Socialism, understanding what it is...
G. Eliot
Parker Whittle wrote:
> > The only thing that's inevitable is the past. The future is
> > what we make of it. Predictions can be right and predictions
> > can be wrong. But the PURPOSE of all predictions is to play
> > a part in shaping the future. All of history since Darwin has
> > been held under the spell of "competition", even by those who
> > claim to be religious. But it's COOPERATION that moves society
> > forward. If society were based on peer competition, there would
> > be no society at all.
> Agreed. That's why free markets reward cooperation. And, from the proper
> perspective, non-violent competition is a form of cooperation. Even when
> we cooperate we don't always get what we want.
There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
just heads right back into the economic ether.
It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
time or energy to solve real problems.
----------
Immigration (TM) is a boogeyman invented by slave masters to draw
attention away from their autocracy. Limited Resources (TM) is a
religion invented by financiers who think patent law is more
productive than marine farming.
Rob
John Parker
>fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
>carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
>be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
>secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
>knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
>system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
>on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
>anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
>work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
>just heads right back into the economic ether.
>
>It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
>Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
>savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
>so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
>stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
>unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
>the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
>time or energy to solve real problems.
So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
-John Parker
Paul Havemann
Newsgroups trimmed.
G. Eliot (c...@geocities.com) sez:
: Parker Whittle wrote:
:>> The only thing that's inevitable is the past. The future is
:>> what we make of it. Predictions can be right and predictions
:>> can be wrong. But the PURPOSE of all predictions is to play
:>> a part in shaping the future. All of history since Darwin has
:>> been held under the spell of "competition", even by those who
:>> claim to be religious. But it's COOPERATION that moves society
:>> forward. If society were based on peer competition, there would
:>> be no society at all.
:>
:> Agreed. That's why free markets reward cooperation. And, from the proper
:> perspective, non-violent competition is a form of cooperation. Even when
:> we cooperate we don't always get what we want.
:
: There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
: fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
: carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
: be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
: secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
: knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
: system we live under.
If that were the whole story, then socialist societies should have
been quite busy inventing, developing, and creating world monopolies
in -- well, in any industry you care to name. They should have beat
the pants off of our "stupid economic system." Yet, I can't seem to
think of any case where that's true; can you?
Perhaps it's just possible that people aren't quite as eager to work
their tails off when they don't see at least some promise of
personal reward.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
"The art of taxation consists of so plucking the goose
as to get the most feathers with the least hissing."
-- Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Controller General of
Finances for Louis XIV
"The average American will have to work 128 days to pay off
his or her total tax bill this year. [...] The typical
American family's tax burden increased for the third year
in a row... to 38.4% in 1996."
-- the Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org)
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:10:02 -0700, "G. Eliot" <c...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
>>fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
>>carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
>>be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
>>secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
>>knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
>>system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
>>on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
>>anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
>>work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
>>just heads right back into the economic ether.
>>
>>It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
>>Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
>>savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
>>so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
>>stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
>>unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
>>the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
>>time or energy to solve real problems.
>So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
We don't need to worry about you having any trade secrets> Your not
that bright parkie, and besides you are too damn lazy to do anything
anyway. You just perfer to extort your money from others.
G. Eliot
John Parker wrote:
> So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
> with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
> not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
> my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
> secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
Nobody forces you to do anything. Nobody forces doctors to
treat you or farmers to feed you. Nobody forces grocery store
owners to open their doors to you. Nobody is forced to protect
objects that you claim are your property. So what happens if
someone wants to grow a carrot garden on "your" lawn? Who
gets to decide whether to allow that or not? Either everybody,
nobody, whoever has the most guns, or whoever can hire the most
lawyers, petition workers, and "think" tanks. We all know which
choice you'd pick.
--------
Property grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Parker Whittle
In article <33A76D...@geocities.com>, c...@geocities.com says...
> Parker Whittle wrote:
> > > The only thing that's inevitable is the past. The future is
> > > what we make of it. Predictions can be right and predictions
> > > can be wrong. But the PURPOSE of all predictions is to play
> > > a part in shaping the future. All of history since Darwin has
> > > been held under the spell of "competition", even by those who
> > > claim to be religious. But it's COOPERATION that moves society
> > > forward. If society were based on peer competition, there would
> > > be no society at all.
> > Agreed. That's why free markets reward cooperation. And, from the proper
> > perspective, non-violent competition is a form of cooperation. Even when
> > we cooperate we don't always get what we want.
>
> fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
> carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
> be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
> secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
> knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
> system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
> on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
> anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
> work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
> just heads right back into the economic ether.
>
So what? People are going to make decisions you or I might find
incredibly distasteful and stupid. Those decisions in aggregate are going
to constrain you under any social system.
Get used to disappointment.
> It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
> Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
> savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
> so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
> stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
> unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
> the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
> time or energy to solve real problems.
> ----------
We just disagree on what the real problems are.
Parker Whittle
John Parker
>jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:10:02 -0700, "G. Eliot" <c...@geocities.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
>>>fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
>>>carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
>>>be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
>>>secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
>>>knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
>>>system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
>>>on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
>>>anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
>>>work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
>>>just heads right back into the economic ether.
>>>
>>>It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
>>>Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
>>>savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
>>>so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
>>>stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
>>>unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
>>>the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
>>>time or energy to solve real problems.
>
>>So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>>with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>>not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>>my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>>secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>>sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>
>We don't need to worry about you having any trade secrets> Your not
>that bright parkie, and besides you are too damn lazy to do anything
>anyway. You just perfer to extort your money from others.
Whatever it is I do, Gdybozo, I find people willing to pay me for it,
and pay me enough to make me happy and contented. You may not think
that is very bright, but then why would I care what you think?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
Damn parkie you must consider me one hell of a threat to call me bozo.
The last time one of the conservatives called anyone bozo it was the
dolt refering to Clinton. But i'll still consider myself just a lowly
weasel, I don't have that ego to feed like you.
J C Cooper
Here's a quarter, call someone who cares.
JC
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in article
<5obomv$mih$5...@usenet87.supernews.com>...
John Bicketts
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:17:33 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>
>-John Parker
It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Lloyd Bryant
John Bicketts wrote:
<< Snipped >>
> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >
> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
> >
> >-John Parker
>
> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
> --John Bicketts
>
> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
the bucks for R&D?
A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
complete end to scientific/technological research?
Lloyd Bryant
llo...@ibm.net
Jack Plant
sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
Under socialism, nobody is "free" to use anything!
Feline
>So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
Complete disinterest.
Feline
"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical
society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in
the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of
the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces
its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those
means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function
of official morality. It pursues the idea of the "greatest possible
happiness" not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing
minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through
force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this
cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois
theoretician,, and moralists. They dabble in all colors of the rainbow
but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."
Leon Trotsky,"Their Morals & Ours" 1936
For further details on Trotsky
John Parker
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:29:45 GMT, fel...@cableinet.co.uk (Feline)
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:17:33 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>>with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>>not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>>my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>>secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>>sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>
>Complete disinterest.
...and when I present my discovery to other capitalists, we will build
better less costly production methods and produce better less costly
products and hire your very best workers away from you and your
collective will go broke. The cold hard fact is that you do not
posses the best technology, you will have to compete with it, and
since competing with it is a losing game, you will either have to
apply force to control it or fail. Which are you going to do,
pussycat?
John Bicketts
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>John Bicketts wrote:
> << Snipped >>
>
>> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>> >
>> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>> >
>> >-John Parker
>>
>> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
>> --John Bicketts
>>
>> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>
>Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
>scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
>monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
>the bucks for R&D?
