argued capitalism
would founder on its own greed and self-destruct and suggested state
controls over market excesses.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 11:39:29 AM2/8/04

to

"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:c03n7j$1ri$1...@pcls4.std.com...

> Sorry you've been going through rough times, Wendy. :-( Life is much
> more important than abstract political discussions on Usenet, you know.

I know.

> I think the problem is that people disagree on what the "real costs" are.
> As with many points in history, we're facing situations that have no
> precedent. We can try to predict the costs, but everybody is going to
come
> into it with different assumptions, all of which might very well be
sincerely
> altruistic.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the profit of a few can be construed as
altruism.

> As are the individuals in places like India who are suddenly making ten
times
> the average middle-class wage. I just don't think it's a black-and-white
good/
> bad situation. It might suck for me; it might be the chance of a lifetime
> for the Indian/Russian/Sri Lankan/etc. woman who just landed a job doing
what
> I used to do. It might be a precursor to serious problems with their
local
> currency. Where do we strike a balance?

It isn't just the economics of the situation though, it's about non-economic
factors as well. Economic colonialism changes developing nations such that
they no longer have the skills and resources to be self-sufficient.

> *My* kid will know this stuff. Might not change his/her decisions, but
> at least they'll be informed ones. I'm sure not counting on the school
> system to teach anything useful.

I've very disillusioned with our educational systems too.

Wendy

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 11:36:25 AM2/8/04

to

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote in message

> >Perhaps the Scandinavian model is a better model of success.
>
> Don't they lose about 50% of their income to taxation, though? That would
> depress me so badly I wouldn't want to work at all - at least now I only lose
> 25-30% of my income. Either that or I would find something I could do under
> the table and not declare for tax purposes.
>

The top rates in the US (state+federal) in the higher-tax states are
also nearly 50%. We just get less bang for our bucks.

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 11:40:39 AM2/8/04

to

laa...@aol.comspamzap (Melissa) wrote in message news:<20040207203728...@mb-m10.aol.com>...

> >
> >Plus, just to give an example. Think how efficient (not) they are at the
> >DMV.
> >Do you want your whole life controlled this way? Not me!
>
> The NYC DMV is one of the most efficient agencies I've ever dealt with though.
> :) No joke, it's amazing.
>

Government doesn't *have* to be inefficient. In Singapore, where I
lived for a while, the government agencies all behaved like the best
of the private sector -- attuned to customer service. It's one country
where I actually *enjoyed* paying my taxes because the tax authorities
were so easy to deal with.

In their private sector, by contrast...grumpy and unhelpful responses
were all too frequent. Like General Motors on a bad day in a bad year.

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 11:49:33 AM2/8/04

to

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote in message news:<20040207143229...@mb-m19.aol.com>...

> >I don't think Unions will work any more, either -- not because I see
> >anything wrong with them, but because it's too easy to circumvent
> >them.
>
> How?? How??
>
> ~~Geri~~
>

Close down that particular entity and move the businesses to another
legal entity. Hire non-union staff.

Or develop on-line distribution. Or move offshore.

Unions depend on the bargaining power of groups of workers. But when
workers are replaceable, and jobs are mobile, it's hard for Unions to
develop any clout.

Also, any time they try to build up bargaining power, they will raise
costs for the company, which then faces pricing pressure from overseas
or non-union competition.

Unions only work in a closed system. Globalization opens the system
up.

Rupa

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 1:24:48 PM2/8/04

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 5:36:11 PM2/8/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040208013608...@mb-m16.aol.com...

> >we had a F4L here, and i loved 'em...they closed down for some
reason...:(
>
> Isn't that the place you have to bag your own groceries? No thanks on
that.

*shrugs* that's no big deal....:)

Jess

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 5:38:47 PM2/8/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:c0506l$pts$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> I accept that that is a possibility, but with capitalism you put the power
> into the hands of corporations and they are answerable to no one.

sure they are-we just went through a good example of that
here....corporations are also accountable to the customers-you don't like
the corporation, don't buy their product...:)

Jess

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 5:40:20 PM2/8/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:c050ln$hcq$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Thanks for that, I guess I always assumed she was American from her
> philosophic point of view. Despite that, I still don't think that arguing
> the potential deficiencies of one system necessarily means capitalism is
> better.

they're not "potential deficiencies", they Are deficiencies, and capitalism
to date has proven to work the best....now someone at some point might come
up with something that works even better, but until then....:)

Jess

Wendy

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 5:49:05 PM2/8/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:RpuVb.10366$IF1.5181@fed1read01...

That's the norm in the UK

Wendy

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 5:46:19 PM2/8/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:c054s1$t8g$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> People's need for food, water, clothing and housing/warmth seem very
> fundamental to me.

here's the rub-you say food, water, clothing and shelter are all
necessities....well, fine, you need 'em...filet mignon and steaks, etc. are
food, and since you need food, we're all obligated to give it to you, right?

> Growth of what? Growth isn't necessarily a benefit, unless you are
talking
> about individual growth. Nor is competition, other than that of striving
> for what is best in the individual. It doesn't follow that either are
> necessarily of benefit to humanity. The growth of one is often at the
> expense of another.
>

what, you'd prefer stagnation/regression? people/society grows, or it
does...

> Take Walmart, for example. It has expanded and expanded, seemingly, but
its
> expansion has led to contraction elsewhere. It's growth actually crushes
the
> competition, so overall there is no real growth, only a change of who
> benefits.

well, either the competition grows to match it, or yes, it dies....and?

> It was estimated in 2000 that 70% of the Russian population was below the
> poverty line.
>

ten years after they changed systems? you expect a change that quick?

> To use your own terminology, so what?

we were exporting food to the former Soviet Union even before it fell, so
obviously, we've been doing something right...

> Have you read anything by Jeffrey Sachs? As I understand it, he was a big
> proponent of remaking Russia in the American image, but I believe he's
done
> something of an about face. Have you read any Keynes? He argued
capitalism
> would founder on its own greed and self-destruct and suggested state
> controls over market excesses.

i'll go get the books...:) do you have a recent copy of Atlas Shrugged? :)

Jess

Elizabeth H Bonesteel

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:16:59 PM2/8/04

to

In article <c04vot$ubs$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>And what happens when these multinationals find that they can make economic
>savings by shifting to outsourcing somewhere else?

This will happen. India isn't the only game in town, and as the educational
systems of other countries improve, corporations will look around.

It's inevitable, I think. Technology, which has so many good sides, also
renders geography irrelevant in a tremendous number of cases.

I do believe, though, that at some point in the U.S. there will be a
"correction" in terms of the salaries that are offerred, and a commensurate
economic adjustment. At that point, the overhead required to manage an
offshore operation will become part of the equation, and local companies
will become more competitive again.

Someone on another message board I read suggested the way to make outsourcing
truly "fair" was 1) make offshore companies adhere to the same regulations
companies in the U.S. must adhere to; and 2) equalize tarrifs so that products
from China, for example, have to compete more on quality than on price. I'm
not enough of an economist to know whether these ideas make any sense; but I
do believe it'll be a chilly day in hell before anybody in America votes
to relinquish their right to a $39 DVD player.

I'm not trying to ignore the socialism aspect, Wendy. I just don't believe
bald-faced socialist ideas will cause any change in this country at all. I'm
looking for a way for this to work for everyone that might actually have a
chance of happening. It's realism vs. ideals for me.

jane

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:21:23 PM2/8/04

to

>I once used to think that capitalism was bad for the environment,
>because most of the costs are 'externalities' -- they don't feed into
>the company's cost structure.
>
>But time after time, it's apparent that socialist governments have
>been at least equally bad for the environment. In China. In India
>(which is partly socialist, or used to be). In Russia.

Yabbut. Socialist governments being bad for the environment doesn't undermine
the position that capitalism is. Capitalism is still the engine driving the
global economy.

>I think Geri may have a point about Americans

Okay, you know that whole fight about Wegmans workers? It applies to
Americans, too. We're all over the board on everything.

jane

prizing
>individualism and the right to buy goods at the cheapest price.
>

>Rupa

jane

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:24:23 PM2/8/04

to

> Think how efficient (not) they are at the
>DMV.

You know, I don't understand why people complain about the DMV. I think they
do a good job. The car tax rebate combined with the layoffs has screwed things
up just recently, but before Arnold I thought they were doing a good job.

jane

Brenna2b

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:28:22 PM2/8/04

to

Geri responded to :

> Perhaps the Scandinavian model is a better model of success. But then again,
I think Geri may have a point about Americans prizing individualism and the

right to buy goods at the cheapest price.>>

>>At any price?>>

with:

>In general, I would say pretty much.>>

I don't think you can take ethics and morals out of business. I think that a
businesses' pursuit of profit at any price can be just as morally bankrupt an
addicts' pursuit of drugs at any price. In fact, I have a greater sympathy for
the addict, because of the biological pressures, than the CEO who cuts
retirees' medical benefits or raids pension plans, or farms out manufacturing
to third world countries with no requirements for humane working conditions and
reasonable compensation, in pursuit of his own or his stock holders profit
margin.

I've seen the little children in India and Bangladesh chained to wooden frames
weaving carpets so that they can be made more quickly and cheaply. Its
absolutely heartbreaking, and its just one minor (and ancient) example of
increased profit at the cost of individual lives. In my opinion, business
motives do not excuse immoral or inhumane behavior. And businesses have a duty
to do due diligence to find out how their products are being made. I refuse to
accept "I didn't know" as an excuse.

Brenna

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:31:06 PM2/8/04

to

>> Isn't that the place you have to bag your own groceries? No thanks on
>that.
>
>*shrugs* that's no big deal....:)

I'm not going to do it.

jane

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:31:55 PM2/8/04

to

>Definitely the exception, I would think. Any time I have to deal with them
>out
>here it is a multi-hour process.
>
>~~Geri~~

Can't you just mail the paper work in or make an appointment on line? Walk-ins
do wait here, sometimes for hours. I figure everyone knows that you have a
choice between a reservation and prompt service and walk in with the variable
wait for service. Like eating at a restaurant. Or getting your hair done.

jane

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:32:40 PM2/8/04

to

>Rowell refers to it as retail strip mining.

I see it as survival of the commercial fittest. If this isn't what people want
(or even care about), they wouldn't shop there.

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:35:32 PM2/8/04

Let's say they buy no Indian goods at all, only imported ones. They
can only spend what they have earned (which came in in US dollars). So
imports increase, but they are fully compensated by the de-facto
export of their work. So the whole thing is neutral to the balance of
payments, and to inflation.

If the reality is something in between (partly domestic and partly
imported goods) it would only be inflationary if they wished to buy
something in short supply (e.g. prime Bombay real estate). In any case
it would be balance-of-payments positive or neutral.
>

> > Actually, it has the effect of expanding the middle class by providing
> > more middle-class work opportunities. The real issue isn't too many
> > incoming jobs, it's too few. India has a billion people. Outsourcing
> > from the US provides maybe 2-2.5 million jobs.

>
> And what happens when these multinationals find that they can make economic
> savings by shifting to outsourcing somewhere else?

Then you have the opposite effect: A contraction in economic
opportunity and activity. Hopefully, by the time that happens, some
other opportunities will come up.

The argument against stopping outsourcing (or technological change,
which has similar impacts) is that we're not talking of a static
system. Though the buggy-whip manufacturers went out of business with
the introduction of horseless carriages, a whole new industry opened
up.

That might have been small consolation to anyone who made their living
off buggy-whips, though. Which is why I think that the government
should assist in the transition.

Rupa

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:50:41 PM2/8/04

to

>> >The top rates in the US (state+federal) in the higher-tax states are
>> >also nearly 50%. We just get less bang for our bucks.
>>
>> Are those for the upper tax brackets?
>>
>
>Yes, it's the top rate.

We have this hilarious (and cute) new guy on late-night radio out here. I am
totally addicted to his program. Anyway, he has an entertaining description
of the way our taxes work on his web site:

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=125

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 7:52:55 PM2/8/04

to

>> Are those for the upper tax brackets?
>>
>>Yes, it's the top rate.

Sigh. Well, it is clear that I am a long way from there. I lose around 30% of
my money.

jane

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 8:13:16 PM2/8/04

to

>I think that a
>businesses' pursuit of profit at any price can be just as morally bankrupt an
>addicts' pursuit of drugs at any price.

Can be?

jane

>Brenna

jane

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 8:38:45 PM2/8/04

to

>Not only that, a fair
>number of consumers don't really care either, as long as their goods are
>plentiful and inexpensive.
>

I want you to shut up. I'm not saying you should or anything. Talk away. I
just don't want you to perpetuate the stereotype of the callous, materialistic
American.

It's true that some people will say they don't give a rat's ass about anyone
else and that they're fine with sweat shops, child labor, etc. as long as they
can get more shit cheaper. What bothers me is the myth that those people are
uniquely and characteristically American. It hurts my feelings when people
talk about "Americans."

I'm not even disagreeing with what you said. A "fair number" could mean
anything. You said "consumers" not "Americans." It's just....

Look, how about I listen to talk radio for a week and you listen to NPR?

jane
>
>~~Geri~~

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 8:58:16 PM2/8/04

to

Geri wrote:

>> This seems to be a popular idea, but I lived in an area where there were
>> several Super Targets (which were awesome) and at leat one Super WalMart,
>that
>> I knew of, as well as the regular ones - and yet those areas had many
>thriving
>> grocery stores, who did not go out of business or any of the other
>bugaboos -
>> in fact, as I said before, the Hy-Vee stores were the most excellent
>grocery
>> stores I have ever seen. What it boils down to is different markets for
>> different people.
>

and then Wendy wrote:

>"According to Ken Stone, for example, in the 10 years after Wal-Mart moved
>into Iowa, the state lost over 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293
>building suppliers, 161 variety stoes and 158 woment's clothing stores, 153
>shoe stores, 116 drug stores and 111 children's clothing stores. In total,
>some 7326 businesses went to the wall."

I rarely go into Walmart, but I shop regularly at Target for sundries. I also
shop at some smaller "specialty chain" stores in many areas (Trader Joe's and
Whole Foods for groceries, for example) and some family owned stores for very
special items (for example, I buy all my shoes at a small boutique-type family
business). I chose to buy basic goods at the lowest price. I'll spend more --
and go out of my way -- to get special items. I think many people are that
way.

Life changes. When machines were created to sew clothes together, the price of
clothing went down and those who made their living being seamstresses had to
adapt. It seems to me the same principle holds: if you are in an industry
that is becoming obsolete because the goods or services can be made more
efficiently, more quickly, or in a less costly manner, the solution is not to
prohibit those advances, but to adapt your business accordingly, or change
businesses.