>
There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
>A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
>he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
>in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
>money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
>complete end to scientific/technological research?
Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>
>Lloyd Bryant
>llo...@ibm.net
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Derek Nalecki
In article <33ab26f4...@news.cableinet.net>, fel...@cableinet.co.uk (Feline) says:
>
>On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:17:33 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>>not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>>my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>>secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>>sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>
Yeah, you wind up in jail for your "parasitic ways" and feline and its
ilk would have complete disinterest in your case.
>
>Feline
No, actually that's Trotsky. You couldn't raise an argument on your own
if your life depended on it.
>"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical
>
>society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in
>
>the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of
Nor, as I pointed out, does it acknowledge Black Magic.
>
>the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces
>
>its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those
>
>means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function
>
>of official morality. It pursues the idea of the "greatest possible
>
>happiness" not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing
>
>minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through
>
>force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So it would seem does Mr. Trotsky's insane social order, as the title
of the book this rambling nonsense comes from, would suggest. But then
no one said socialists, or leftists in general, were ever coherent.
That's why they needed the "improved" version of socialism - fascism, to
add some internal consistency and coherence to an otherwise incoherent
idea.
>
>cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois
>
>theoretician,, and moralists. They dabble in all colors of the rainbow
>
>but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."
>Leon Trotsky,"Their Morals & Ours" 1936
>
Reaaaly slow day?:
>For further details on Trotsky
>
>http://www.marx.org/Trotsky/
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
Ray Van Tassle
In article <33aeb9fa...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
Bicketts) wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >John Bicketts wrote:
> > << Snipped >>
> >
> >> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
> >> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
> >> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
> >> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
> >> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> >> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> >> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >> >
'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
> >
> >Lloyd Bryant
> >llo...@ibm.net
>
> --John Bicketts
>
> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
--
To email me, remove the antispamfilter from my address.
Ray Van Tassle
In article <33a9afff...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
Bicketts) wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:17:33 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:10:02 -0700, "G. Eliot" <c...@geocities.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
> >>fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
> >>carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
> >>be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
> >>secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
> >>knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
> >>system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
> >>on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
> >>anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
> >>work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
> >>just heads right back into the economic ether.
> >>
> >>It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
> >>Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
> >>savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
> >>so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
> >>stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
> >>unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
> >>the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
> >>time or energy to solve real problems.
> >
> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >
> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
> >
> >-John Parker
>
>
> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
Ignoring, of course, the question of why anybody would work hard to invent
something, knowing that it would be taken from him the moment after he
created it.
> --John Bicketts
>
> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Lloyd Lawrence
On 24 Jun 1997, Derek Nalecki wrote:
> fel...@cableinet.co.uk (Feline) says:
> >jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
[..snip]
> >> What method of torture are you going to use to
> >>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >
> >Complete disinterest.
>
> Yeah, you wind up in jail for your "parasitic ways" and feline and its
> ilk would have complete disinterest in your case.
There goes little Derek, stamping his feet and turning red again.
> >Feline
>
> No, actually that's Trotsky. You couldn't raise an argument on your own
> if your life depended on it.
But little Derek couldn't recognise an argument on his own. He has none.
Just bluster.
> >"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical
> >society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in
> >the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of
>
> Nor, as I pointed out, does it acknowledge Black Magic.
Or perhaps there's more than just bluster. There's blatant irrelevance.
Always a good substitute for critical comment. Good to see that little
Derek hasn't lost the skill of exposing his lack of intelligent thought.
> >the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces
> >its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those
> >means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function
> >of official morality. It pursues the idea of the "greatest possible
> >happiness" not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing
> >minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through
> >force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So it would seem does Mr. Trotsky's insane social order, as the title
> of the book this rambling nonsense comes from, would suggest. But then
> no one said socialists, or leftists in general, were ever coherent.
> That's why they needed the "improved" version of socialism - fascism, to
> add some internal consistency and coherence to an otherwise incoherent
> idea.
And then, for a change of pace from bluster and blatant irrelevance,
there's insubstantiated assertions and unfocused diversions to erstwhile
debatable issues.
> >cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois
> >theoretician,, and moralists. They dabble in all colors of the rainbow
> >but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."
> >Leon Trotsky,"Their Morals & Ours" 1936
>
> Reaaaly slow day?:
Yes, indeed! It's been another 15 mins of the Little Derek
throw-a-tantrum show. And that's about all anybody needs of that. So...
> >For further details on Trotsky
> >
> >http://www.marx.org/Trotsky/
-lloyd
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:24:23 GMT, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
wrote:
>PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
Except that you wouldn't have money for it.
Bullets
John Bicketts wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:17:33 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:10:02 -0700, "G. Eliot" <c...@geocities.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
> >>fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
> >>carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
> >>be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis.
For example, authors typically decide not to give their works away
free. Do you object to paying for a good book? What about artists? If
they do not charge for what they produce, how do they sustain themselves
to create again?
And do you live in your an apartment or home with your own private
space? Could it not be shared? Do you own a car? If so, do you lend
it out to whomever needs it any time you are not using it?
If you own or rent anything that you do not share with others when you
are not using it, you obviously beleive in property. Until you have
either divested yourself of all worldy possessions or freely share
everything you have, you are in danger of being a hypocrite.
> >>Trade secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
> >>knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
> >>system we live under.
They inhibit the free spread of knowledge, but they accelerate the
development of it! So the fruit of the knowledge is available to
whomever will pay for it. That is how the developer is compensated for
his time so he has a place to live, clothes, and food.
Often I have asked people with opnions like yours how those who labour
to create should get the things they need for life. I'm still waiting
for an answer. Is the worker who creates not entitled to a fair share
of the proceeds of the value his idea creates?
> >>Even currency itself can be thrown around
> >>on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
> >>anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
> >>work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
> >>just heads right back into the economic ether.
> >>
> >>It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
> >>Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
> >>savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
> >>so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
> >>stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
> >>unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
> >>the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
> >>time or energy to solve real problems.
> >
> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >
> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
> >
> >-John Parker
>
> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
> --John Bicketts
>
> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
--
Bullets
*****************************************
Reject spin and partisan sophistry. Seek to understand and discover the
truth.
Correct E-mail Address: remove the "t" (ric...@direct.ca)
P. Marks
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, John Bicketts wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >John Bicketts wrote:
> > << Snipped >>
> >
> >> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
> >> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
> >> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
> >> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
> >> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> >> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> >> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >> >
> >> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
> >> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
> >> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
> >> >
> >> >-John Parker
> >>
> >> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
> >> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
> >> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
> >> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
> >> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
> >> --John Bicketts
> >>
> >> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
> >
> >Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
> >scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
> >monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
> >the bucks for R&D?
> >
>
> There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
>
> >A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
> >he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
> >in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
> >money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
> >complete end to scientific/technological research?
>
> Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
> corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
> industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
>
>
> PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
> if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
> >
> >Lloyd Bryant
> >llo...@ibm.net
>
> --John Bicketts
>
> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>
>
On science and socialism. Michael Polanyi "The Logic of Liberty" might be
a good corrective - that book was published in 1951 it HAS to be in your
library system.
Famous last words "HAS to be" from a man who has utterly overestimated
libraries before.
Paul Marks.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>In article <33aeb9fa...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
>Bicketts) wrote:
>'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
>many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
It seems to be doing rather well in Europe. In fact its mounting a
sizeable comeback. Of course by the definitions most of the dittonuts
around here use, the US space program would have to be classed as a
resounding failure even if it was soley responsible for spawning a
industry that equalls the GDP of France.
>point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
>this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
>> >
>> >Lloyd Bryant
>> >llo...@ibm.net
>>
>> --John Bicketts
>>
>> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Derek Nalecki
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970624...@pollux.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA> says:
>
>On 24 Jun 1997, Derek Nalecki wrote:
>
>> fel...@cableinet.co.uk (Feline) says:
>> >jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
> [..snip]
>> >>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, you wind up in jail for your "parasitic ways" and feline and its
>> ilk would have complete disinterest in your case.
>
Oooh, did I huyt lil'Lloyd feewings?!? Doesn't lil'Lloyd have anything
of substance to say?...
No, of course not, he never did. He never had a single thought in his had.
_That's_ why he is socialist, after all. Follower, cannon-fodder really,
of a quasi-religion for really stupid people.
>
>> >Feline
>>
>> No, actually that's Trotsky. You couldn't raise an argument on your own
>> if your life depended on it.
>
>But little Derek couldn't recognise an argument on his own. He has none.
>Just bluster.
Is lil'Looyd claiming _that_ was an argument of feline? Does lil'Lloyd
suffer from a reading disorder, in addition to all his other failings?
>
>> >"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical
>> >society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in
>> >the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of
>>
>> Nor, as I pointed out, does it acknowledge Black Magic.
>
>Or perhaps there's more than just bluster. There's blatant irrelevance.
>Always a good substitute for critical comment. Good to see that little
>Derek hasn't lost the skill of exposing his lack of intelligent thought.
Then perhaps lil'Lloyd couls tell us how is the infantile idea of a
"class struggle" relevant to a mature, modern world. No one else has
been able to, so lil'Lloyd with his limited mental faculties faces quite
a challenge.
>
>> >the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces
>> >its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those
>> >means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function
>> >of official morality. It pursues the idea of the "greatest possible
>> >happiness" not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing
>> >minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through
>> >force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> So it would seem does Mr. Trotsky's insane social order, as the title
>> of the book this rambling nonsense comes from, would suggest. But then
>> no one said socialists, or leftists in general, were ever coherent.
>> That's why they needed the "improved" version of socialism - fascism, to
>> add some internal consistency and coherence to an otherwise incoherent
>> idea.
>
>And then, for a change of pace from bluster and blatant irrelevance,
>there's insubstantiated assertions and unfocused diversions to erstwhile
>debatable issues.
Still no answer to the argument at hand. OK.
>
>> >cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois
>> >theoretician,, and moralists. They dabble in all colors of the rainbow
>> >but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."
>> >Leon Trotsky,"Their Morals & Ours" 1936
>>
>> Reaaaly slow day?:
>
>Yes, indeed! It's been another 15 mins of the Little Derek
>throw-a-tantrum show. And that's about all anybody needs of that. So...
Run lil'Lloyd, run. The kiddies at the schoolyard have no one top make
fun at. Depriving them furter would damage their precious self-esteemes.
And we know how important self-esteem is. How much more important than
education. We can realize that from the level of debate brought to us
by the "graduates" of the welfare edukajshun system.
Peter Ruess
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bullets wrote:
> For example, authors typically decide not to give their works away
> free. Do you object to paying for a good book? What about artists? If
> they do not charge for what they produce, how do they sustain themselves
> to create again?
The problem is, in the communist/socialist world there is not much
thought wasted on practical procedure possibilities, it is a mere theory,
please see my concluding statement.
> > >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> > >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> > >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
You are the utopist! Why would you not try to make a business out of it,
to give people work and contribute to society - and, which is really no
crime at all, to improve your standard of living.
> > >
> > >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
> > >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
> > >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
> > >
> > >-John Parker
> >
> > It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
> > you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
> > scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
> > patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
> > the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
Yes, exactly - but nobody WOULD actually use it, since there is no market
to offer him anything for it.
> > --John Bicketts
Conclusion:
I fully agree to Mr Bicketts opinion. The problem of socialism is the
total abscence of reward and the missing possibility to be rewarded.
My family owned land in East Germany and we were over in communist times
to talk to our former workers. We were quite startled to learn that the
output of the property was - in 1970!! - lower than it was before 1945,
which was the year the communists robbed it.
The workers were very dissapointed about the ways things went and told us
the following:
"What is the use of working more if you are equally paid considerinq your
neighbour, who does nothing with the same wages. In former times, there
had been incentives for work, but now those are no longer existant."
And, additionally, socialism is a theory, not an alternative in termns of
organizing society as a working body. Why do you think was every practical
approach to socialism either overridden by the people (East Europe) or
must be upheld with force (Cuba) - because it is so good? Socialism or
Communism (there are differences, I know, but not in practical life - the
GDR for example and the USSR were pretty similar, although one claimed to
have found communism, whereas the other one was still operating with
socialism) cannot be employed on man, the fit to ants only, because ants
do not think nor strive for better positions - and even ants have a
monarchy.
Peter Ruess, University of Bayreuth, Germany
Divine...@pipeline.com
Very good post. But unfortunately, it is a waste of your time. The
champions of Socialism either understand absolutely nothing about
human nature, or live in denial (couldn't be, could it....) of the
most basic concepts of it.
Lloyd Lawrence
On 26 Jun 1997, Derek Nalecki wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA> says:
> >On 24 Jun 1997, Derek Nalecki wrote:
> >> fel...@cableinet.co.uk (Feline) says:
> >> >jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
> > [..snip]
> >> >> What method of torture are you going to use to
> >> >>force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >> >
> >> >Complete disinterest.
> >>
> >> Yeah, you wind up in jail for your "parasitic ways" and feline and its
> >> ilk would have complete disinterest in your case.
> >
> >There goes little Derek, stamping his feet and turning red again.
>
> Oooh, did I huyt lil'Lloyd feewings?!? Doesn't lil'Lloyd have anything
> of substance to say?...
> No, of course not, he never did. He never had a single thought in his had.
> _That's_ why he is socialist, after all. Follower, cannon-fodder really,
> of a quasi-religion for really stupid people.
Gotcha!
> >> >Feline
> >>
> >> No, actually that's Trotsky. You couldn't raise an argument on your own
> >> if your life depended on it.
> >
> >But little Derek couldn't recognise an argument on his own. He has none.
> >Just bluster.
>
> Is lil'Looyd claiming _that_ was an argument of feline? Does lil'Lloyd
> suffer from a reading disorder, in addition to all his other failings?
Bluster. Bluster. Bluster.
> >> >"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical
> >> >society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in
> >> >the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of
> >>
> >> Nor, as I pointed out, does it acknowledge Black Magic.
> >
> >Or perhaps there's more than just bluster. There's blatant irrelevance.
> >Always a good substitute for critical comment. Good to see that little
> >Derek hasn't lost the skill of exposing his lack of intelligent thought.
>
> Then perhaps lil'Lloyd couls tell us how is the infantile idea of a
> "class struggle" relevant to a mature, modern world. No one else has
> been able to, so lil'Lloyd with his limited mental faculties faces quite
> a challenge.
Certainly. Happy to explain. Now, where shall I start for you? How about
the definition of "mature, modern world":
(1) all history after the industrial revolution, which event gave rise to
the social division into a class of capitalists and a class of workers
(the proletariat);
(2) the post-feudal state described by Vico Giambattista (1688-1744) as
the "adulthood of humanity" and part of the evolution towards democracy
through class struggle;
...are you following so far?
> >> >the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces
> >> >its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those
> >> >means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function
> >> >of official morality. It pursues the idea of the "greatest possible
> >> >happiness" not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing
> >> >minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through
> >> >force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> So it would seem does Mr. Trotsky's insane social order, as the title
> >> of the book this rambling nonsense comes from, would suggest. But then
> >> no one said socialists, or leftists in general, were ever coherent.