Sheila

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:02:40 PM2/8/04

to

>I'm sure I've posted this on this forum before, but I don't want my
>daughters to be virgins when they marry. I don't care how much you love
>someone and are committed to working at it, you don't really know your own
>sexuality until you've had some sex. Learning about yourself after you've
>made the commitment for life seems ass backwards.
>
>Wendy

I affirmatively do not want my kids to be virgins when they marry either, but I
think there is difference between adults having sex and teenagers, who do not
have the financial resources -- and often not the emotional resources -- to
deal with the sequelae of sex.

Sheila

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:07:11 PM2/8/04

to

>> >Plus, just to give an example. Think how efficient (not) they are at the
>> >DMV.
>> >Do you want your whole life controlled this way? Not me!
>>
>> The NYC DMV is one of the most efficient agencies I've ever dealt with
>though.
>> :) No joke, it's amazing.
>>
>
>Government doesn't *have* to be inefficient. In Singapore, where I
>lived for a while, the government agencies all behaved like the best
>of the private sector -- attuned to customer service. It's one country
>where I actually *enjoyed* paying my taxes because the tax authorities
>were so easy to deal with.
>
>In their private sector, by contrast...grumpy and unhelpful responses
>were all too frequent. Like General Motors on a bad day in a bad year.
>
>Rupa
>

In contrast to the DMV in America's nation's capital. Oh, and of course, the
motor vehicle INSPECTION station in DC. That's my favorite. In VA and MD,
several hundred gas and service stations have been authorized to do annual
state inspections of cars. Yeah, you end up waiting an hour or two, anyway.
But, in DC-proper (where I lived for a few years) there is one, yes, ONE
district-run inspection station for all the citizens to use. I remember when
DS was an infant, arriving at 7:30 a.m. (they opened at 8:00) and leaving at
3:15.

Sheila

Brenna2b

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:15:53 PM2/8/04

to

Jane said:

>Can be? >>

Personally, I feel always. But I'm trying to avoid generalizations and
absolutes, even though I can't think of an example when it isn't. I'm also
still wearing my newbee hat and trying to minimize direct engagement with other
posters. ;-)

Thanks for saying what I didn't have the balls too.

Brenna

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:33:46 PM2/8/04

to

>I
>just don't want you to perpetuate the stereotype of the callous,
>materialistic
>American.

Sometime go on a related message board and suggest that people should give up
their SUVs if you don't believe me.

>What bothers me is the myth that those people are
>uniquely and characteristically American. It hurts my feelings when people
>talk about "Americans."

I have no doubt that this transcends nationality.

>Look, how about I listen to talk radio for a week and you listen to NPR?

I listen to NPR once in a while. I am an equal opportunity radio addict.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:34:56 PM2/8/04

to

>t seems to me the same principle holds: if you are in an industry
>that is becoming obsolete because the goods or services can be made more
>efficiently, more quickly, or in a less costly manner, the solution is not to
>prohibit those advances, but to adapt your business accordingly, or change
>businesses.
>

If that wasn't true, we would still be going about in horse-driven buggies.

jane

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 9:58:59 PM2/8/04

to

>>Look, how about I listen to talk radio for a week and you listen to NPR?
>
>I listen to NPR once in a while. I am an equal opportunity radio addict.
>
>~~Geri~~

You dodged my question.

jane

Kathy Cole

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 10:29:02 PM2/8/04

to

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:47:18 -0000, "Wendy"
<we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> I accept that that is a possibility, but with capitalism you put the
> power into the hands of corporations and they are answerable to no one.

They're answerable to the governments of the countries in which they do
business and (unless they're privately held) to their shareholders.
You're exaggerating.

> I don't believe it is a choice of one or the other, I believe that it
> is within the ability of humanity to find ways of measuing costs which
> don't have a monetary value at the outset.

But so long as there is a monetary value, corporations will behave
better toward their workers and the environment when it's economically
encouraging to do so. Put the efforts there, working with the system
that exists.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 8, 2004, 10:57:57 PM2/8/04

to

>You dodged my question.

I guess I missed it.

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 12:55:49 AM2/9/04

to

Geri and sometimes Brian wrote:
>>>Isn't that the place you have to bag your own groceries? No thanks on
>>
>>that.
>>
>>*shrugs* that's no big deal....:)

>
>
> I'm not going to do it.
>
> ~~Geri~~

Tagging on - I used to shop a a grocery store where you bagged your own
groceries, so I have no philosophical opposition to bagging my own
stuff. Buuut... that store went out of business. I guess people in that
area didn't really want to bag their own. And the biggest, locally
owned, grocery chain in the area not only bags for you, but loads the
bags into your vehicle and, get this, tips are prohibited by company
policy. They pay their people for their work rather than expecting their
customers to do so.
I'm not sure I would bag my own groceries now even if that were an
option - I've caught an awful lot of checker errors by standing there
watching them ring up my purchases as opposed to standing at the end of
the conveyor belt bagging...
Lee

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 12:57:45 AM2/9/04

to

On 09 Feb 2004 00:38:14 GMT, laa...@aol.comspamzap (Melissa) wrote:

>>
>>I'm not going to do it.
>>
>>~~Geri~~
>
>I'd rather bag my own. I bag them in a way that makes sense for unpacking them
>when I get home again.

Chuck is so anal about this that he almost got into a fight with the
Wegman's guy when the guy wanted to bag our groceries. He was REALLY
insistent, it's some kind of store policy, and they were both getting
a little loud when the manager came over and backed the guy off.

NOBODY can bag our groceries, even me. He has a system.

Anne

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 1:00:41 AM2/9/04

to

>Tagging on - I used to shop a a grocery store where you bagged your own
>groceries, so I have no philosophical opposition to bagging my own
>stuff. Buuut... that store went out of business. I guess people in that
>area didn't really want to bag their own. And the biggest, locally
>owned, grocery chain in the area not only bags for you, but loads the
>bags into your vehicle and, get this, tips are prohibited by company
>policy. They pay their people for their work rather than expecting their
>customers to do so.
>I'm not sure I would bag my own groceries now even if that were an
>option - I've caught an awful lot of checker errors by standing there
>watching them ring up my purchases as opposed to standing at the end of
>the conveyor belt bagging...
>Lee

Our local Giant just installed half a dozen "Do it yourself" check-out stands,
in addition to their 8 or 10 cashier registers. You scan your own food, use
your card to pay, and bag your own. I've done it a couple of times, largely at
the behest of my kids who think it is great fun. If I'm by myself, though, I
go through the regular register.

Sheila

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 1:07:45 AM2/9/04

to

>> I affirmatively do not want my kids to be virgins when they marry either,
>but I
>> think there is difference between adults having sex and teenagers, who do
>not
>> have the financial resources -- and often not the emotional resources -- to
>> deal with the sequelae of sex.
>>
>> Sheila
>
>Tagging on to agree with both Wendy & Sheila. I don't want my
>step-daughters to be virgins when they marry. But then, I don't want
>them to marry young - I'd prefer it if they didn't even *think* about
>marriage until at least mid-twenties, and then think and keep thinking
>for many years ;-> - so they would have plenty of time to learn about
>their sexuality without having sex in high school. That said, if they
>decide to become sexually active in HS, I will support them and will
>provide appropriate birth and disease preventive products.
>Lee

I honestly don't know what I'll do WRT that, if my kids decide to have sex in
high school. My inclination, at this point, is to be point blank about the
matter and say, "I don't think you should be having sex. I will not be
providing you with contraception. You have your own money, and I suppose you
will do with it what you will. You need to be aware, though, that I will not
be raising another child in this house. If you get pregnant, you'll need to
figure out what you are going to do. If you insist that you are old enough and
mature enough to have sex, despite the fact that I don't think you are, then
you will need to be old enough and mature enough to deal with an unplanned
pregnancy. If you, DS, get a girl pregnant, and she decides to have and keep
the baby (totally out of your control, BTW, you'll have no say in the matter
one way or another) you will get an afterschool job and you WILL be paying
child support. I will not. Again, if you choose the behavior, you choose the
consequences. They will be your consequences, not mine. If you act as an
adult, you will be treated as one."

Of course, I may change my mind, but, at this point, that is where my head is.

Sheila

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 1:15:57 AM2/9/04

to

>Yeah, but do most Americans drive SUV's? Some days it feels like this to me,
>but I have no stats on this.

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 3:14:59 AM2/9/04

to

"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040208202539...@mb-m27.aol.com...

Yep. And when we are back to where we want to be financially, I'll be
changing from my used Buick Regal to a minivan. And that doesn't make me
feel guilty either. By then we'll be preparing to adopt again, and it will
be much easier to do the things I do with the kids in a minivan.

Lori

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 3:20:51 AM2/9/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040208143240...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >Rowell refers to it as retail strip mining.
>
> I see it as survival of the commercial fittest. If this isn't what people
want
> (or even care about), they wouldn't shop there.
>
> ~~Geri~~
>

That's right. My favorite places to shop here are(for groceries), Super
Kmart, Meijer, Sam's Club, and for anything not on sale at the Super K or
Meijer, I go to Save A Lot. For non-groceries, i tend to shop at Walmart,
where the prices are *consistently* better, the service is *consistently*
better, and where they (as opposed to everyone else) do not charge a non
refundable layaway fee.
lori

Lori

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 3:26:27 AM2/9/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040208145041...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >> >The top rates in the US (state+federal) in the higher-tax states are
> >> >also nearly 50%. We just get less bang for our bucks.
> >>
> >> Are those for the upper tax brackets?
> >>
> >
> >Yes, it's the top rate.
>
> We have this hilarious (and cute) new guy on late-night radio out here. I
am
> totally addicted to his program. Anyway, he has an entertaining
description
> of the way our taxes work on his web site:
>
> http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=125
>
>

I've seen this, and I agree 100% with it.
Lori

Lori

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 3:30:17 AM2/9/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040208143106...@mb-m10.aol.com...

> >> Isn't that the place you have to bag your own groceries? No thanks on
> >that.
> >
> >*shrugs* that's no big deal....:)
>

> I'm not going to do it.
>

I'll do it, at Save A Lot or Aldi, but I won't do it at Super K. They went
to a new checkout system, where your bags are on a carrousel, and you are
expected to load them into your cart like the checkout person used to do.
The first time I went through after they did this, I just stood there,
waiting. I'd just spent close to $200.00 for a very full cart, and as far
as I'm concerned, if they want us to take over the job of getting the
groceries either into the bags or into the cart, they can darn well lower
the prices, which they have not done. I refused to use the self checkout
lanes for the same reason. If they gave us a price break for using them,
that would be different.

Melissa

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 4:33:53 AM2/9/04

to

>Chuck is so anal about this that he almost got into a fight with the
>Wegman's guy when the guy wanted to bag our groceries. He was REALLY
>insistent, it's some kind of store policy, and they were both getting
>a little loud when the manager came over and backed the guy off.
>
>NOBODY can bag our groceries, even me. He has a system.
>
>Anne
>
>

It's weird, but Chuck and I are alike in alot of ways. I totally understand
this.

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 6:23:46 AM2/9/04

to

>How about you listen to NPR for a week and I listen to talk radio?

No way. I have to listen to Bill Handel in the AM and John & Ken in the
afternoon and JZ late at night, not to mention in the afternoons, I turn off
Dr. Laura (yuck) and listen on the computer to "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" on the
Zone in Omaha (ESPN). Saturday AMs I have to hear "Handel on the Law". When I
catch anything on NPR, it is usually in the middle of the night, when I am at
work, usually on Saturday/Sunday, sometime after "Disco Saturday Night".
Sunday AMs I listen "The Swinging Years" and to my mom and dad's church in
Lincoln on the computer. It's like some people have to see "ER" or "Friends" -
I have to hear my programs - I got totally addicted to listening to the radio
after 9/11 and it is several stations, too.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 6:30:48 AM2/9/04

to

>And when we are back to where we want to be financially, I'll be
>changing from my used Buick Regal to a minivan. And that doesn't make me
>feel guilty either.

See, the thing is nobody does feel guilty and IMO there is nothing wrong with
that, (as long as they know how to drive them and don't think they own the
road, but that is another rant). Our parents drove huge gas-guzzler cars and
station wagons. But that illustrates my point about Americans and our
consumerism (especially IRO automobiles and gasoline).

Wendy

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 8:15:33 AM2/9/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040208143240...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >Rowell refers to it as retail strip mining.
>
> I see it as survival of the commercial fittest. If this isn't what people
want
> (or even care about), they wouldn't shop there.

Nonsense, people are all about short term necessity, rather than long term
implications.

Wendy

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 11:51:57 AM2/9/04

to

On 09 Feb 2004 04:33:53 GMT, laa...@aol.comspamzap (Melissa) wrote:

>It's weird, but Chuck and I are alike in alot of ways. I totally understand

^^^^
>this.

I think you misspelled "creepy" in that sentence.

Anne

Wendy

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 3:05:03 PM2/9/04

to

"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040208202539...@mb-m27.aol.com...

> I have to admit, I don't feel guilty. We go up to the mountains
frequently,
> and I feel we are more safe with an AWD vehicle. I never complain about
the
> price of gas. I put more money back into the economy by purchasing this
> vehicle than by purchasing a lower cost vehicle. Nope... I don't feel
guilty.

I don't understand what putting money back into the economy by purchasing
this vehicle has to do with stopping you feel guilty. If you were going to
feel guilty, wouldn't that be about the effects on the environment and
consumption of a limited resource?

Wendy

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 3:54:12 PM2/9/04

to

>> I see it as survival of the commercial fittest. If this isn't what people
>want
>> (or even care about), they wouldn't shop there.

>Nonsense, people are all about short term necessity, rather than long term
>implications.

I think it is both.

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 4:39:03 PM2/9/04

to

whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote
>
> In contrast to the DMV in America's nation's capital. Oh, and of course, the
> motor vehicle INSPECTION station in DC. That's my favorite. In VA and MD,
> several hundred gas and service stations have been authorized to do annual
> state inspections of cars. Yeah, you end up waiting an hour or two, anyway.
> But, in DC-proper (where I lived for a few years) there is one, yes, ONE
> district-run inspection station for all the citizens to use. I remember when
> DS was an infant, arriving at 7:30 a.m. (they opened at 8:00) and leaving at
> 3:15.
>

Oh yes. And some of the INS offices. Some years ago, we needed to take
one of our kids to one for some paperwork. Dad and kid showed up at
the window at 7.15. The window opened at 7.30 a.m.--- and closed at
7.45 a.m.