> >> That's why they needed the "improved" version of socialism - fascism, to
> >> add some internal consistency and coherence to an otherwise incoherent
> >> idea.
> >
> >And then, for a change of pace from bluster and blatant irrelevance,
> >there's insubstantiated assertions and unfocused diversions to erstwhile
> >debatable issues.
>
> Still no answer to the argument at hand. OK.
And that argument was... something about "fascism"? No - "socialism"?
What were you saying about leftists being coherent?
> >> >cement constitutes the profession of the petty bourgeois
> >> >theoretician,, and moralists. They dabble in all colors of the rainbow
> >> >but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."
> >> >Leon Trotsky,"Their Morals & Ours" 1936
> >>
> >> Reaaaly slow day?:
> >
> >Yes, indeed! It's been another 15 mins of the Little Derek
> >throw-a-tantrum show. And that's about all anybody needs of that. So...
>
> Run lil'Lloyd, run. The kiddies at the schoolyard have no one top make
> fun at. Depriving them furter would damage their precious self-esteemes.
> And we know how important self-esteem is. How much more important than
> education. We can realize that from the level of debate brought to us
> by the "graduates" of the welfare edukajshun system.
Now, I wonder what axe you're grinding here. Didn't get through grade
school, or university, is it? Feel a little resentful of anyone who did?
Careful now, you're true feelings are showing...
-lloyd
Lloyd Bryant
> >Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
> >scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
> >monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
> >the bucks for R&D?
> >
>
> There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
There will still be organizations that deal in the development,
marketing, and sales of products. Whether you call them "companies" or
"government agencies" or anything else is irrelevant - they will still
be subject to the economic constraints that current companies are. They
MUST earn more than they spend to survive. If these organizations are
limited in what they can earn, then they must reduce spending to
compensate. R&D, which has little short-term potential for increasing
earnings, will be the first thing cut from the budget.
> >A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
> >he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
> >in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
> >money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
> >complete end to scientific/technological research?
>
> Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
> corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
> industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
Please explain the exact difference between your "socialist industry"
and a current corporation. As near as I can figure, the *only*
difference is that your socialist industry is a corporation that is 100%
owned by the government. Which means that the government will be
subject to the same temptations of exploitation that capitalist
corporations are. Same sh*t, different label...
> PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
> if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
Not likely. Whenever politicians have been faced with cutting a science
program and cutting social spending, science has lost. Standard
politics - since there are fewer scientists, the political backlash is
smaller. Your socialist state would put *all* such funding under the
control of politicians. Not what I would call fertile ground for
science/technology to flourish in.
Lloyd Bryant
llo...@ibm.net
chris lowe
Ray Van Tassle wrote:
>
> 'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
> many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
> this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>
> Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
>
Socialism has NEVER been tried. It is a anarchistic society, with no "army" to
speak of, and so would be fairly impossible to defend. This results in it
needing to be on a world wide scale.
None of the countries that have had "socialist" revos where industrially
developed enough to be able to keep up the arms race necessary to defend their
country without compromising their socialist principles.
It is also debatable wether they should ever have attempted a socialist revo
in the first place, since most of them were still semi-fedual (or equivilent
in Asia), whereas Marx envisaged a progression from feudalism, to capitalism,
then to socialism.
Also, Marx envisaged the withering away of the "state", which did not happen
in any of these "socialist" countries. Indeed, much the opposite happened,
with huge state apparatus being established in many cases, to run the "state
capitalist" system.
In short, socialism has never been tried, instead the countries that you call
"socialist", I would call "state capitalist".
CL
John Bicketts
>
>
>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bullets wrote:
>
>> For example, authors typically decide not to give their works away
>> free. Do you object to paying for a good book? What about artists? If
>> they do not charge for what they produce, how do they sustain themselves
>> to create again?
>The problem is, in the communist/socialist world there is not much
>thought wasted on practical procedure possibilities, it is a mere theory,
>please see my concluding statement.
>
>> > >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>> > >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>> > >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>
>You are the utopist! Why would you not try to make a business out of it,
>to give people work and contribute to society - and, which is really no
>crime at all, to improve your standard of living.
> > > >
>> > >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>> > >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>> > >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>> > >
>> > >-John Parker
>> >
>> > It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>> > you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>> > scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>> > patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>> > the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
>Yes, exactly - but nobody WOULD actually use it, since there is no market
>to offer him anything for it.
Actually, under capitalism it's mostly those with the needed capital
who benefit from other's inventions. There's no reason why socialism
could not offer generous incentives to innovators.
>
>> > --John Bicketts
>
>Conclusion:
>I fully agree to Mr Bicketts opinion. The problem of socialism is the
>total abscence of reward and the missing possibility to be rewarded.
Not necesarilly. I think there should be rewards for working harder
and longer. And inventions and innovations should be generously
rewarded and subsidised.
>My family owned land in East Germany and we were over in communist times
>to talk to our former workers. We were quite startled to learn that the
>output of the property was - in 1970!! - lower than it was before 1945,
>which was the year the communists robbed it.
>The workers were very dissapointed about the ways things went and told us
>the following:
>"What is the use of working more if you are equally paid considerinq your
>neighbour, who does nothing with the same wages. In former times, there
>had been incentives for work, but now those are no longer existant."
>
Well, I'm no expert on E.Germany, but if it's anything like the rest
of the old Russian Bloc, I dont think it's exactly what I have in
mind.
Remmeber, I'm for the rule of the worker, not the state bureacrat. I
believe in democracy, and reward for harder work.
>And, additionally, socialism is a theory, not an alternative in termns of
>organizing society as a working body. Why do you think was every practical
>approach to socialism either overridden by the people (East Europe) or
>must be upheld with force (Cuba) - because it is so good? Socialism or
>Communism (there are differences, I know, but not in practical life - the
>GDR for example and the USSR were pretty similar, although one claimed to
>have found communism, whereas the other one was still operating with
>socialism) cannot be employed on man, the fit to ants only, because ants
>do not think nor strive for better positions - and even ants have a
>monarchy.
>
>Peter Ruess, University of Bayreuth, Germany
>
>
>
>> >
>> > Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>>
>> --
>> Bullets
>> *****************************************
>> Reject spin and partisan sophistry. Seek to understand and discover the
>> truth.
>> Correct E-mail Address: remove the "t" (ric...@direct.ca)
>>
>>
>>
>
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:27:42 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:24:23 GMT, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
>wrote:
>
>
>>PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>
>Except that you wouldn't have money for it.
No, we'd have more, because we wouldn't waste so much having rich
people or making goods with planned-obsolescence, and many other
reasons..
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:21:07 -0500, ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van
Tassle) wrote:
>In article <33a9afff...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
>Bicketts) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:17:33 GMT, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:10:02 -0700, "G. Eliot" <c...@geocities.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>There's competition for intangible things: honor, pride, praise,
>> >>fame, that are rather benign as long as participants don't get
>> >>carried away. But then there's competition for things that could
>> >>be just as easily shared, or used on a rotating basis. Trade
>> >>secrets, patents, and copyrights all hold back the spread of
>> >>knowledge, and are only needed because of the stupid economic
>> >>system we live under. Even currency itself can be thrown around
>> >>on a rotating basis. There's no inherent value stored in currency
>> >>anyway. All it does is give us Pavlov's dogs the incentive to
>> >>work. In the end, after the currency is put to some good use, it
>> >>just heads right back into the economic ether.
>> >>
>> >>It actually doesn't really matter whether you spend or not.