They were short-staffed.

My jaw dropped when I heard it.

Rupa

Wendy

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 5:28:39 PM2/9/04

to

"Kathy Cole" <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote in message
news:tsdd205kliiuvep2h...@4ax.com...
> They're answerable to the governments of the countries in which they do
> business and (unless they're privately held) to their shareholders.
> You're exaggerating.

And people call me idealistic! A story to illustrate. A telecommunications
company, O 2, has built a tower near where I live, despite the fact that
they applied for planning permission and it was refused. They built it
anyway and they are using it, despite the fact that it is an illegal tower.
They have appealed against the planning decision, but they haven't taken
down the tower. What is being done? Well our MP is raising it as an issue
in parliament following many people, like Barclay and I, writing to him to
complain. Meantime, those living in our community face a risk to their
health.

If you look at history, there are countless examples of Western governments
going to any ends to interfere with governments unfavourable to Western
commercial interests. Free trade agreements are set up so that these
companies can function as if they are national companies, without the
controls.

Shareholders are concerned with one thing only, profits.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 5:31:54 PM2/9/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040209105412...@mb-m22.aol.com...

> >> I see it as survival of the commercial fittest. If this isn't what
people
> >want
> >> (or even care about), they wouldn't shop there.
>
> >Nonsense, people are all about short term necessity, rather than long
term
> >implications.
>
> I think it is both.

On what basis?

Wendy

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 5:44:11 PM2/9/04

to

"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040208160240...@mb-m27.aol.com...

> I affirmatively do not want my kids to be virgins when they marry either,
but I
> think there is difference between adults having sex and teenagers, who do
not
> have the financial resources -- and often not the emotional resources --
to
> deal with the sequelae of sex.

Sure, that may well be true, but one can take precautions which reduce the
risk of financial consequences to a minimum. Here in England, a sixteen
year old has reached the age of consent and can get free birthcontrol from
any family planning clinic or her GP. As to the emotional resources, people
mature at different ages. I know some people who don't have the emotional
resource at 40.

Vicki has argued in the past that it is a distraction from their education
at this age, and there is an extent to which I can see that argument, though
I also think it can be a huge education to have a loving sexual
relationship.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 5:46:37 PM2/9/04

to

"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040208155816...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> Life changes. When machines were created to sew clothes together, the
price of
> clothing went down and those who made their living being seamstresses had
to
> adapt. It seems to me the same principle holds: if you are in an
industry
> that is becoming obsolete because the goods or services can be made more
> efficiently, more quickly, or in a less costly manner, the solution is not
to
> prohibit those advances, but to adapt your business accordingly, or change
> businesses.

But there is a huge cost to it, just not costs that commerce and industry
care to measure.

Wendy

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 7:57:16 PM2/9/04

to

>Shareholders are concerned with one thing only, profits.

And?

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 8:02:59 PM2/9/04

to

>> >> I see it as survival of the commercial fittest. If this isn't what
>people
>> >want
>> >> (or even care about), they wouldn't shop there.
>>
>> >Nonsense, people are all about short term necessity, rather than long
>term
>> >implications.
>>
>> I think it is both.
>
>On what basis?
>

From what I originally said, if the people didn't want what the businesses
offer, they wouldn't do business, utilize their products, and the businesses
would fold.

I am not exactly sure what you meant by short term necessity, but as I read it,
yes people are about that and not even only necessity, but even unnecessary
things that they want, and yes, most people don't care about long-term
implications. I would guess that very few do.

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 10:14:34 PM2/9/04

to

I think there is plenty of time after they've reached the adulthood. For me,
this is one of those decisions they can make when they, and they alone, will be
responsible for the consequences. Until they are adults, I still have some of
the responsibility.

Sheila

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 10:21:19 PM2/9/04

to

>> Life changes. When machines were created to sew clothes together, the
>price of
>> clothing went down and those who made their living being seamstresses had
>to
>> adapt. It seems to me the same principle holds: if you are in an
>industry
>> that is becoming obsolete because the goods or services can be made more
>> efficiently, more quickly, or in a less costly manner, the solution is not
>to
>> prohibit those advances, but to adapt your business accordingly, or change
>> businesses.
>
>But there is a huge cost to it, just not costs that commerce and industry
>care to measure.
>
>Wendy

Costs to some, benefits to others.

A co-worker (a left-wing lesbian, actually) once said to me --- almost
whispering it, because she felt it was somehow "wrong" for her to say it:

If tomorrow we took all the money in the world and spread it equally among all
people, I would estimate that within a very short time, even as short as ten
years, it would be redistributed so that they people who have money now would
have it again, and the people who are without money would be broke again.

I tend to agree with her. Those who have drive and a will to succeed will do
so, whatever the circumstances. People who look at their field -- or service,
or goods -- and see that it is becoming obsolete start making changes to adapt.
They find alternatives. They find a way to make it work, or they change
fields.

Sheila

WhansaMi

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 10:35:15 PM2/9/04

to

>> I have to admit, I don't feel guilty. We go up to the mountains
>frequently,
>> and I feel we are more safe with an AWD vehicle. I never complain about
>the
>> price of gas. I put more money back into the economy by purchasing this
>> vehicle than by purchasing a lower cost vehicle. Nope... I don't feel
>guilty.
>
>I don't understand what putting money back into the economy by purchasing
>this vehicle has to do with stopping you feel guilty. If you were going to
>feel guilty, wouldn't that be about the effects on the environment and
>consumption of a limited resource?
>
>Wendy

I see benefits to the economy in buying more expensive cars than less expensive
cars. The salesman made a higher commision, enhancing his quality of life.
The mechanics who work on it will have jobs because of the cost of repairs.
The bank that financed it will prosper because I'm paying more interest on a
larger car note than a smaller one.

Yes, one of the trade-offs is gas consumption. As SUVs go, I get pretty good
gas mileage, which is a major reason we didn't go with a Suburban or a Hummer.
For a large vehicle, needed to carry a mimimum of four people, one large dog,
and two small dogs around on a regular basis (and to areas where there is snow
and ice), ours is pretty good on gas mileage. Gas consumption was an
consideration in our decision, but it was not the ONLY issue. We had particular
needs for our family that we wanted to have met. The Pilot is also an
Ultra-Low Emissions vehicle, which we considered, too, in our decision.

I could live in a 2 room apartment, wear only hand-me-down clothes, ride a bike
everywhere, and do all kinds of things that some might consider worthwhile for
the environment. But, I won't be doing any of those things. Everyone has to
draw their own line where they are willing to go "for the public good". My
line is after buying a safer and more comfortable car for my family.

Sheila

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 9, 2004, 10:36:57 PM2/9/04

to

janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote in message news:<

> Yabbut. Socialist governments being bad for the environment doesn't undermine
> the position that capitalism is. Capitalism is still the engine driving the
> global economy.
>

True. But you need some kind of an economic system.

The problem I have is that the ones I like seem to work for small
homogeneous countries. It's not clear what kind of system would work
for the best interest of mankind on a large scale.

Rupa

jane

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 3:33:49 AM2/10/04

to

>I am not exactly sure what you meant by short term necessity, but as I read
>it,
>yes people are about that and not even only necessity, but even unnecessary
>things that they want, and yes, most people don't care about long-term
>implications. I would guess that very few do.
>~~Geri~~

We live in different worlds, Geri. I'm telling you, I think we should switch
media for a week.

jane

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 3:38:11 AM2/10/04

to

>We live in different worlds, Geri.

That is highly possible.

Lori

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 4:22:29 AM2/10/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message

news:20040209013048...@mb-m29.aol.com...

> >And when we are back to where we want to be financially, I'll be
> >changing from my used Buick Regal to a minivan. And that doesn't make me
> >feel guilty either.
>
> See, the thing is nobody does feel guilty and IMO there is nothing wrong
with
> that, (as long as they know how to drive them and don't think they own the
> road, but that is another rant). Our parents drove huge gas-guzzler cars
and
> station wagons. But that illustrates my point about Americans and our
> consumerism (especially IRO automobiles and gasoline).
>

For me it speaks to a refusal to pack a family into a compact car in order
to satisfy enviro-nazis. I'm all for trying to take care of the world we
live in, but I am not, never have been, and never will be, for putting
"earth first".

Wendy

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 11:05:11 AM2/10/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KtuVb.10370$IF1.6186@fed1read01...
> they're not "potential deficiencies", they Are deficiencies, and
capitalism
> to date has proven to work the best....now someone at some point might
come
> up with something that works even better, but until then....:)

Look, lots of women have trained as doctors in the former Soviet Union, lots
of people trained as astronauts, lots of athletes, etc. Sure, there may be
some who are in it for what they can get, but that doesn't mean that it
affects everyone the same way.

As to capitalism working best, I disagree, as do many economists. Price is
not an adequate measure of efficiency and efficiency is a much better
measure than growth.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 11:13:33 AM2/10/04

to

"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:lzuVb.10372$IF1.4094@fed1read01...
> here's the rub-you say food, water, clothing and shelter are all
> necessities....well, fine, you need 'em...filet mignon and steaks, etc.
are
> food, and since you need food, we're all obligated to give it to you,
right?

wrong, but a balanced diet which considers cultural and ethical issues isn't
unreasonable.

> > Growth of what? Growth isn't necessarily a benefit, unless you are
> talking
> > about individual growth. Nor is competition, other than that of
striving
> > for what is best in the individual. It doesn't follow that either are
> > necessarily of benefit to humanity. The growth of one is often at the
> > expense of another.
> >
>
> what, you'd prefer stagnation/regression? people/society grows, or it
> does...

The fundamental failure of capitalism is that it needs to keep expanding
until there are no further markets, at which point it falls apart. Lack of
growth doesn't equate to stagnation. There is nothing wrong with working to
maintain status quo.

> well, either the competition grows to match it, or yes, it dies....and?

It leaves less diversity. There is a fixed amount of money in the economy.

> ten years after they changed systems? you expect a change that quick?

Nothing will change because it's still an oligarchy, with the same people
holding all the power.

> we were exporting food to the former Soviet Union even before it fell, so
> obviously, we've been doing something right...

You'll have to explain your reasoning on that. What's right about the
pursuit of profits for the few at the expense of the many?

> i'll go get the books...:) do you have a recent copy of Atlas Shrugged? :)

Looked for it in the local Waterstones and they didn't have it in stock,
however it's a novel not an economic analysis by an expert.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 11:20:54 AM2/10/04

to

"Elizabeth H Bonesteel" <li...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:c061vb$9ru$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> This will happen. India isn't the only game in town, and as the
educational
> systems of other countries improve, corporations will look around.

It's said that the next thing they'll want to control is the educational
systems, however I'd say that they have been for a long time already.

> I'm not trying to ignore the socialism aspect, Wendy. I just don't
believe
> bald-faced socialist ideas will cause any change in this country at all.
I'm
> looking for a way for this to work for everyone that might actually have a
> chance of happening. It's realism vs. ideals for me.

It's realism for me too, but my realism is trying to look beyond national
borders at real world issues. There is a limited amount of resource and
it's offensive for a small percentage to consume more than the rest of the
world together.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 3:58:30 PM2/10/04

to

In article <20040210061824...@mb-m29.aol.com>,

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:

> >There is a limited amount of resource and
> >it's offensive for a small percentage to consume more than the rest of the
> >world together.
>
> You will just have to be offended then, because it isn't going to change. As
> my brother puts it, " ... because we can. Who is going to stop us?"
>
>
> ~~Geri~~
>

And then Americans wonder, "Why do they hate us??"

They don't hate our freedom. They hate our arrogance. And I can't blame
them after reading crap like this.

Martha

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 3:56:09 PM2/10/04

to

>I'm a firm believer that the "because we can" crowd usually gets theirs in
>the
>end though.

If that happens, by that time I suspect that we will be long gone. However, I
don't believe the American public will settle for anything less that remaining
at "because we can" status.

Melissa

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 4:06:56 PM2/10/04

to

>If that happens, by that time I suspect that we will be long gone. However,
>I
>don't believe the American public will settle for anything less that
>remaining
>at "because we can" status.
>
>~~Geri~~
>

We already are paying for it Geri.

The Watsons

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 4:43:34 PM2/10/04

to

"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c0ae0b$jub$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Looked for it in the local Waterstones and they didn't have it in stock,
> however it's a novel not an economic analysis by an expert.

www.amazon.co.uk

has Shrugged, Fountainhead, We the Living, Virtue, Capitalism.....

and yes, it's an economic analysis by a philosopher, but she also analyzes
the flaws in socialism from the social perspective...the books are much more
than just economic analyses...

Jess

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 4:56:19 PM2/10/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>>I'm a firm believer that the "because we can" crowd usually gets theirs in
>>the
>>end though.
>
>If that happens, by that time I suspect that we will be long gone. However, I
>don't believe the American public will settle for anything less that remaining
>at "because we can" status.

What makes you think that we'll be able to sustain it? One of the
reasons that we can do this is because we (meaning the "First World")
are the only ones who can. When the Third World catches up (and I
give it 20 years), we'll have to compete with people who can do our
work for 20% of the costs.

American corporations might still be healthy, but they won't be
employing Americans. There will be the very wealthy, the top 3% (the
Bush crowd, really) and the poor. And that's all. Guess which class
you and I are likely to belong to.

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 10, 2004, 5:12:35 PM2/10/04

to

>And then Americans wonder, "Why do they hate us??"

unread,

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:11:28 AM2/11/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040210213711...@mb-m03.aol.com...

Because it belongs to that person?? Why should they work for it if they
can't keep it? As to inheritance, I believe people ought to be able to give
their assets, *all of them, with none taxed*, to anyone they choose. They
already paid taxes on it themselves.
Lori
Lori

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 2/10/04

Lori

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:13:16 AM2/11/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040210122708...@mb-m28.aol.com...

Do you think it is *not* OK for anyone to own more stuff than other people?

Lori

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:17:15 AM2/11/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040210094004...@mb-m28.aol.com...

I don't see why not. I do not believe some little crawling lizard, for
example is vastly more important than the people who want to build a home on
their own property, and therefore the people must either spend huge amounts
to protect it's habitat or forget about having their home. The earth first
sort of people are the biggest reason more and more people each year become
unable to afford their own homes.