>> >>Bankers can keep the economy going just by reinvesting your
>> >>savings. Even if you burn your cash, it just causes deflation
>> >>so that what money bankers have is "worth more". The only
>> >>stupidity that arises is when people start inventing useless,
>> >>unhappy busywork to do, for fear of losing their access to
>> >>the economic ether. And then we wonder why nobody has the
>> >>time or energy to solve real problems.
>> >
>> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>> >
>> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>> >
>> >-John Parker
>>
>>
>> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
>
>Ignoring, of course, the question of why anybody would work hard to invent
>something, knowing that it would be taken from him the moment after he
>created it.
>
Nope, we'd give them nice big encentives and rewards. Inventions are
great, after all. And we'd fund the invention in the first place.
Anyway, today much of the reward of innovation and invention goes to
those with the capital resources to exploit it, not the origininator
him/her self.
>
>> --John Bicketts
>>
>> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>--
>To email me, remove the antispamfilter from my address.
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Lloyd Bryant
Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
<<snipped>>
> > Then perhaps lil'Lloyd couls tell us how is the infantile idea of a
> > "class struggle" relevant to a mature, modern world. No one else has
> > been able to, so lil'Lloyd with his limited mental faculties faces quite
> > a challenge.
>
> Certainly. Happy to explain. Now, where shall I start for you? How about
> the definition of "mature, modern world":
>
> (1) all history after the industrial revolution, which event gave rise to
> the social division into a class of capitalists and a class of workers
> (the proletariat);
First off, that division existed LONG before the industrial revolution -
what is the difference between the landlord/tenant relationship and the
employer/employee relationship? The industrial revolution simply
exagerated (sp?) the effect.
And the hell of it is that this situation was only *temporary* - the
industrial revolution gave rise to the labor union, which acted as a
check on the "exploitation" that Marx and co. viewed as inevitable in a
capitalist industrial society. The "evils of capitalism" that we see
today aren't even pale imitations of what was happening at the beginning
of the industrial revolution. It wasn't socialist philosophers who
brought the exploiters under control - it was a bunch of guys who banded
together, and told the industrialists "give us more, or else".
Then, as is usual in the course of human history, the unions in turn
became the exploiters, taking more and more from the union members and
giving less and less in return, until support for unions waned. They
served their purpose, and have faded out somewhat. If and when they are
*really* needed again, then they will regain their prominence.
Net result - society is a self-regulating system. Temporary imbalances
can and will occur. There's no reason to scrap the system because of
them - it'll balance itself out. Maybe not enough to suit some people,
but as long as the majority is willing to accept the result it'll do...
> (2) the post-feudal state described by Vico Giambattista (1688-1744) as
> the "adulthood of humanity" and part of the evolution towards democracy
> through class struggle;
>
> ...are you following so far?
Except that full-blown Socialism is a spur to anti-democratic forces.
Anytime you concentrate power, you tempt individuals into misusing it.
If you place ALL the power currently possessed by property owners in the
hands of a government (any government, I don't care HOW it's organized),
then unscrupulous individuals will seek to gain control of that power.
That's human nature, which is something that socialist theory has never
seemed to grasp.
<<snipped assorted name calling and other trivia>>
> -lloyd
Lloyd Bryant
llo...@ibm.net
John Bicketts
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:16:55 -0500, ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van
Tassle) wrote:
>In article <33aeb9fa...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
>Bicketts) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John Bicketts wrote:
>> > << Snipped >>
>> >
>> >> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>> >> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>> >> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>> >> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>> >> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>> >> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>> >> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>> >> >
>> >> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>> >> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>> >> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>> >> >
>> >> >-John Parker
>> >>
>> >> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>> >> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>> >> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>> >> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>> >> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
>> >> --John Bicketts
>> >>
>> >> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>> >
>> >Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
>> >scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
>> >monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
>> >the bucks for R&D?
>> >
>>
>> There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
>>
>> >A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
>> >he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
>> >in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
>> >money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
>> >complete end to scientific/technological research?
>>
>> Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
>> corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
>> industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
>>
>>
>> PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>> if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>
>'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
>many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will.
That's because it's never been implemented the way it should be- with
democracy and all that.
BTW, do you actually have any criticisms of the specific subject of
this post(the capacity of socialism for innovation)
?
Is there _any_
>point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
>this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>
>Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
Laissez-faire freaks and libertarians should ask themselves that.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >Lloyd Bryant
>> >llo...@ibm.net
Ray Van Tassle
In article <33b2d2c...@News.HTWM.De>,
sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:34:25 +0200, Peter Ruess
> <a1...@btr0xe.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bullets wrote:
> >
> >> For example, authors typically decide not to give their works away
> >> free. Do you object to paying for a good book? What about artists? If
> >> they do not charge for what they produce, how do they sustain themselves
> >> to create again?
> >The problem is, in the communist/socialist world there is not much
> >thought wasted on practical procedure possibilities, it is a mere theory,
> >please see my concluding statement.
> >
> >> > >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
> >> > >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
> >> > >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
> >
> >You are the utopist! Why would you not try to make a business out of it,
> >to give people work and contribute to society - and, which is really no
> >crime at all, to improve your standard of living.
> > > > >
> >> > >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
> >> > >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
> >> > >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
> >> > >
> >> > >-John Parker
> >> >
> >> > It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
> >> > you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
> >> > scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
> >> > patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
> >> > the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
> >Yes, exactly - but nobody WOULD actually use it, since there is no market
> >to offer him anything for it.
>
> Actually, under capitalism it's mostly those with the needed capital
> who benefit from other's inventions. There's no reason why socialism
> could not offer generous incentives to innovators.
Just two reasons:
1) No socialist country has EVER "offered generous incentives to
innovators". Since none every have, there is strong evidence that none
ever will.
2) In actual operation, anybody who has worked to create value, the
socialist government immediately confiscates it. Who in his right mind
will work hard if the fruits of his work are immediately taken away.
Which way does the incentive run?
Ray Van Tassle
In article <5orfjp$5il$1...@usenet89.supernews.com>,
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>
> >In article <33aeb9fa...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
> >Bicketts) wrote:
<<<snippage>>>
> >> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
> >> wrote:
> >'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
> >many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
>
> It seems to be doing rather well in Europe. In fact its mounting a
> sizeable comeback. Of course by the definitions most of the dittonuts
"Doing rather well" ????? I was talking about Europe, Earth. I guess you
are talking about some other planet.
> around here use, the US space program would have to be classed as a
> resounding failure even if it was soley responsible for spawning a
> industry that equalls the GDP of France.
Sorry, the US space program didn't spawn any "successful industry". It
merely spent huge amounts of forcibly-collected taxpayer money. Giving
away gobs of money is not quite the same thing as "industry".
>
> >point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
> >this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>
> >Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd Bryant
> >> >llo...@ibm.net
Ray Van Tassle
In article <33B342...@york.ac.uk>, chris lowe <cl...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ray Van Tassle wrote:
> >
> > 'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
> > many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
> > point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
> > this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
> >
> > Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
> >
>
> Socialism has NEVER been tried. It is a anarchistic society, with no
"army" to
> speak of, and so would be fairly impossible to defend. This results in it
> needing to be on a world wide scale.
> None of the countries that have had "socialist" revos where industrially
> developed enough to be able to keep up the arms race necessary to defend
their
> country without compromising their socialist principles.
> It is also debatable wether they should ever have attempted a socialist revo
> in the first place, since most of them were still semi-fedual (or equivilent
> in Asia), whereas Marx envisaged a progression from feudalism, to capitalism,
> then to socialism.
> Also, Marx envisaged the withering away of the "state", which did not happen
> in any of these "socialist" countries. Indeed, much the opposite happened,
> with huge state apparatus being established in many cases, to run the "state
> capitalist" system.
> In short, socialism has never been tried, instead the countries that you call
> "socialist", I would call "state capitalist".
In other words, your response is: "Yes, the theory is right, and it's
reality which is wrong."
>
> CL
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:20:39 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>
>>In article <33aeb9fa...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John
>>Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >John Bicketts wrote:
>>> > << Snipped >>
>>> >
>>> >> >So what are you going to do with those of us who reuse to go along
>>> >> >with your plan? I'm not going to share my savings with you, and I'm
>>> >> >not going to share my ideas with you. You can, of course, confiscate
>>> >> >my property, but you're going to have a lot more trouble with my trade
>>> >> >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>>> >> >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>>> >> >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>>> >> >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>>> >> >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >-John Parker
>>> >>
>>> >> It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>>> >> you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>>> >> scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>>> >> patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>>> >> the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
>>> >> --John Bicketts
>>> >>
>>> >> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>>> >
>>> >Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
>>> >scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
>>> >monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
>>> >the bucks for R&D?
>>> >
>>>
>>> There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
>>>
>>> >A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
>>> >he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
>>> >in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
>>> >money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
>>> >complete end to scientific/technological research?
>>>
>>> Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
>>> corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
>>> industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
>>>
>>>
>>> PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>> if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>
>>'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
>>many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
>
>It seems to be doing rather well in Europe. In fact its mounting a
>sizeable comeback. Of course by the definitions most of the dittonuts
>around here use, the US space program would have to be classed as a
>resounding failure even if it was soley responsible for spawning a
>industry that equalls the GDP of France.
Of course you meant to infer "conservative" where you used the word
"dittonuts". However, most of those people recognize the need for a
limited government, and consider exactly the scenario you describe as
one of those uses. But you probably were aware of that.
Divine...@pipeline.com
>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:27:42 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:24:23 GMT, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>>if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>>
>>Except that you wouldn't have money for it.
>
>No, we'd have more, because we wouldn't waste so much having rich
>people or making goods with planned-obsolescence, and many other
>reasons..
>--John Bicketts
Your dreams are quite different from reality. But you should realize
that a dream is a dream, and nothing more.
Divine...@pipeline.com
>>Ignoring, of course, the question of why anybody would work hard to invent
>>something, knowing that it would be taken from him the moment after he
>>created it.
>>
>
>Nope, we'd give them nice big encentives and rewards. Inventions are
>great, after all. And we'd fund the invention in the first place.
> Anyway, today much of the reward of innovation and invention goes to
>those with the capital resources to exploit it, not the origininator
>him/her self.
You fail to see that your system will reward some more than others,
thereby creating jealousy (just like today) whether you acknowledge it
or not.
>>> --John Bicketts
Divine...@pipeline.com
>>The workers were very dissapointed about the ways things went and told us
>>the following:
>>"What is the use of working more if you are equally paid considerinq your
>>neighbour, who does nothing with the same wages. In former times, there
>>had been incentives for work, but now those are no longer existant."
>
>Well, I'm no expert on E.Germany, but if it's anything like the rest
>of the old Russian Bloc, I dont think it's exactly what I have in
>mind.
>
>Remmeber, I'm for the rule of the worker, not the state bureacrat. I
>believe in democracy, and reward for harder work.
The person already made the point that what you just suggested had
been tried. And you once again made reference to rewarding some more
than others. If you expect your system to work, you had better do
something about human nature first.
>--John Bicketts
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:31:32 +0100, chris lowe <cl...@york.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Ray Van Tassle wrote:
>>
>> 'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
>> many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
>> point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
>> this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>>
>> Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
>>
>Socialism has NEVER been tried. It is a anarchistic society, with no "army" to
>speak of, and so would be fairly impossible to defend. This results in it
>needing to be on a world wide scale.
>None of the countries that have had "socialist" revos where industrially
>developed enough to be able to keep up the arms race necessary to defend their
>country without compromising their socialist principles.
>It is also debatable wether they should ever have attempted a socialist revo
>in the first place, since most of them were still semi-fedual (or equivilent
>in Asia), whereas Marx envisaged a progression from feudalism, to capitalism,
>then to socialism.
>Also, Marx envisaged the withering away of the "state", which did not happen
>in any of these "socialist" countries. Indeed, much the opposite happened,
>with huge state apparatus being established in many cases, to run the "state
>capitalist" system.
>In short, socialism has never been tried, instead the countries that you call
>"socialist", I would call "state capitalist".
Marx did a great job of analyzing the Industrial Revolution. He
didn't do as well trying to extrapolate the future.
>CL
Herbert M Sauro
In article <5orfjp$5il$1...@usenet89.supernews.com>,
"gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com" <gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com> writes
>>> PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>> if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>
>>many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
>
>sizeable comeback. Of course by the definitions most of the dittonuts
>around here use, the US space program would have to be classed as a
>resounding failure even if it was soley responsible for spawning a
>industry that equalls the GDP of France.
>
The only countries which are doing well are the non-socialists ones, eg
UK, Netherlands etc. The Socicalist ones, France, Spain etc are going
down the pan, just look at the unemployment levels in the socialist
countries.
Herbert
--
Herbert M Sauro
email: HSa...@fssc.demon.co.uk
Telephone: 01974 282428
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who cannot draw on 3000 years is living from hand to mouth" Goethe
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
R Browning.
John Bicketts
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:03:15 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:23:48 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:27:42 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:24:23 GMT, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>>>if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>>>
>>>Except that you wouldn't have money for it.
>>
>>No, we'd have more, because we wouldn't waste so much having rich
>>people or making goods with planned-obsolescence, and many other
>>reasons..
>>--John Bicketts
>
>Your dreams are quite different from reality. But you should realize
>that a dream is a dream, and nothing more.
Kind of like democracy used to be? Hehe, if you think things never
change, how come we dont have kings anymore?
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:05:41 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:23:50 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>
>>>Ignoring, of course, the question of why anybody would work hard to invent
>>>something, knowing that it would be taken from him the moment after he
>>>created it.
>>>
>>
>>Nope, we'd give them nice big encentives and rewards. Inventions are
>>great, after all. And we'd fund the invention in the first place.
>> Anyway, today much of the reward of innovation and invention goes to
>>those with the capital resources to exploit it, not the origininator
>>him/her self.
>
>You fail to see that your system will reward some more than others,
>thereby creating jealousy (just like today) whether you acknowledge it
>or not.
But people will be directly rewarded for actual work done, not for
already owning capital. And it will not be a huge variation- maybe
from $50K to $100 K, not from 10K to 250 million. And everyone will be
given enough. Giving a few incentives is not like allowing vast
disparities of wealth, with some having enough to buy small countries
while others are starvinhg.
>
>>>> --John Bicketts
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:08:04 -0500, ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van
Tassle) wrote:
>In article <33b2d2c...@News.HTWM.De>,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:34:25 +0200, Peter Ruess
>> <a1...@btr0xe.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bullets wrote:
>> >
>> >> For example, authors typically decide not to give their works away
>> >> free. Do you object to paying for a good book? What about artists? If
>> >> they do not charge for what they produce, how do they sustain themselves
>> >> to create again?
>> >The problem is, in the communist/socialist world there is not much
>> >thought wasted on practical procedure possibilities, it is a mere theory,
>> >please see my concluding statement.
>> >
>> >> > >secrets. What if I discover a cheap reliable method of converting
>> >> > >sand into energy? What method of torture are you going to use to
>> >> > >force me to cooperate in your little utopian world, and share it?
>> >
>> >You are the utopist! Why would you not try to make a business out of it,
>> >to give people work and contribute to society - and, which is really no
>> >crime at all, to improve your standard of living.