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:12:27 AM2/11/04

to

>The earth first
>sort of people are the biggest reason more and more people each year become
>unable to afford their own homes.
>Lori

Well I guess once we've killed our planet home prices will drop. :)

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 12:23:20 PM2/11/04

to

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:17:15 -0500, "Lori" <real...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>I don't see why not. I do not believe some little crawling lizard, for
>example is vastly more important than the people who want to build a home on
>their own property, and therefore the people must either spend huge amounts
>to protect it's habitat or forget about having their home.

Yeah, that lizard, he toils not and neither does he spin, let's nuke
him.

Anne

Michelle Geary

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 2:30:57 PM2/11/04

to

Lori <real...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:RLiWb.8520$QE3....@fe01.usenetserver.com...

>
> "jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040210122708...@mb-m28.aol.com...

I think that it is not okay for some people to own a huge percentage of
the stuff most or much of it luxury items in the sense that they are
unnecessry, while other people die for lack of basic needs such as clean
water, sufficient food and lack of medicine/ medical care. Didn't Jesus (a
good liberal Jew, in many ways) have something to say about this? If you
have two coats, give one of them to the person that hasn't even got one?
My opinion is that we have been given, by our Creator, a world that we
may use. And we're doing a pretty piss poor job of sharing it even with
each other, as well as managing to permanently destroy many of its beauties
(nice way to treat something that you've been allowed to use on loan). I
think our societal obsession with ownership is pretty anti-religious, for
that matter.
Michelle

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 2:59:18 PM2/11/04

to

> I think that it is not okay for some people to own a huge percentage of
>the stuff most or much of it luxury items in the sense that they are
>unnecessry, while other people die for lack of basic needs such as clean
>water, sufficient food and lack of medicine/ medical care.

I so disagree with this, unless it is the rich person's choice to share his/her
goods. What would be the point of working if you didn't get to keep the fruits
of your labor, so to speak?

>Didn't Jesus (a
>good liberal Jew, in many ways) have something to say about this? If you
>have two coats, give one of them to the person that hasn't even got one?

That is a free will thing.

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 3:43:13 PM2/11/04

to

>>>If a person makes the money, either through work, inheritance or however,
>>>you ought to be able to keep the money.
>
>>Why?
>>
>Because it belongs to that person.

But it belongs to whomever we say. Why do you think it belongs to them?

jane

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 3:43:14 PM2/11/04

to

In a previous article, "Michelle Geary" <mge...@sonic.net> said:

> I think that it is not okay for some people to own a huge percentage of
>the stuff most or much of it luxury items in the sense that they are
>unnecessry, while other people die for lack of basic needs such as clean
>water, sufficient food and lack of medicine/ medical care. Didn't Jesus (a
>good liberal Jew, in many ways) have something to say about this? If you
>have two coats, give one of them to the person that hasn't even got one?

Luke 3:11 "He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two
coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat,
let him do likewise."

But that was John the Baptist, not Jesus. Still good advice.

Even better advice *is* straight from Jesus' mouth in Matthew
25:34-45, in which he says that we *must* take care of the poor and
hungry, and he doesn't put a qualification on it. He doesn't say that
the *deserving* poor get taken care of, or the *believing* poor. Now,
since I don't necessarily read the Bible literally, I might could
interpret these verses in a couple of ways, but really, it seems
pretty evident. I don't see a lot of wiggle-room.

Matt 25:34-46 "34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right
hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we
thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and
clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto
you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and
ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me
not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not
to me."

Every time you turn away from a bum asking for change, you're denying
Christ. And I'm the first to admit that I usually walk right past
panhandlers. (One, pretty articulate and not too psychotic-looking,
assured me that he wanted food, so I offered to buy him whatever he
wanted at the McDonald's we were standing in front of. He turned me
down. But nicely.)

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 3:45:43 PM2/11/04

to

>Why do you think it belongs to them?

If the person works for it or acquires it in any legal way, it belongs to that
person. Why do you think it doesn't?

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 3:51:19 PM2/11/04

to

>What would be the point of working if you didn't get to keep the fruits
>of your labor, so to speak?

I look at my life, though. The least amount and worst quality of work is what
I do for money. I kill myself in the garden because I like to see it grow.
I've devoted a massive chunk of the last two decades to raising my child
because her welfare is the most important thing in the world to me. I make
fabulous dinners for my friends because I love to cook and feed people I love.
I spend hours on ASSP every week because it helps me to wrangle problems
through with other people. I could go on all day.

>That is a free will thing.

It's all a free will thing, Geri. If you have two coats and I don't have one,
you have to decide whether to give me one, and I have to decide whether to let
you keep both.

jane
>
>
>~~Geri~~

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 3:50:51 PM2/11/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>>Didn't Jesus (a
>>good liberal Jew, in many ways) have something to say about this? If you
>>have two coats, give one of them to the person that hasn't even got one?
>
>That is a free will thing.

Actually, no. Michelle's talking about a passage in Luke that is
actually about John the Baptist. But Jesus did a lot of talking about
having only what you need, and giving away that extras. He said we
shouldn't even carry more food than we can eat currently.
Scripturally, it's not a choice.

There's a passage where he talks about being a good steward, talling
the parable about the three servants who were given sums of money by
their master to manage while he was away. One servant invested it and
was rewarded for bringing in a good return, while one buried the money
for fear of losing it, and that servant was beaten and cast out. (The
second one also did OK with it, but not as well as the first, if I
recall correctly.) A literalist is going to interpret this as meaning
that God wants us to master the stock market. However,
non-literalists (like me) see that as a warning to use our *gifts*
well, whatever they are. To not hide one's light under a bushel, so
to speak. It's not, I think, an admonition to get rich.

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:22:41 PM2/11/04

to

>Do you think it is *not* OK for anyone to own more stuff than other people?
>Lori

I don't see what would make it okay. If people are dividing up what is
available - and they are, - it's clear to me that it should be divided
equitably.

"Ah," you say, "but what is equitable"?

Good question. I look at what we do IRL when fairness and peace are primary
values and we're dealing with primal desires and people at their least
civilized. We divide the birthday cake at kids' parties equally down to the
crumb. So that tells me that on the most fundamental level we think "equal" is
"equal."

However, once we're past the basic need, the cake, we change our approach
somewhat. The ice cream is optional and variable. We give the kids no ice
cream, a little ice cream, or a lot of lot of ice cream based on their input
(unless, of course, their parents are there to intervene). So surplus we
distribute according to individual taste and desire.

Within limits, of course. We do not allow one or two kids to take all the ice
cream. We also don't allow everyone to seize whatever ice cream she can get.
That would be a disaster, because the kids would not be considering how much
ice cream they actually wanted; they would be thinking about getting as much
ice cream they could. The two biggest kids with the most older brothers would
be sitting in one corner with a 10 gallon tub of ice cream they couldn't eat
and the others would be lying around the room bruised and ice cream-less and
sobbing and hurt.

That's capitalism. We dissociate individuals from their needs and their
desires and replace them with acquisitiveness.

jane

>Lori

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:24:38 PM2/11/04

to

>>Why do you think it belongs to them?
>
>If the person works for it or acquires it in any legal way, it belongs to
>that
>person.

Now we're down to tautology, though. Why does it belong to them if they work
for it and acquire it in a legal way? Why are "legal ways" legal?

We decide what belongs to whom. After a person dies, money belongs to her
heirs to the extent that we agree they can keep it. When a person has earned
wealth, we take it away if we don't like the way she earned it. We make these
decisions and a million like them already.

If a person is starving and another person is sitting on 3 warehouses full of
food, why should we as a group decide that the food belongs to the latter?

jane
>
>~~Geri~~

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:25:55 PM2/11/04

to

>It's all a free will thing, Geri. If you have two coats and I don't have
>one,
>you have to decide whether to give me one, and I have to decide whether to
>let
>you keep both.

You would have to be pretty tough to get it away without my consent. ;-)

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:28:21 PM2/11/04

to

>I don't see what would make it okay. If people are dividing up what is
>available - and they are, - it's clear to me that it should be divided
>equitably.

Cool. I am going to quit my job and let the everyone else support me for a
while.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:29:52 PM2/11/04

to

>If a person is starving and another person is sitting on 3 warehouses full of
>food, why should we as a group decide that the food belongs to the latter?
>

If I have three warehouses full of food and somebody is going to take it and
distribute it out to everyone else, I have no reason to get the three
warehouses of food in the first place. So, everyone can starve.

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:34:11 PM2/11/04

to

>Cool. I am going to quit my job and let the everyone else support me for a
>while.
>
>~~Geri~~

Go for it. Report back.

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:39:14 PM2/11/04

to

>If I have three warehouses full of food and somebody is going to take it and
>distribute it out to everyone else, I have no reason to get the three
>warehouses of food in the first place.

Right.

> So, everyone can starve.

I don't see how that follows.

jane

>Geri

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:40:41 PM2/11/04

to

>Cool. I am going to quit my job and let the everyone else support me for a
>while.
>
>~~Geri~~

I think actually having to live on welfare would change your views on alot of
things.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:45:57 PM2/11/04

to

If I have three warehouses full of food, I might share voluntarily. However,
if the food from my warehouse is just going to be taken without my consent by
the people who don't have it, I have no incentive to acquire anything but
enough for myself. If the freeloaders don't have the skills, brainpower,
gumption or what-have-you to acquire some for their own selves then they will
still not have any of the food and there would be no extra food available for
me to share, if I am so inclined.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:46:55 PM2/11/04

to

>I think actually having to live on welfare would change your views on alot of
>things.

Well, the thing is, in real life, I would die first.

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:15:11 PM2/11/04

to

>I think actually having to live on welfare would change
>your views on alot of things.

Why do you say that, Melissa? I've been in the position
before where, according to my standard of living, I fully
qualified for welfare (although my circumstances made me
not eligible) and I'm still closer to Geri's beliefs than
yours. And I know of many people who lived and live in a
lower quality of life than even welfare affords because of
their beliefs. Being poverty stricken doesn't mean you're
going to suddenly change your beliefs.

Tracey

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:22:27 PM2/11/04

to

>
>Why do you say that, Melissa? I've been in the position
>before where, according to my standard of living, I fully
>qualified for welfare (although my circumstances made me
>not eligible) and I'm still closer to Geri's beliefs than
>yours. And I know of many people who lived and live in a
>lower quality of life than even welfare affords because of
>their beliefs. Being poverty stricken doesn't mean you're
>going to suddenly change your beliefs.
>
>Tracey
>

Were you actually on welfare Tracey?

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:40:15 PM2/11/04

to

>Were you actually on welfare Tracey?

No, I wasn't, Melissa. And of course, that means that
I'm obviously clueless and I have no experience with
being poor and I would change my tune in a heartbeat
if I were actually *on* welfare rather than living on
an income that was *lower* than what I would have gotten
if I were on it.

Tracey

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:47:10 PM2/11/04

to

No, it means you weren't talking about what I'm talking about.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:56:36 PM2/11/04

to

Since presumably we are talking about redistribution of wealth, there is
another factor involved. Politicians (government) are the last people you want
involved in this, since after they take the money, they take their (huge) cut
off the top. Then they give paybacks to the special interest groups who helped
put them in office, and heaven knows who else. Then, if anything is left -
that may actually make it to people who need it.

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:01:15 PM2/11/04

to

>No, it means you weren't talking about what I'm
>talking about.

But I AM talking about the same thing. You told Geri
if she were ever on Welfare, her opinion about it would
change. And I'm saying that people who hold the same beliefs
as Geri don't *go on* Welfare. In fact, I think it's a pretty
condescending thing to say because you're suggesting that
Geri is being hypocritical when you say that.

Tracey

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:08:57 PM2/11/04

to

>But I AM talking about the same thing. You told Geri
>if she were ever on Welfare, her opinion about it would
>change. And I'm saying that people who hold the same beliefs
>as Geri don't *go on* Welfare. In fact, I think it's a pretty
>condescending thing to say because you're suggesting that
>Geri is being hypocritical when you say that.
>
>Tracey
>

People like you and Geri sometimes have to go on welfare, or disaiblity, or
even take unemployment. It hasn't happened to you, but it could. I've known
many people who were conservative until they actually needed those services.
Suddenly they were singing a different tune.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:17:00 PM2/11/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c0diii$2v6$1...@allhats.xcski.com...

> Every time you turn away from a bum asking for change, you're denying
> Christ. And I'm the first to admit that I usually walk right past
> panhandlers. (One, pretty articulate and not too psychotic-looking,
> assured me that he wanted food, so I offered to buy him whatever he
> wanted at the McDonald's we were standing in front of. He turned me
> down. But nicely.)

What if you'd offered to give him a tin a baked beans, or something else of
no greater value financially, but nutrionally worthwhile?

Wendy

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:11:48 PM2/11/04

to

In a previous article, "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> said:

>
>"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
>news:c0diii$2v6$1...@allhats.xcski.com...

>> panhandlers. (One, pretty articulate and not too psychotic-looking,
>> assured me that he wanted food, so I offered to buy him whatever he
>> wanted at the McDonald's we were standing in front of. He turned me
>> down. But nicely.)
>
>What if you'd offered to give him a tin a baked beans, or something else of
>no greater value financially, but nutrionally worthwhile?

I don't know, Wendy. I didn't have a tin of beans in my purse. We
were on a street in downtown Rochester, he said "Can I have some money
for food?" and I said "I'll buy you whatever you want right here" and
he said "No, thank you anyway."

Maybe he was concerned about his cholesterol.

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:13:24 PM2/11/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>Since presumably we are talking about redistribution of wealth, there is
>another factor involved. Politicians (government) are the last people you want
>involved in this, since after they take the money, they take their (huge) cut
>off the top. Then they give paybacks to the special interest groups who helped
>put them in office, and heaven knows who else. Then, if anything is left -
>that may actually make it to people who need it.

Why is the name "Halliburton" springing to mind? "Oil interests"?
"Dick Cheney"? "Dad's friends"?

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:17:13 PM2/11/04

to

>People like you and Geri sometimes have to go on welfare,
>or disaiblity, or even take unemployment.

Disability and unemployment are totally different than welfare
AFAIC.

>It hasn't happened to you, but it could. I've known many
>people who were conservative until they actually needed
>those services. Suddenly they were singing a different tune.

And I've know many people who were convervative and got to
the point where they were eligible for welfare and went hungry
or worked two or three jobs rather than go on it. So, what's
your point? That because you've known 'many', then everyone
is going to do the same thing?

Tracey

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:20:48 PM2/11/04

to

>Disability and unemployment are totally different than welfare
>AFAIC.
>

Well that's one opinion, but all are social programs.

>
>And I've know many people who were convervative and got to
>the point where they were eligible for welfare and went hungry
>or worked two or three jobs rather than go on it. So, what's
>your point? That because you've known 'many', then everyone
>is going to do the same thing?
>
>Tracey
>

It's just a guess of course.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 6:31:51 PM2/11/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message

It's hardly the same thing.

Anne

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 7:22:17 PM2/11/04

to

>Money comes out of my check every week for disability and
>unemployment! That's not a handout, that's me taking back *some* of
>the money I've put in over the years!
>
>It's hardly the same thing.
>
>Anne
>

You pay income taxes do you not? Money also comes out of your check for
welfare. Unemployment Insurance is a social program. It's a tax that you pay.
Some people never use it while others have to more than once in their
lifetime. They are both social programs of the same vein.

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:05:08 PM2/11/04

to

>They are both social programs of the same vein.

They are only in the same vein in that money is taken
from the worker. The distribution and the requirements
you must meet are different, which is, IMO, the crux
of this whole discussion.

What I find interesting, Melissa, is that, from a recent
post that you made, *you* apparently don't practice 'Charity
to those who need it, regardless of whether you believe
they deserve it or not' but you sure seem to have disdain
for people who have stated they don't believe it.

Tracey

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:09:07 PM2/11/04

to

>What I find interesting, Melissa, is that, from a recent
>post that you made, *you* apparently don't practice 'Charity
>to those who need it, regardless of whether you believe
>they deserve it or not' but you sure seem to have disdain
>for people who have stated they don't believe it.
>
>Tracey

You mean the pan handlers post?

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:11:16 PM2/11/04

to

>If the freeloaders don't have the skills, brainpower,
>gumption or what-have-you to acquire some for their own selves

This is the assumption that seems unfounded to me.
jane
>
>~~Geri~~

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:16:09 PM2/11/04

to

>if I were actually *on* welfare rather than living on
>an income that was *lower* than what I would have gotten
>if I were on it.
>
>Tracey

Well, they are different things. Stands to reason to me that you'd learn
different things from different experiences.

This is like Melissa telling me that I might learn something from bungee
jumping, and you saying that you hadn't learned it from falling off a cliff.
You know - a. it wasn't me and b. it wasn't bungee jumping.

I don't know what Melissa was talking about. Humility, compassion, acceptance
of one's limits come to mind. Melissa, care to elaborate?

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:19:33 PM2/11/04

to

>In fact, I think it's a pretty
>condescending thing to say because you're suggesting that
>Geri is being hypocritical when you say that.

Shit. I missed that.

Wait, no. I still don't get that.

Melissa, this is the problem with pithy.

jane
>Tracey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: OT: President Match
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed1.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!ne
wsfeed.earthlink.net!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.c
om!twister.socal.rr.com.POS
>TED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>Message-ID: <402A6DF8...@aol.com>
>From: Tracey rbran...@aol.com
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2)
>Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Newsgroups: alt.support.step-parents
>References: <402A690D...@aol.com>
><20040211124710...@mb-m05.aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 13
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:01:15 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.91.90.137
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@rr.com
>X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1076522475 66.91.90.137 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004
>10:01:15 PST)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:01:15 PST
>Organization: RoadRunner - West
>

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:23:00 PM2/11/04

to

>Money comes out of my check every week for disability and
>unemployment!

Didn't we just do this one? Or is it time for it again? Never mind. Carry
on.

jane

>Anne

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:24:51 PM2/11/04

to

On 11 Feb 2004 19:22:17 GMT, laa...@aol.comspamzap (Melissa) wrote:

>You pay income taxes do you not? Money also comes out of your check for
>welfare. Unemployment Insurance is a social program. It's a tax that you pay.
> Some people never use it while others have to more than once in their
>lifetime. They are both social programs of the same vein.

Yes, *I* certainly pay income taxes. I'd be fascinated to know the
percentage of people on welfare who have *never* paid income taxes.

Anne

heather m.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:26:00 PM2/11/04

to

Or they kill you to get it. I have a question!! For Jane, I think. Do you
think "us" deciding who gets what keeps social order and avoids mayhem?

Did I spell mayhem right?
Heather..eek

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040211113404...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >>If a person is starving and another person is sitting on 3 warehouses
full
> >of
> >>food, why should we as a group decide that the food belongs to the
latter?
> >>
> >If I have three warehouses full of food and somebody is going to take it
and
> >distribute it out to everyone else, I have no reason to get the three
> >warehouses of food in the first place. So, everyone can starve.
> >
> Either that, or the people who don't have the food can come up with
something
> that I want and either trade or buy the food.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:29:43 PM2/11/04

to

>Yes, *I* certainly pay income taxes. I'd be fascinated to know the
>percentage of people on welfare who have *never* paid income taxes.

Not exactly the same as welfare, but kind of, I know where I work, we have a
*huge* population who have state funded health care (Medi-Cal) and no social
security numbers.

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:30:40 PM2/11/04

to

>Yes, *I* certainly pay income taxes. I'd be fascinated to know the
>percentage of people on welfare who have *never* paid income taxes.
>
>Anne
>

Me too because I'm guessing not many.

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:30:37 PM2/11/04

to

>You mean the pan handlers post?

Yes.

Tracey

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:31:30 PM2/11/04

to

>This is like Melissa telling me that I might learn something from bungee
>jumping, and you saying that you hadn't learned it from falling off a cliff.
>You know - a. it wasn't me and b. it wasn't bungee jumping.

EXACTLY!

>I don't know what Melissa was talking about. Humility, compassion,
>acceptance
>of one's limits come to mind. Melissa, care to elaborate?
>
>jane

Mostly I was thinking of how actually going through certain things will
generally change your views on it. Humility and compassion weren't going
through my mind at all really. I was thinking about people I knew whose views
changed (or in one instance are changing) when their lives took turns for the
worse and were forced to accept some kind of government help.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:44:10 PM2/11/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message

news:c0diii$2v6$1...@allhats.xcski.com...

<snipped>
> Even better advice *is* straight from Jesus' mouth in Matthew
> 25:34-45, in which he says that we *must* take care of the poor and
> hungry, and he doesn't put a qualification on it. He doesn't say that
> the *deserving* poor get taken care of, or the *believing* poor.
<snipped the rest of a great post>

This is what I believe in my heart and soul. Peter talked about it. THAT
is the way to witness. When someone *asks* you, that is an unbeliever,
"*Why* do you do these things for me?" *then* you tell them why and leave it
at that. When someone asks you why you are so joyful, why you are so
caring, why do you care for such a wretch as a prostitute, a bum, a
prisoner, a user, a hater, and on and on then you tell them. Some of the
worst sinners in the world are touched and changed by giving and kindness
expressed to them that they know they don't deserve and don't have to pay
back. Some aren't, of course, but you never ever know who might be. It's
about compassion, and love, for ALL, not just who we judge to be deserving.
And Jesus knew there would be times we'd be used, and walked on for it, he
stated many times that the "world" will not like you because you are not of
the world. "You cannot serve both Me and Mammon (money)." And as for the
ones that walk on you, we're told to turn the other cheek, as he did
Himself.

I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to preach, but this is just something I
believe to the core of my being. Nobody is perfect, nobody is going to give
all the time, but I feel that if you don't have compassion you don't have
anything. And love. Paul talked about love. I could go on and on.

Heather

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:45:07 PM2/11/04

to

>Seriously, you took a big leap there. I generally don't
>give to pan handlers directly, but that doesn't mean I'm
>not doing something about the problem.

And, IMO, you've made serious leaps, too. You know nothing
about what *I* do about the problem, either, but I've sure
gotten the impression that you, at the very least, disagree
with my opinions about who I want to help and who I don't.
You have your own opinions, too, about who you are going to
help and who you aren't. I just don't see your opinions are
'better' than mine.

Tracey

heather m.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:48:34 PM2/11/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message

news:c0drc4$8n1$2...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian)
said:
>
> >Since presumably we are talking about redistribution of wealth, there is
> >another factor involved. Politicians (government) are the last people
you want
> >involved in this, since after they take the money, they take their (huge)
cut
> >off the top. Then they give paybacks to the special interest groups who
helped
> >put them in office, and heaven knows who else. Then, if anything is
left -
> >that may actually make it to people who need it.

>
> Why is the name "Halliburton" springing to mind? "Oil interests"?
> "Dick Cheney"? "Dad's friends"?
>

> Vicki
> --

And Enron. Dick Cheney scares the crap out of me.

Heather

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:48:35 PM2/11/04

to

>And, IMO, you've made serious leaps, too. You know nothing
>about what *I* do about the problem, either, but I've sure
>gotten the impression that you, at the very least, disagree
>with my opinions about who I want to help and who I don't.
>You have your own opinions, too, about who you are going to
>help and who you aren't. I just don't see your opinions are
>'better' than mine.
>
>Tracey

Tracey I wasn't even talking to you. Now you're telling me what I think you
think.

But I stand by what I said, and I think that applies to any of us who might end
up on welfare.

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:57:35 PM2/11/04

to

>Or they kill you to get it. I have a question!! For Jane, I think. Do you
>think "us" deciding who gets what keeps social order and avoids mayhem?
>
>Did I spell mayhem right?
>Heather..eek

I so love you. My heart is still pledged to Rupa for the religious freedom and
law conversation, though.

I think us deciding who gets to keep what *is" the social order.

If A is capable of taking things away from B, C, and D individually, and A does
so, it stands to reason that B, C, and D will get together against A.
Eventually. But then B and C could take all D's stuff. Or D and A could take
all B and C's stuff. So allocation of resources is a fundamental hurdle of
civilization.

You know, I never took a course in Anthropology. I would love a course like
The Individual and Society.

jane

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 8:59:23 PM2/11/04

to

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:07:04 PM2/11/04

to

> I think that applies to any of us who might end
>up on welfare.

Some of us have security nets to prevent this from happening (that have nothing
to do with public funding).

jane

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:08:16 PM2/11/04

to

>You say that, but you *know* you won't be able to help yourself.
>
>Anne

I'm trying to WORK! For money! You're undermining the economy, you know.

jane

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:08:13 PM2/11/04

to

>And Enron. Dick Cheney scares the crap out of me.
>

You have your head in the sand if you think it isn't *all* politicians.

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:15:51 PM2/11/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>>And Enron. Dick Cheney scares the crap out of me.
>>
>You have your head in the sand if you think it isn't *all* politicians.

Essentially I agree. But there's a gulf as wide as the Pacific
between Cheney and John McCain, for example.

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:21:17 PM2/11/04

to

>>You have your head in the sand if you think it isn't *all* politicians.
>
>Essentially I agree. But there's a gulf as wide as the Pacific
>between Cheney and John McCain, for example.

And the point of what I posted is that the politicians, no matter who you point
your finger at, are not the ones who should be disbursing whatever funds are
collected for social services. That is why I am all for reducing government
involvement in them.

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:24:39 PM2/11/04

to

>Some of us have security nets to prevent this from happening (that have
>nothing
>to do with public funding).
>
>~~Geri~~

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 9:46:13 PM2/11/04

to

>
>Hey, you know what? Don't blame your personality on me. By midnight
>EST at the latest you're goign to be googling this. I know it, Melissa
>knows it, even *you* know it.
>
>Anne
>

She's right you know. :)

heather m.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:03:46 PM2/11/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040211155735...@mb-m13.aol.com...
<snipped>

> If A is capable of taking things away from B, C, and D individually, and A
does
> so, it stands to reason that B, C, and D will get together against A.
> Eventually. But then B and C could take all D's stuff. Or D and A could
take
> all B and C's stuff. So allocation of resources is a fundamental hurdle
of
> civilization.
>
> You know, I never took a course in Anthropology. I would love a course
like
> The Individual and Society.
>
> jane

Well, I don't know where I'm going with this, but...

I keep thinking of the middle class being eliminated. If you have ten
starving, ticked-off poor people and two rich people, would the ten
overpower the two? Or would the two spread out the wealth to keep their
physical safety? Or would they just spread it out to five as in hiring them
to keep them safe? That way staying in power and yet somewhat safe. But
thinking about it again, I guess the five hired would be considered middle
class, right? But, thinking about it again, if the two rich people had
means to destroy the mass of poor people (nuclear weapons) they could just
whittle down the mass, couldn't they?

I keep thinking about how presently, in the days of nuclear weapons, does
majority necessarily rule or do the ones with the best weapons capability
rule?

Heather

heather m.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:05:10 PM2/11/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040211160813...@mb-m05.aol.com...

> >And Enron. Dick Cheney scares the crap out of me.
> >
> You have your head in the sand if you think it isn't *all* politicians.
>
>
> ~~Geri~~

Oh I agree Geri. My head isn't in the sand. He just creeps me out for some
reason. I would choose some over others, though.

Heather

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:06:32 PM2/11/04

to

>I keep thinking about how presently, in the days of nuclear weapons, does
>majority necessarily rule or do the ones with the best weapons capability
>rule?

Well, if you are talking about the world, there is no democratic process, so
the majority doesn't rule. I would vote for the ones with the best weapons.

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:09:05 PM2/11/04

to

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/default.aspx

I spent some time at this site the other night. Amongst other things it lists
career patrons of all of the candidates running for president right now.

heather m.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:10:02 PM2/11/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040211153931...@mb-m13.aol.com...

Traitor.

Heather

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:16:21 PM2/11/04

to

>>
>> I'm guessing zero. I am so not googling this, though.
>>
>> jane
>
>Traitor.
>
>Heather

Damnit, I swore that I'd stop drinking coffee whiel reading Assp.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:27:28 PM2/11/04

to

"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comspamzap> wrote in message
news:20040211153130...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Mostly I was thinking of how actually going through certain things will
> generally change your views on it. Humility and compassion weren't going
> through my mind at all really. I was thinking about people I knew whose
views
> changed (or in one instance are changing) when their lives took turns for
the
> worse and were forced to accept some kind of government help.

We've recently had a Conservative MP swap places with a single mum of three
or four children, living on welfare. He found it enormously difficult, not
just the managing of finances, but everything to do with raising children on
your own. I think his conceptions of what was reasonable support for
families has changed dramatically.

Wendy

Anne Robotti

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 10:37:34 PM2/11/04

to

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:10:02 GMT, "heather m." <heath...@nunya.com>
wrote:

>
>"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

>> I'm guessing zero. I am so not googling this, though.
>>
>> jane
>
>Traitor.

Oh yeah, because if she *says* she's not going to google it, then
she's definitely not going to, right?