>> > > > >
>> >> > >To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
>> >> > >not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
>> >> > >confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >-John Parker
>> >> >
>> >> > It's pretty simple, Parkie-boy. There's no need to force ideas from
>> >> > you, since you probably dont have any. Most inventing is done by
>> >> > scientists and engineers who work for companies, who in turn take the
>> >> > patent. Simply put, those companies don't need to have a monopoly on
>> >> > the invention. Under socialism everyone'd be free to use it.
>> >Yes, exactly - but nobody WOULD actually use it, since there is no market
>> >to offer him anything for it.
>>
>> Actually, under capitalism it's mostly those with the needed capital
>> who benefit from other's inventions. There's no reason why socialism
>> could not offer generous incentives to innovators.
>
>Just two reasons:
>1) No socialist country has EVER "offered generous incentives to
>innovators". Since none every have, there is strong evidence that none
>ever will.
I'm talking about my ideas here, dude, not those undemocratic
repressive monstrosities that had the gall to call themselves
socialist.
Any country without true worker democracy has no right calling itself
socialist.
>
>2) In actual operation, anybody who has worked to create value, the
>socialist government immediately confiscates it. Who in his right mind
>will work hard if the fruits of his work are immediately taken away.
>Which way does the incentive run?
Would you mind saying exactly what's wrong with MY model?
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> > --John Bicketts
>> >
>> >Conclusion:
>> >I fully agree to Mr Bicketts opinion. The problem of socialism is the
>> >total abscence of reward and the missing possibility to be rewarded.
>>
>> Not necesarilly. I think there should be rewards for working harder
>> and longer. And inventions and innovations should be generously
>> rewarded and subsidised.
>>
>> >My family owned land in East Germany and we were over in communist times
>> >to talk to our former workers. We were quite startled to learn that the
>> >output of the property was - in 1970!! - lower than it was before 1945,
>> >which was the year the communists robbed it.
>> >The workers were very dissapointed about the ways things went and told us
>> >the following:
>> >"What is the use of working more if you are equally paid considerinq your
>> >neighbour, who does nothing with the same wages. In former times, there
>> >had been incentives for work, but now those are no longer existant."
>> >
>>
>> Well, I'm no expert on E.Germany, but if it's anything like the rest
>> of the old Russian Bloc, I dont think it's exactly what I have in
>> mind.
>>
>> Remmeber, I'm for the rule of the worker, not the state bureacrat. I
>> believe in democracy, and reward for harder work.
>>
>> >And, additionally, socialism is a theory, not an alternative in termns of
>> >organizing society as a working body. Why do you think was every practical
>> >approach to socialism either overridden by the people (East Europe) or
>> >must be upheld with force (Cuba) - because it is so good? Socialism or
>> >Communism (there are differences, I know, but not in practical life - the
>> >GDR for example and the USSR were pretty similar, although one claimed to
>> >have found communism, whereas the other one was still operating with
>> >socialism) cannot be employed on man, the fit to ants only, because ants
>> >do not think nor strive for better positions - and even ants have a
>> >monarchy.
>> >
>> >Peter Ruess, University of Bayreuth, Germany
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bullets
>> >> *****************************************
>> >> Reject spin and partisan sophistry. Seek to understand and discover the
>> >> truth.
>> >> Correct E-mail Address: remove the "t" (ric...@direct.ca)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --John Bicketts
>>
>> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>--
>To email me, remove the antispamfilter from my address.
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:39:59 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>John Bicketts wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
>> wrote:
>>
> <<snipped>>
>> >Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
>> >scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
>> >monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
>> >the bucks for R&D?
>> >
>>
>> There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
>
>There will still be organizations that deal in the development,
>marketing, and sales of products. Whether you call them "companies" or
>"government agencies" or anything else is irrelevant - they will still
>be subject to the economic constraints that current companies are. They
>MUST earn more than they spend to survive. If these organizations are
>limited in what they can earn, then they must reduce spending to
>compensate. R&D, which has little short-term potential for increasing
>earnings, will be the first thing cut from the budget.
>
Wrong. Corporations are forced, by competition and the desire of their
stockholders for quick profits, to base everything on short-term
profit motives. Socialist corporations would produce for use rather
than profit. Therefore, they can be reasonable to the environment, to
workers, and to longer-term plans like R&D.
And remember, all the money which today profits the head corporate
honchos and investors would go to R&D or better pay...
>> >A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
>> >he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
>> >in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
>> >money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
>> >complete end to scientific/technological research?
>>
>> Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
>> corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
>> industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
>
>Please explain the exact difference between your "socialist industry"
>and a current corporation. As near as I can figure, the *only*
>difference is that your socialist industry is a corporation that is 100%
>owned by the government. Which means that the government will be
>subject to the same temptations of exploitation that capitalist
>corporations are. Same sh*t, different label...
The difference is that they will be democratically worker-controlled,
either by bottum-up worker councils or less direct election of top
officials. Will the workers choose to exploit themselves? Uh-Uh.
>
>> PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>> if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>
>Not likely. Whenever politicians have been faced with cutting a science
>program and cutting social spending, science has lost. Standard
>politics - since there are fewer scientists, the political backlash is
>smaller. Your socialist state would put *all* such funding under the
>control of politicians. Not what I would call fertile ground for
>science/technology to flourish in.
Surely the workers will see it in their interest to create more
inventions, more labor-saving devices, more automation of drudge
tasks. Its as simple as that. And without the rich owning half the
nation's income, there would be a lot more money left to do it with.
John Bicketts
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:14:40 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:24:13 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>>The workers were very dissapointed about the ways things went and told us
>>>the following:
>>>"What is the use of working more if you are equally paid considerinq your
>>>neighbour, who does nothing with the same wages. In former times, there
>>>had been incentives for work, but now those are no longer existant."
>>
>>Well, I'm no expert on E.Germany, but if it's anything like the rest
>>of the old Russian Bloc, I dont think it's exactly what I have in
>>mind.
>>
>>Remmeber, I'm for the rule of the worker, not the state bureacrat. I
>>believe in democracy, and reward for harder work.
>
>The person already made the point that what you just suggested had
>been tried. And you once again made reference to rewarding some more
>than others.
OK , so it would- but not in grossly disproportionate fashion like
now, and because of actual work done, rather than because you happen
to already have tons of capital.
If you expect your system to work, you had better do
>something about human nature first.
>
>
D. Anderson
In article <33b6bead...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) says:
>Kind of like democracy used to be? Hehe, if you think things never
>change, how come we dont have kings anymore?
Speak for yourself. The citizens of the cold but happy land
north of you are still subjects of the Crown.
Looking back on the last two hundred years or so of
our respective histories, can you really say that we are any
worse off for not rebelling against Royal authority, or that you
are better off for having done so?
(would you care to add anything to this, Mr. John Aimers?)
>--John Bicketts
>
>Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Dane
Ray Van Tassle
In article <33b6c11c...@News.HTWM.De>,
sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
Oh, I thought we were discussin things that had some basis in reality.
Guess I was wrong there. Who cares what happens in dreams--dream worlds
aren't real.
>
> Any country without true worker democracy has no right calling itself
> socialist.
>
> >
> >2) In actual operation, anybody who has worked to create value, the
> >socialist government immediately confiscates it. Who in his right mind
> >will work hard if the fruits of his work are immediately taken away.
> >Which way does the incentive run?
>
> Would you mind saying exactly what's wrong with MY model?
Ok, here goes.
YOUR model has no basis in reality. YOUR model assumes that human beings,
and human nature, is something other than what it really is.
Remember the joke question: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does
a dog have?"
In the REAL world, the answer is: "Four. Because calling a tail a leg
does not make it a leg--it's still a tail."