Anne

Tracey

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 11:10:39 PM2/11/04

to

>>This is like Melissa telling me that I might learn
>>something from bungee jumping, and you saying that
>>you hadn't learned it from falling off a cliff.
>>You know - a. it wasn't me and b. it wasn't bungee
>>jumping.

>EXACTLY!

And, from my POV, living for 3 or 4 years with an income
lower than what I would have gotten receiving welfare and
still having the opinions I have contradicts what Melissa
says is true, that people who *need* welfare will change
their beliefs when they need it. I needed it, my opinions
didn't change. The bungee analogy would only apply if I
had always made an adequate income.

>>I don't know what Melissa was talking about. Humility,
>>compassion, acceptance of one's limits come to mind.
>>Melissa, care to elaborate?

>Mostly I was thinking of how actually going through certain
>things will generally change your views on it.

But you didn't state that generally it will change your views
on a subject or it might. You stated you thought it would.

>Humility and compassion weren't going through my mind at all
>really. I was thinking about people I knew whose views changed
>(or in one instance are changing) when their lives took turns
>for the worse and were forced to accept some kind of government
>help.

Some people do. Some people don't. Making an assumption about
all people based on that, well, I'll call you on it.

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 11:50:24 PM2/11/04

to

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:10:39 GMT, Tracey <rbran...@aol.com> wrote:

>And, from my POV, living for 3 or 4 years with an income
>lower than what I would have gotten receiving welfare and
>still having the opinions I have contradicts what Melissa
>says is true, that people who *need* welfare will change
>their beliefs when they need it. I needed it, my opinions
>didn't change. The bungee analogy would only apply if I
>had always made an adequate income.

And see, that's it. I've *needed* welfare at times in my life. Come to
think of it, I haven't done the taxes yet but I bet me and Chuck were
eligible last year. (I think I'll go kill myself.) But I've never gone
on welfare.

Being in a position where I was needy because of my own life choices
is not the type of thing that's going to make me do it. And people who
believe as I believe probably wouldn't go on welfare.

I've certainly collected my own money back in unemployment. And
really, with the amount of income taxes I've paid I probably could
have gone on welfare at times without feeling guilty or like i was
taking a handout. Maybe it's a generational thing, or a cultural
thing.

> >Mostly I was thinking of how actually going through certain
> >things will generally change your views on it.
>
>But you didn't state that generally it will change your views
>on a subject or it might. You stated you thought it would.

Besides which, define "actually going through it." Actually going
through what? Not being able to make ends meet on your salary? I've
never been homeless, maybe if me and the kids were going to be on the
street I'd change my tune. But probably, *probably* what I would do is
what I've done in the past, which is just get another job and another
one until the ends were meeting again.

That's what I do.

In hte interests of full disclosure, I'll say that I've taken a
short-term handout from my church when I couldn't pay Charlie's
preschool tuition. God, that was such a low point. Which,
incidentally, came without preaching of any type. And I paid the money
back with 25% interest in six months. Now, some people don't do that
either. Pay it back I mean. At all, not just with interest.

And once I slapped my Discover card on the counter and said, "Just
ring up her order and knock off the attitude" when a cashier was
giving a lady a ridiculously hard time about food stamps. That lady
was nearly in tears, she didn't need to be on food stamps *and* take
shit about it from a counter boy. I don't think people should have to
take shit about doing what they have to do to feed their families.
It's just that some people do things I woulnd't necessarily do.

But I'd strip in a heartbeat, if anybody wanted to see it and my kids
were hungry. And although I wouldn't sell drugs, ever, I don't think
giving a blow job for money would be out of the question with four
mouths to feed. ANd probably, I'd do those things before I'd go on
welfare because quite frankly it woulnd't occur to me to *go* on
welfare.

Anne

Melissa

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 11:57:32 PM2/11/04

to

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 3:39:23 AM2/12/04

to

On 2/11/04, Heather said:

>I keep thinking of the middle class being eliminated. If you have ten
starving, ticked-off poor people and two rich people, would the ten overpower
the two? >>

Historically, the ten have, when things get bad enough, overpowered the two.
One of the examples from history that keeps me awake late at night is the
following:

<The direct cause of the Revolution was the chaotic state of government
finance. Director general of finances Jacques Necker vainly sought to restore
public confidence. French participation in the American Revolution had
increased the huge debt, and Necker’s successor, Charles Alexandre de
Calonne, called an Assembly of Notables (1787), hoping to avert bankruptcy by
inducing the privileged classes to share in the financial burden. They refused
in an effort to protect economic privileges> [The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth
Edition. 2001, French Revolution, available on the Web at Bartleby.com]

Remind any one of anything? The result of that protection of economic
privileges was the French Revolution leading to the mass execution of the
aristocracy (Ok, one of the reasons, there were many other causes of the
Revolution as well). Another more recent example can be found with the Marxist
revolution and the overthrowing of the Czar in 20th century Russia.

I'm not saying that we're anywhere near a revolution in this country right now.
I just think that if distance between rich and poor keeps growing, and the
middle-class keeps shrinking, eventually something is going to give. Hopefully
it will be a political revolution, not a military one. I just hate the
parallels I see between 18th century France and our growing deficit due to war,
the massive salary differences between upper management and employees, the
increased disparity in wealth distribution, tax cuts that benefit the upper 5%
of the taxpaying base, and increased restrictions on our civil liberties.

Oh well, at least I like cake.

Brenna

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 4:00:34 AM2/12/04

to

>tax cuts that benefit the upper 5%
>of the taxpaying base,

Why shouldn't it if they pay over 50% of the taxes?

Lori

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 5:02:36 AM2/12/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040211112241...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Do you think it is *not* OK for anyone to own more stuff than other
people?
> >Lori
>
> I don't see what would make it okay. If people are dividing up what is
> available - and they are, - it's clear to me that it should be divided
> equitably.

Suppose my family has two vehicles, and my neighbor has none. should the
government be able to force me to give one of ours to the person with none?

>
> "Ah," you say, "but what is equitable"?
>
> Good question. I look at what we do IRL when fairness and peace are
primary
> values and we're dealing with primal desires and people at their least
> civilized. We divide the birthday cake at kids' parties equally down to
the
> crumb. So that tells me that on the most fundamental level we think
"equal" is
> "equal."
>
> However, once we're past the basic need, the cake, we change our approach
> somewhat. The ice cream is optional and variable. We give the kids no
ice
> cream, a little ice cream, or a lot of lot of ice cream based on their
input
> (unless, of course, their parents are there to intervene). So surplus we
> distribute according to individual taste and desire.
>
> Within limits, of course. We do not allow one or two kids to take all the
ice
> cream. We also don't allow everyone to seize whatever ice cream she can
get.
> That would be a disaster, because the kids would not be considering how
much
> ice cream they actually wanted; they would be thinking about getting as
much
> ice cream they could. The two biggest kids with the most older brothers
would
> be sitting in one corner with a 10 gallon tub of ice cream they couldn't
eat
> and the others would be lying around the room bruised and ice cream-less
and
> sobbing and hurt.

Yes, and when I'm dividing things for *children*, I make sure it's equal,
too. However, when it comes to those who actually are earning what they
have, or have been given it by their dead parents, no, I don't feel they
have any obligation or responsibility to share it with anyone not of their
choosing.

>
> That's capitalism. We dissociate individuals from their needs and their
> desires and replace them with acquisitiveness.
>

I think capitalism is the best system there is.
Lori

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.586 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 2/13/04

Lori

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 5:07:30 AM2/12/04

to

"Melissa" <laa...@aol.comspamzap> wrote in message

news:20040211130857...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >But I AM talking about the same thing. You told Geri
> >if she were ever on Welfare, her opinion about it would
> >change. And I'm saying that people who hold the same beliefs
> >as Geri don't *go on* Welfare. In fact, I think it's a pretty
> >condescending thing to say because you're suggesting that
> >Geri is being hypocritical when you say that.
> >
> >Tracey
> >
>
> People like you and Geri sometimes have to go on welfare, or disaiblity,
or
> even take unemployment. It hasn't happened to you, but it could. I've
known
> many people who were conservative until they actually needed those
services.
> Suddenly they were singing a different tune.
>

For the past year and a half, my family lived on barely more than $800.00
per month. We did not go on welfare. Now that my husband has gotten a job
that pays halfway decently, we are still, technically, living on very little
more than before, because we proved to ourselves we could do it, and so we
are using everything above that to get ourselves back even with the board
financially.

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:02:28 AM2/12/04

to

>Massive dilution of incentives to work and accumulate wealth?
>
>Thing is, many of us don't work for solely, or even largely, economic
>motives. However, if those motives don't exist, it's difficult to
>motivate people -- or even one's self -- to do the hard and boring
>stuff that still needs doing

I just don't see it. We do housework. We change diapers. We shovel snow. We
pluck our eyebrows. I just don't understand why everyone seems to believe we
will only work for money.

>
>So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up
>with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a
>consumer.

Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't think
it does resolve it very well.

jane

>Rupa

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:09:39 AM2/12/04

to

>We do housework. We change diapers. We shovel snow. We
>pluck our eyebrows.

We do these things for our own selves.

>I just don't understand why everyone seems to believe we
>will only work for money.

I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't being paid very well for it! (Why do
you think there is a nursing shortage? It is a sucky job. Very few people
remain in nursing "to help people", and most of those are new nurses who
haven't been in the profession long enough to become disillusioned and
cynical.)

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:17:23 AM2/12/04

to

>Some people do. Some people don't. Making an assumption about
>all people based on that, well, I'll call you on it.
>
>Tracey

I'm sorry, Tracey, I don't want a slugfest, but how you got to making an
assumption about "all people" from "geri, you might" is beyond me.

Also, I don't know why you're taking this so personally. Melissa and Geri (and
sometimes Brian) have their own relationship. I don't like it when people
start yelling at them to stop what works for them. Sure, they're pithy and
pointed. That's their style. We don't all have to prose on forever (me, not
you).

It seems to me that for some reason you came back looking for a fight. So
what's the deal?

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:20:20 AM2/12/04

to

>If it came to that for your daughter or SD which would you rather that they
>do?

I think I'd rather they do whichever they felt more comfortable with.

jane
>Love,
>Melissa

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:21:50 AM2/12/04

to

> But as Vicki
>pointed out, when are those really the only two choices?

I'm telling you, a lot of people don't even have either of them as a choice.

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:38:20 AM2/12/04

to

>Well, I don't know where I'm going with this, but...

>
>I keep thinking of the middle class being eliminated. If you have ten
>starving, ticked-off poor people and two rich people, would the ten
>overpower the two?

At some point, yes.

> Or would the two spread out the wealth to keep their physical safety?

Depends on their foresight. Sometimes they do; sometimes there's a coup.

>Or would they just spread it out to five as in hiring them
>to keep them safe? That way staying in power and yet somewhat safe. But
>thinking about it again, I guess the five hired would be considered middle
>class, right?

Right. The thing is, I never can grasp exactly why the five don't realize that
it's easier to just kick the two aside and take their shit.

>But, thinking about it again, if the two rich people had
>means to destroy the mass of poor people (nuclear weapons) they could just
>whittle down the mass, couldn't they?

No. They need the mass to make the shit.

>
>I keep thinking about how presently, in the days of nuclear weapons,

I grew up expecting nuclear war. Maybe I'm a funny age. At school we had
drills and a bomb shelter in basement. SALT. Kruschev. Oh, and one of my
best friends' father flew the plane that wasn't the Enola Gay. The Nagasaki
one. So, I don't have a very clear grasp of anything but "days of nuclear
weapons."

>does
>majority necessarily rule or do the ones with the best weapons capability
>rule?

To be honest, I'm always a little surprised that the world is still here. I
think that the knowledge that use of nuclear weapons would be globally
devastating keeps things somewhat under control. Then, I listen to Dubya, as I
have to several presidents before him, and I think, "this fuck is just crazy
enough to think that nuclear weapons are an option." So I can never decide
whether more people should have them or not.

jane
>
>Heather

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:44:00 AM2/12/04

to

>Suppose my family has two vehicles, and my neighbor has none. should the
>government be able to force me to give one of ours to the person with none?

They question is: should they force your neighbor not to take it?

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 7:49:22 AM2/12/04

to

>I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't being paid very well for it!

I'm talking about the part where you help your SD with her homework.

jane

>Geri

Wendy

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 8:14:47 AM2/12/04

to

"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c0edng$hlp$2...@allhats.xcski.com...

> Hungry, as in "Darn, I had to skip lunch today" or hungry as in "I
> live under a bridge, someone just kicked the bejesus out of me for the
> blanket I found in a dumpster, and I haven't eaten since yesterday
> morning"?

No Vicki, I've never lived under a bridge. I've never been so desperate
that even Macdonalds looked appetising.

> I've passed up McDonald's too, but I've never had to panhandle for my
> meals. I would think to a street person that a hot Quarter-Pounder, a
> salad and a pint of milk mind sound pretty good, and not all that
> non-nutritious.

Assuming they hadn't already eaten. I wouldn't assume panhandling was
because they were hungry now. It could be, but it could also be about having
foud for later.
It could be about having money for other things besides food.

Wendy

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 11:44:06 AM2/12/04

to

>I'm talking about the part where you help your SD with her homework.

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 3:35:15 PM2/12/04

to

>> They question is: should they force your neighbor not to take it?
>
>Yes, we (the government acting in our stead) should force your neighbor
>not to take your second car.
>
>(That statement presumes a stable civil society.)

You know, we/they really don't, though.

I find this fascinating. In this country people seem to believe what Geri
said, that stuff belongs to whomever it belongs to. When you mention other
people talking it away, virtually everyone brings up the government. Even the
people who believe that government that shouldn't be messing in social programs
and protecting the environment seem to support government protection of
individual private property interests.

What interests me most is that many people seem to believe that the government
actually does prevent other people from taking their stuff. And they don't.
Theft is illegal, but it's illegal like smoking pot is. The government is not
out there preventing it from happening. Remember Wendy mentioning someone
taking things in her house? No one was shocked the government hadn't prevented
it. No one suggested the government would get the stuff back.

Anyway, no one is forcing your neighbor not to take your car. If someone does
take off with your $60K SUV, you can leave a voice mail message with the police
department. They'll let you know if they pull someone over in it. In the mean
time, you'd better be up to date on your insurance.
jane

>From: Kathy Cole ka...@scconsult.com

jane

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 3:37:23 PM2/12/04

to

>that could
>have a selfish component to it - it SD gets bad grades only on our custody
>time, we could lose custody and have to pay CS.

It could, but it doesn't. That's not why you do it. SD doesn't and wouldn't
just get bad grades on your custody time. You've been involved in enough
custody battling that you should know it's not going to affect custody and CS,
anyway.

jane

>Geri

heather m.

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 4:35:01 PM2/12/04

to

Sorry for top-posting, but I just wanted to add quickly that it's so weird
to me that you mentioned that because I was thinking the exact same thing.
I've been looking at one of my dad's books regarding the French Revolution
and noticed the parallels.

Heather

"Brenna2b" <bren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040211223923...@mb-m15.aol.com...

heather m.

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 4:39:22 PM2/12/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040212023820...@mb-m13.aol.com...
<snipped

> >Or would they just spread it out to five as in hiring them
> >to keep them safe? That way staying in power and yet somewhat safe. But
> >thinking about it again, I guess the five hired would be considered
middle
> >class, right?
>
> Right. The thing is, I never can grasp exactly why the five don't realize
that
> it's easier to just kick the two aside and take their shit.
>

You made me LOL on that ;)

> >But, thinking about it again, if the two rich people had
> >means to destroy the mass of poor people (nuclear weapons) they could
just
> >whittle down the mass, couldn't they?
>
> No. They need the mass to make the shit.
> >

Doh. Of course <smacks forehead>.

> >I keep thinking about how presently, in the days of nuclear weapons,
>
> I grew up expecting nuclear war. Maybe I'm a funny age. At school we had
> drills and a bomb shelter in basement. SALT. Kruschev. Oh, and one of
my
> best friends' father flew the plane that wasn't the Enola Gay. The
Nagasaki
> one. So, I don't have a very clear grasp of anything but "days of nuclear
> weapons."
>

I keep forgetting about that.

> >does
> >majority necessarily rule or do the ones with the best weapons capability
> >rule?
>
> To be honest, I'm always a little surprised that the world is still here.
I
> think that the knowledge that use of nuclear weapons would be globally
> devastating keeps things somewhat under control. Then, I listen to Dubya,
as I
> have to several presidents before him, and I think, "this fuck is just
crazy
> enough to think that nuclear weapons are an option." So I can never
decide
> whether more people should have them or not.

Yea. Sometimes I think GDub is just a puppet, though.

Heather

heather m.

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 4:44:49 PM2/12/04

to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20040212020939...@mb-m01.aol.com...

> I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't being paid very well for it! (Why
do
> you think there is a nursing shortage? It is a sucky job. Very few people
> remain in nursing "to help people", and most of those are new nurses who
> haven't been in the profession long enough to become disillusioned and
> cynical.)
>
> ~~Geri~~

One of my best friends is a nurse. She has to fight being cynical. I like
her influence, though, because it's good (for me, at least) to get a good
dose of brutal reality at times when it comes to death and dying and general
things that affect human health. Helps me keep things in perspective.

Heather

Vicki Robinson

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 4:57:12 PM2/12/04

to

In a previous article, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) said:

>I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't being paid very well for it! (Why do
>you think there is a nursing shortage? It is a sucky job. Very few people
>remain in nursing "to help people", and most of those are new nurses who
>haven't been in the profession long enough to become disillusioned and
>cynical.)

But you know? When my sister was in the final stages of her cancer
and was largely comatose and we were with her all day, in her hospital
room, the nurses kept us sane. They were kind, they were sympathetic
without being mawkish, they treated my sister humanely and humanly,
recognizing that she had been more than what remained at that point,
and that we all remembered the alive, living Debbie. They were
wonderful. They may have been disillusioned and cynical about the
hospital, its management and their working conditions, but they never
let it leak out on us, or on their patients. They were great, all of
them, every shift, every day.

Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 5:11:24 PM2/12/04

to

>One of my best friends is a nurse. She has to fight being cynical. I like
>her influence, though, because it's good (for me, at least) to get a good
>dose of brutal reality at times when it comes to death and dying and general
>things that affect human health. Helps me keep things in perspective.

You can't help but be cynical when you see things like (head explosion)
gravida-19s on Medi-Cal, (I am not making this up!) or patients who get pissy
with you because you won't let them elevate their beds three feet off the
ground (against hospital policy) or use their cell phones (can mess up their
monitors). I was reading some posts on another ng and felt very vindicated to
see another RN who posted that being a nurse was not a career to her, but a
job, that allowed her to get the things that she has. Nurses see the worst of
humanity every single day.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 5:12:13 PM2/12/04

to

>They may have been disillusioned and cynical about the
>hospital, its management and their working conditions, but they never
>let it leak out on us, or on their patients. They were great, all of
>them, every shift, every day.

That is our job.

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 8:45:03 PM2/12/04

to

janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote

>
> I just don't see it. We do housework. We change diapers. We shovel snow. We
> pluck our eyebrows. I just don't understand why everyone seems to believe we
> will only work for money.

We do these things, I think, because we don't want to live with their
not being done. The cost of not doing them is high. Eventually we have
to live with a sink full of dirty dishes, a stinky or ill baby, or no
access to the road, or eyebrows bushier than we want. It's the stick,
rather than the carrot.

But suppose I was being asked to change someone else's baby all the
time, perhaps one that hadn't a parent to do it? I might think, poor
kid, and go ahead. And then suppose there was another such, and
another. Now I am expected to spend 8 hours a day changing diapers.
And not getting paid for it.

At some point, I'd think, wait a minute, I know these diapers need
changing, but why me? I'd much rather be ... oh, writing novels for
people to read.

My theory is the world has more dirty diapers than people who would
change them for sheer altruism, or because they want to.

> >So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up
> >with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a
> >consumer.
>
> Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't think
> it does resolve it very well.
>

What's the alternative, though?
Planned economies tried to resolve this dilemma by literally telling
people what they could do -- or by only allowing 2 people to train as
archaeologists, and encouraging 10 to train as nurses. That worked
less well.

I agree capitalism isn't perfect, and in its current runaway form,
probably less perfect than before, because there's a reduction in
checks and balances. But what's the alternative?

Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 12, 2004, 8:56:59 PM2/12/04

to

janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote .

>
> What interests me most is that many people seem to believe that the government

> actually does prevent other people from taking their stuff. <snip>

>
> Anyway, no one is forcing your neighbor not to take your car. If someone does
> take off with your $60K SUV, you can leave a voice mail message with the police
> department. They'll let you know if they pull someone over in it. In the mean
> time, you'd better be up to date on your insurance.

True, but only partly true. In part, it's society; we have an ethos
that property belongs to the person who earned and bought it, or
inherited it, or was given it. In other words, there is support for
individual property rights. I agree this is not necessarily true of
all societies, but my guess is that it has to be true of any complex
human society, or no one would be able to accumulate enough wealth to
*do* anything with it. Someone would take it away, or there would be
pressure to share it. In other words, no accumulation of capital. Of
course there's a connection between wealth and power -- wealth buys
power, but power also permits one to accumulate wealth without someone
taking it away.

We rely on the government to arrest and punish those people who break
this underlying principle, so that society as a whole continues to
respect individual property rights. This isn't to say that the gov
does it perfectly, but it does it. Otherwise, someone could just walk
into my house, and push me out, and move in...and it wouldn't be
considered wrong.

Rupa

Kathy Cole

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 1:34:06 AM2/13/04

to

Not if the dude walked up saying hand me some money because I'm hungry.

Kathy Cole

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 1:33:57 AM2/13/04

to

On 12 Feb 2004 15:35:15 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

> What interests me most is that many people seem to believe that the
> government actually does prevent other people from taking their stuff.
> And they don't.

I see what you're saying, but I think 'don't' is oversimplifying. The
high negatives of stealing (restoring others' property, jail time, loss
of job/spouse/kids, etc.) are there not just to respond to theft, but
also to provide that extra disincentive to hopefully sway the swayable
away from stealing in the first place.

There's a limit to the amount of prior restraint acceptable to a free
society, which means yep, the majority of crime prevention entails
finding perps and prosecuting, since there's a limit to how much you can
stop someone who's bound and determined to rob you.

So we (both ourselves and our representatives) mitigate: carry
insurance; lock the car, house and garages; don't wander in dark alleys
alone late at night; patrol neighborhoods; install extra lighting so the
bad guys can't hide; keep the police, prosecutors and judiciary
well-stocked; keep making crime unattractive.

> Theft is illegal, but it's illegal like smoking pot is.

Actually taking something from someone that you have to return and be
punished for ought to be (and I hope in practice actually is) way more
illegal than smoking pot.

Lori

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 3:16:49 AM2/13/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040212024400...@mb-m13.aol.com...

Why, yes! They should absolutely enforce all laws against theft. :-)
Lori

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.586 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 2/12/04

Lori

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 3:19:13 AM2/13/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040212103515...@mb-m26.aol.com...

Actually, you're right about this, which is why I, frankly, feel very
strongly about the right to gun ownership, and why i believe people should
have the right to protect what is theirs, with force, if necessary.

jane

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 4:30:14 AM2/13/04

to

>> It could be about having money for other things besides food.
>
>Not if the dude walked up saying hand me some money because I'm hungry.

I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that "hungry" means "anything, and right
now."

I'm not saying Vicki's panhandler wasn't looking for money for drugs or an SUV,
but there are other reasonable explanations.

If you have a family, you're supposed to go out and get enough cash to buy
groceries so that everyone can eat. Splitting up cold fast food you've carried
around all day can't be too appetizing. And you know you're the scum of the
earth if you get a Big Mac but the kids get bologna and cheese.

And then lots of places refuse service to the panhandlers outside.

And then maybe he'd just eaten. As soon as you've eaten, you have to get out
there and start collecting for the next meal. Maybe if Vicki had offered to
come back in 4 hours, he'd have taken her up on it.

jane

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 5:13:03 AM2/13/04

to

>My theory is the world has more dirty diapers than people who would
>change them for sheer altruism, or because they want to.

Right. But you change your own kid's. Sometimes, you'll change other people's
kids. So right there, just using mothers, you've got more than enough to
change the diapers out there.

We do stuff for all kinds of reasons. Some carrot, some stick. I'm not sure
it's ever possible to completely differentiate between the two. In my mind,
the further you get from basic survival, the more time you spend on carrots.

>> >So if a town needs 10 nurses and 2 archaeologists, it might end up
>> >with 10 archaeologists, 1 nurse, and one person who is mainly a
>> >consumer.
>>
>> Capitalism is not the only way to resolve this, though. In fact, I don't
>think
>> it does resolve it very well.
>>
>What's the alternative, though?

I don't believe that there is one optimal division of occupations. I don't
think a town ever "needs" 10 nurses and 2 archeologists. Death rates might be
higher with 1 nurse, but Archeology would be in great shape. Those who are
passionate about conserving antiquities might choose that division.

See with capitalism, the goal is "efficiency," maximization of production. I
can't really get behind that. I'm okay with 10 people happily digging in the
dirt and dying younger. Or eating less. And if there's not enough food for
everyone, I think it naturally occurs to people to produce more food.
Archeology on an empty stomach is less appealing than it is on a full stomach.
The value of food production has a new allure. Archeologists discover victory
gardens.

>Planned economies tried to resolve this dilemma by literally telling
>people what they could do -- or by only allowing 2 people to train as
>archaeologists, and encouraging 10 to train as nurses. That worked
>less well.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "less well." As you can see, "less
well" might be just fine with me.

jane
>Rupa

jane

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 5:21:26 AM2/13/04

to

>But you know? When my sister was in the final stages of her cancer
>and was largely comatose and we were with her all day, in her hospital
>room, the nurses kept us sane. They were kind, they were sympathetic
>without being mawkish, they treated my sister humanely and humanly,
>recognizing that she had been more than what remained at that point,
>and that we all remembered the alive, living Debbie. They were
>wonderful. They may have been disillusioned and cynical about the
>hospital, its management and their working conditions, but they never
>let it leak out on us, or on their patients. They were great, all of
>them, every shift, every day.

Ooh, ooh, ooh. My SIL is a nurse. She loves her job.

Just recently she was telling me how much she loved working with this
terminally ill cancer patient's family. She said that she was very touched
that they all came and spent time with him, and how wonderful it was to see
someone surrounded by love in their last days here. They took care of him.
They joked when he wanted fun humor and sat in silence when he needed quiet.
When the food came, they helped him eat. When he vomited it up, they changed
his shirt. When the patient died, she wished she could have sent him one of
those notes saying "It was a pleasure to have to die here."

jane
>
>Vicki

jane

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 6:09:30 AM2/13/04

to

>but my guess is that it has to be true of any complex
>human society, or no one would be able to accumulate enough wealth to
>*do* anything with it

Again, I'm not seeing it. Wealth does not have to owned and acquired to exist.
People clearly can produce wealth without actually owning it. Most people on
earth don't actually "own" squat, but they produce.

> Someone would take it away, or there would be
>pressure to share it.

But here you're assuming that stuff is owned. If individuals aren't "owning"
stuff, there's not taking away (transfering possession of property from one
individual or group to another). There's also no pressure to share (dividing
possession of property among individuals within a group).

>We rely on the government to arrest and punish those people who break
>this underlying principle, so that society as a whole continues to
>respect individual property rights. This isn't to say that the gov
>does it perfectly, but it does it.

What I'm saying is that the government does not do that. I remember thinking
they did, but either I got it wrong or things have changed. Police focus on
order, violent crime, and drugs (and revenue production, but that's a different
discussion). Larceny is not a priority. My recollection is that the police
investigated larceny 20 or 30 years ago, but maybe they were just less candid
about their inability to deal with it. Nowadays, they are pretty up front
about saying "we don't investigate this kind of crime, but if we come across
anything, we'll let you know."

Theft is accepted in our culture. We're not supposed to actually do it, but we
know that people will do it to us. And we understand that when they do, we
probably won't get whatever it is back. If we want to prevent shoplifting, we
have to hire security. If we want to protect ourselves against someone
stealing our car or our jewelry, we buy insurance. We lock our doors, and buy
LoJack, and keep dogs. We have home safes and safe deposit boxes. We form
Neighborhood Watch groups, where the police come and tell us not to plant trees
in front of our windows.

>Otherwise, someone could just walk
>into my house, and push me out, and move in...and it wouldn't be
>considered wrong.
>

Well, if she *physically* pushed you out, that would bring it into the violent
crime area. But as a general rule, squatters and trespassing are not handled
by the police either. I think that "sue him" and "take him to Housing Court"
must be the two most common things police say on calls.

jane
>Rupa
>

jane

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 6:32:46 AM2/13/04

to

>I see what you're saying, but I think 'don't' is oversimplifying. The
>high negatives of stealing (restoring others' property, jail time, loss
>of job/spouse/kids, etc.) are there not just to respond to theft, but
>also to provide that extra disincentive to hopefully sway the swayable
>away from stealing in the first place.

Okay, I have to clarify. There are no high negatives of most stealing. No one
is going to jail. No one is going to catch you. No one really cares all that
much. Taking other people's stuff is no big deal.

That said, you can get yourself in trouble involving theft. Using weapons is
bad. Attacking people to steal from them is bad. Bank robbery is very bad.
Breaking into people's houses to steal from them at night is bad. Grand theft,
stealing very expensive stuff, can carry some significant penalities.

And I don't mean to say that there is absolutely no investigation of larceny
either. No one is going to go looking for your SUV, but resources may be
devoted to a stolen car ring.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 8:11:28 AM2/13/04

to

"Rupa Bose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0402...@posting.google.com...

> I agree capitalism isn't perfect, and in its current runaway form,
> probably less perfect than before, because there's a reduction in
> checks and balances. But what's the alternative?

Increased localisation so that we consume what we grow locally, rather than
importing everything would be a good start. Ditching GATT and the WTO in
their current forms would be a start.

Wendy

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 8:15:28 AM2/13/04

to

"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040213001303...@mb-m04.aol.com...

> See with capitalism, the goal is "efficiency," maximization of production.

But which is it, efficiency or maximisation of production, because
maximising production isn't necessarily efficient and only works because of
huge subsidies in terms of transport and infrastructure. Take butter. Is
it really more efficient for us to import butter from Denmark than to make
our own here?

Wendy

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 8:19:45 AM2/13/04

to

When my car was stolen, I filed a police report. It was one of six
cars the guy had stolen. The police found it, and him, after he
abandoned the car in a vacant lot completely trashed. Do I think there
was an APB out on my car in the intervening time? I doubt it. But they
*knew* who took it, the cop told me that the first night! But they
didn't have the manpower to stake out his house and job.

Police department size, unfortunately, is determined by population.
Bigger areas have more police, but they have more crime too.

Anne

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 13, 2004, 5:37:14 PM2/13/04

Back AWAY from the Google.

Anne
Who could give a damn about crime statistics...

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 14, 2004, 12:17:45 AM2/14/04

to

"Lori" <real...@bigfoot.com> wrote

>
> Actually, you're right about this, which is why I, frankly, feel very
> strongly about the right to gun ownership, and why i believe people should
> have the right to protect what is theirs, with force, if necessary.
> Lori

So what we're at is, it's mine if I can defend it?

Rupa

jane

unread,

Feb 14, 2004, 2:33:32 AM2/14/04

to

>
>Jane.
>
>Back AWAY from the Google.

Well, I did. Lee and I went to hear Madeleine Albright speak. It was great.

jane

unread,

Feb 14, 2004, 2:38:11 AM2/14/04

to

>>You guys are amazing.
>>
>
>I wish I could hear the tone of voice behind this comment.
>
>Vicki

unread,

Feb 14, 2004, 4:18:29 PM2/14/04

to

>But which is it, efficiency or maximisation of production

Sorry, maximization of efficient production.
jane

jane

unread,

Feb 14, 2004, 5:26:17 PM2/14/04

to

>janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote
>>
>> Again, I'm not seeing it. Wealth does not have to owned and acquired to
>exist.
>> People clearly can produce wealth without actually owning it. Most people
>on
>> earth don't actually "own" squat, but they produce.
>
>I'm not too clear what we're talking of, here. What is wealth?

What were you talking about? I thought you meant the wherewithal to invest.
Surplus beyond fundamental subsistence.

> (I'm
>assuming here wealth refers to a stash of goods of some kind, a very
>concrete kind of definition.)

Is that what you were talking about? That's not what I was talking about. But
I was responding to what you said, and I might have misunderstood. I thought
we were including tangibles and intangibles. Time, for example.

>
>So how does it work? I dig up a piece of land that I like but don't
>own, and plant potatoes. When I harvest them, I leave them in baskets
>for anyone to take? And the man who wove the baskets gives them to me
>when I ask?

Do you mean this literally? Because that seems disorganized to me.

>
>The issue of ownership comes up when any resource becomes scarce. If I
>like the land where I plant potatoes, but my neighbor wants it for
>carrots, how do we resolve it?

I don't agree with that ownership always comes up when a resource is scarce.
Some, maybe most, property is already not possessed by individuals. We resolve
allocation conflict in a variety of ways. With some things, like corporations,
we have boards of directors whom we choose to make decisions. With others,
like the tv in the livingroom, we might take turns deciding. Other things,
like the food in the cabinet, individuals consume at will. Negotiation, give
and take, compromise and collaboration all come into play.

>
>Are we talking of collective ownership? So that the whole tribe owns
>all the cultivated land, and decides who will grow what where, and
>what will be done with the result?

Leaving out the part about owning it, yes.

>Really? That's a bit scary. I'm imagining a situation where, say, I'm
>out of the country for a couple of weeks. Someone picks my lock and
>gets into my house, and takes up residence. I return to find him in
>possession of my home and all that's in it. If I go to the police,
>can't I get redress?

Sure, sort of. Breaking into your house is a crime. Cops do B&E.

But it's still your responsibility to protect your property in your absence.
After two weeks, the cops will probably come and get the guy out, but you'll
get the lecture about locks and stopping your mail and security systems. But
say it's a month. The guys says he lives there because he's your caretaker and
shows the cops some mail in his name at your house. You get the address of
Housing Court.

Property requires care. Owners are responsible for taking care of their
property. Monitoring it, securing it, keeping it safe. You can't just leave
your property unattended and expect the police to take care of it for you.

jane
>
>Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 15, 2004, 4:39:58 AM2/15/04

to

janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote

>
> What were you talking about? I thought you meant the wherewithal to invest.
> Surplus beyond fundamental subsistence.

Okay, I'll go with that. I was using a concrete example more as an
illustration than a definition, really.

So let's say that everyone produces some sort of surplus (we'll assume
that productivity is high enough that this is true). Some people
produce surplus onions, some produce surplus baskets, or books, or
just have time available to care for other people, prepare some new
land, or write books, or admire the scenery.

If we assume no ownership, then what happens next? Does all the
surplus go into a common pool?

> >So how does it work? I dig up a piece of land that I like but don't
> >own, and plant potatoes. When I harvest them, I leave them in baskets
> >for anyone to take? And the man who wove the baskets gives them to me
> >when I ask?
>
> Do you mean this literally? Because that seems disorganized to me.

Well, yes, as a literal example. Because the notion of property seems
to be integral to organizing the use of scarce resources. I'll go with
collective ownership; I think that can work, at least in some
situations. I can even see "From each according to ability, to each
according to need."

But if it is not owned at all, then no one (and no group) has any less
right to it than anyone else. The organizing principle would then be
"help yourself."

> >
> >The issue of ownership comes up when any resource becomes scarce. If I
> >like the land where I plant potatoes, but my neighbor wants it for
> >carrots, how do we resolve it?
>
> I don't agree with that ownership always comes up when a resource is scarce.
> Some, maybe most, property is already not possessed by individuals.

It doesn't have to be individual ownership: Things can be owned by
corporations, or other legal entities; or by the state; or by the
church. Then the control of that resource is handled, at any time, by
persons designated to so so by that entity.

We resolve
> allocation conflict in a variety of ways. With some things, like corporations,
> we have boards of directors whom we choose to make decisions. With others,
> like the tv in the livingroom, we might take turns deciding. Other things,
> like the food in the cabinet, individuals consume at will. Negotiation, give
> and take, compromise and collaboration all come into play.

A family is, in a sense, a socialist collective -- though, depending
on the family, there may be individual property rights within it. (My
kids strongly believe this w.r.t their rooms...) But the proprty
rights in that food or that TV actually rest with the adults who
purchased it. The rules for allocation are made by them.

> >Are we talking of collective ownership? So that the whole tribe owns
> >all the cultivated land, and decides who will grow what where, and
> >what will be done with the result?
>
> Leaving out the part about owning it, yes.
>

So if we were to translate that to an industrial society, you're
talking about text-book socialism?

(I think it's an attractive doctrine, myself.)

Rupa

jane

unread,

Feb 15, 2004, 5:15:43 PM2/15/04

to

>On 13 Feb 2004 06:32:46 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:
>
>> Okay, I have to clarify. There are no high negatives of most
>> stealing. No one is going to jail. No one is going to catch you.
>> No one really cares all that much. Taking other people's stuff is
>> no big deal.
>
>I think individual people care a great deal, irrespective of whether
>petty thieves or even not so petty thieves are caught and punished.
>Honestly, I think the attitude you're describing is really sad, and I
>hope it's not as pervasive as you're suggesting.

This stuck in my head enough that I felt I had to come back and reply. I think
social class is involved in this. There seems to be a middle-class idea that
the stuff you own just belongs to you. The government is there to make sure no
one takes it away. IME this concept is foreign to the rich and the poor, who
would never rely on the government to protect their stuff.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain. It's like a store. If you
don't want people to shoplift, you hire security and install cameras. If you
catch someone stealing from you, you might call the police. But stores don't
expect the police to be their security. No one expects the government to catch
shoplifters or even to punish them to any significant degree.

jane
jane

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 16, 2004, 2:00:38 AM2/16/04

to

janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote

>
> This stuck in my head enough that I felt I had to come back and reply. I think
> social class is involved in this. There seems to be a middle-class idea that
> the stuff you own just belongs to you. The government is there to make sure no
> one takes it away. IME this concept is foreign to the rich and the poor, who
> would never rely on the government to protect their stuff.
>
> I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain. It's like a store. If you
> don't want people to shoplift, you hire security and install cameras. If you
> catch someone stealing from you, you might call the police. But stores don't
> expect the police to be their security. No one expects the government to catch
> shoplifters or even to punish them to any significant degree.
>

I think we're coming up against practical truths vs ideals. It may be
true that the police are so stretched that they don't want to deal
with anything less than, say, murder. And of course it makes sense for
people to take security precautions.

But what's the logical end to all that? Private militias, as the
Philippines used to have? Every rich man had a small army of men with
weapons to defend him and his. In Bombay (Mumbai) a few years ago,
rich men were so vulnerable to extortion that they had armed guards
for their wives and for each child. In Delhi, most wealthy people have
sentries at their gates; there are services that provide these guards,
many of whom are retired soldiers or policemen.

In the US, most people don't (yet) feel the need for bodyguards, or
for sentries.

Rupa

jane

unread,

Feb 16, 2004, 2:57:27 PM2/16/04

to

>I think we're coming up against practical truths vs ideals. It may be
>true that the police are so stretched that they don't want to deal
>with anything less than, say, murder. And of course it makes sense for
>people to take security precautions.

See, no, I don't think that's what this is. That people take care of their own
stuff is an ideal, not just a practical truth. It seems to me to be a
fundamental value that runs through our law. What belongs to you is what you
can acquire and take care of. We don't want property in the hands of people
who don't take care of it. It's inefficient. If you leave stuff lying around,
someone who can make better use of it should have it.

It occurs to me that cars complicated things. Having a chunk of a family's
wealth on wheels put things in a different perspective.

>But what's the logical end to all that? Private militias, as the
>Philippines used to have? Every rich man had a small army of men with
>weapons to defend him and his. In Bombay (Mumbai) a few years ago,
>rich men were so vulnerable to extortion that they had armed guards
>for their wives and for each child. In Delhi, most wealthy people have
>sentries at their gates; there are services that provide these guards,
>many of whom are retired soldiers or policemen.
>
>In the US, most people don't (yet) feel the need for bodyguards, or
>for sentries.

Yeah, no, yeah, no. Private security does not sound significantly different
here than in Bombay. It's an understood and accepted cost of doing business or
of being rich. It doesn't even occur to people that the police aren't doing
their job because Microsoft or Robinson's May or Bill Gates or Madonna have to
employ security. But somehow there's still this belief that the government
should be protecting their SUVs.

Also, you're blurring individual safety with protection of property.
Kidnapping is something everyone expects the government to do something about.
Robbery, carjacking, mugging, burglary - they're bad because they endanger
people.

jane
>
>Rupa

Rupa Bose

unread,

Feb 16, 2004, 9:24:12 PM2/16/04

to

janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote

>That people take care of their own
> stuff is an ideal, not just a practical truth. It seems to me to be a
> fundamental value that runs through our law. What belongs to you is what you
> can acquire and take care of. We don't want property in the hands of people
> who don't take care of it. It's inefficient. If you leave stuff lying around,
> someone who can make better use of it should have it.

It's interesting how different societies have different takes on this.

I lived in Tokyo for a while, and there the ideal is, if you leave
your umbrella in a shop, when you happen to return three months later
the shop-keeper gives it back to you. (Having said which, I did lose
my wallet and it wasn't returned...) People leave all kinds of stuff
outside their homes, safely.

Dubai in the UAE is a bit like that, too. Stuff doesn't get stolen
easily, and penalties are harsh. As a result, you have something like
the "Gold Souk" -- streets of gold shops with windows full of gold
jewelry -- with one old man wandering around as a security guard.

In India, stuff left lying around outside is going to get nicked. And
no one is going to help you find the thief; there are just too many
possibilities.

> Also, you're blurring individual safety with protection of property.
> Kidnapping is something everyone expects the government to do something about.
> Robbery, carjacking, mugging, burglary - they're bad because they endanger
> people.

I guess so. I wonder what the reaction would be, though, if any state
in the US openly came out and decriminalized the non-violent theft of
moveable property.

Rupa

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,

Feb 16, 2004, 9:27:46 PM2/16/04

to

> I wonder what the reaction would be, though, if any state
>in the US openly came out and decriminalized the non-violent theft of
>moveable property.

I think I would move to one of the places where they chop off your hand for
doing stealing, if that ever happened.

Kathy Cole

unread,

Feb 17, 2004, 2:42:05 AM2/17/04

to

On 16 Feb 2004 14:57:27 GMT, janel...@aol.com (jane) wrote:

> It doesn't even occur to people that the police aren't doing their
> job because Microsoft or Robinson's May or Bill Gates or Madonna
> have to employ security. But somehow there's still this belief
> that the government should be protecting their SUVs.

Um, Jane, for me 'the government should be protecting their SUVs' *is*
'I'll insure it, park it safely and lock it, and I'll ask you guys in
the police department and prosecutor's office to help me out if someone
takes it', understanding that the extent to which I can get help for the
theft will depend very much on the jurisdiction from which the theft
occured.