In YOUR model, the answer is: "Six, because I called a head a leg, too,
but I just forgot to mention it."
Here's a good quote I read a long time ago:
"Socialism will fail because it is blind to the competitive nature of life."
Ray
Ray Van Tassle
In article <33b6bf0d...@News.HTWM.De>,
sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
Does it ever bother you to notice that the events in the real world play
out the exact OPPOSITE of what you say will happen? Corporations focus
very much on the long term. Example: The lumber companies replant trees
that won't be ready to harvest for 20 or 30 years.
And in ACTUAL FACT, in both the USSR and Eact Germany, industrial
pollution was incredibly terrible.
Do you even _notice_ that the world is the opposite of what you claim? Or
do you think that it is the real world which is wrong, and it is your
theory which is right?
Lloyd Lawrence
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Lloyd Bryant wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
> <<snipped>>
> > Dereck Nelecki wrote:
> > > Then perhaps lil'Lloyd couls tell us how is the infantile idea of a
> > > "class struggle" relevant to a mature, modern world. No one else has
> > > been able to, so lil'Lloyd with his limited mental faculties faces quite
> > > a challenge.
> >
> > Certainly. Happy to explain. Now, where shall I start for you? How about
> > the definition of "mature, modern world":
> >
> > (1) all history after the industrial revolution, which event gave rise to
> > the social division into a class of capitalists and a class of workers
> > (the proletariat);
>
> First off, that division existed LONG before the industrial revolution -
> what is the difference between the landlord/tenant relationship and the
> employer/employee relationship? The industrial revolution simply
> exagerated (sp?) the effect.
Slip of the keyboard, actually. Meant to type "..which event clarified
the social division.." in the sense that it emphasised the "conflict of
contraries which goes on within capitalist society, between capital and
labour" (Eduardo del Rio), i.e. the class struggle.
> And the hell of it is that this situation was only *temporary* - the
> industrial revolution gave rise to the labor union, which acted as a
> check on the "exploitation" that Marx and co. viewed as inevitable in a
> capitalist industrial society.
..Not much effect till the last 50 years and then only for a limited
number of the working population. Union agreements don't cover large
numbers of non-unionised workers. Consider the garment industry, casual
labouring, call centre interviewing, the restaurant industry,..
> The "evils of capitalism" that we see
> today aren't even pale imitations of what was happening at the beginning
> of the industrial revolution.
So what? Apparently, activism has improved the lives of all workers by
stopping some of the worst evils of capitalism. But there's plenty of
them still to be addressed.
> It wasn't socialist philosophers who
> brought the exploiters under control - it was a bunch of guys who banded
> together, and told the industrialists "give us more, or else".
You appear to be thinking of specific unions. Perhaps you'd share the
specifics of your thoughts, so that we can sort out the details of who
held the means of control.
> Then, as is usual in the course of human history, the unions in turn
> became the exploiters, taking more and more from the union members and
> giving less and less in return, until support for unions waned.
..Definitely specific unions...
> They
> served their purpose, and have faded out somewhat. If and when they are
> *really* needed again, then they will regain their prominence.
..Which suggests that corporate benificence is a satisfactory state and
every part-time employee is grateful for the unreliable hours, the
opportunity to "volunteer" overtime, the temperament of a dictator-boss,
the insecurity of the job,...
> Net result - society is a self-regulating system. Temporary imbalances
> can and will occur. There's no reason to scrap the system because of
> them - it'll balance itself out. Maybe not enough to suit some people,
> but as long as the majority is willing to accept the result it'll do...
Those euphemism about "imbalances", "suit some people", stand for loss of
life and limbs, and sweatshop poverty...
> > (2) the post-feudal state described by Vico Giambattista (1688-1744) as
> > the "adulthood of humanity" and part of the evolution towards democracy
> > through class struggle;
> >
> > ...are you following so far?
>
> Except that full-blown Socialism is a spur to anti-democratic forces.
> Anytime you concentrate power, you tempt individuals into misusing it.
> If you place ALL the power currently possessed by property owners in the
> hands of a government (any government, I don't care HOW it's organized),
> then unscrupulous individuals will seek to gain control of that power.
> That's human nature, which is something that socialist theory has never
> seemed to grasp.
That's just what I was thinking about free-market theories, which all
advocate a government protection of individual rights to property. The
same control argument applies. Except that socialism advocates control by
the whole population of workers, not government.
-lloyd
Lloyd Bryant
I'm thinking of just about ALL of the industrial unions (those that are
connected to the AFL-CIO). Automotive, Steelworkers, Teamsters, etc.
In short, a large percentage of all unions in this country.
> > Then, as is usual in the course of human history, the unions in turn
> > became the exploiters, taking more and more from the union members and
> > giving less and less in return, until support for unions waned.
>
> ..Definitely specific unions...
Can you name any union that has been in existence more than 50 years
that *hasn't* turned to exploiting the union members? The old "power
corrupts" game...
> > They
> > served their purpose, and have faded out somewhat. If and when they are
> > *really* needed again, then they will regain their prominence.
>
> ..Which suggests that corporate benificence is a satisfactory state and
> every part-time employee is grateful for the unreliable hours, the
> opportunity to "volunteer" overtime, the temperament of a dictator-boss,
> the insecurity of the job,...
You have unreliable hours? I don't. Most of the people I know don't.
Corporate "benificence" has nothing to do with it - push people to the
limit, and at the first opportunity they will jump ship to another job.
Corporations that lose their best people don't last (it may take years
before the "flood of talent" actually shows up in the balance sheet, but
CEO's are *quite* aware of the danger represented by this problem).
Corporations don't try to keep their employees happy/healthy because of
their better nature - they do so because it is in their best interest
(in the long term) to do so. And self-interest, unlike benificence, is
quite reliable.
> > Net result - society is a self-regulating system. Temporary imbalances
> > can and will occur. There's no reason to scrap the system because of
> > them - it'll balance itself out. Maybe not enough to suit some people,
> > but as long as the majority is willing to accept the result it'll do...
>
> Those euphemism about "imbalances", "suit some people", stand for loss of
> life and limbs, and sweatshop poverty...
Companies *should* be held responsible for their actions. If a person
is crippled while performing his/her job duties, then the employer
should be held liable. This doesn't require a complete restructuring of
government - just a court system that actually works...
> > > (2) the post-feudal state described by Vico Giambattista (1688-1744) as
> > > the "adulthood of humanity" and part of the evolution towards democracy
> > > through class struggle;
> > >
> > > ...are you following so far?
> >
> > Except that full-blown Socialism is a spur to anti-democratic forces.
> > Anytime you concentrate power, you tempt individuals into misusing it.
> > If you place ALL the power currently possessed by property owners in the
> > hands of a government (any government, I don't care HOW it's organized),
> > then unscrupulous individuals will seek to gain control of that power.
> > That's human nature, which is something that socialist theory has never
> > seemed to grasp.
>
> That's just what I was thinking about free-market theories, which all
> advocate a government protection of individual rights to property. The
> same control argument applies. Except that socialism advocates control by
> the whole population of workers, not government.
Now who's playing semantic games? The "whole population of workers"
cannot control anything - there are just too many people. You plan on
holding a general election over every minor issue? The trick isn't to
try and have the whole population running things, but to have a system
that requires a minimum of management. You can't do that with Socialism
- by it's nature, it requires an all-powerful central government (or
Soviet, or Collective, or whatever label you attach to it).
> -lloyd
>
> > <<snipped assorted name calling and other trivia>>
Lloyd Bryant
llo...@ibm.net
Divine...@pipeline.com
>Surely the workers will see it in their interest to create more
>inventions, more labor-saving devices, more automation of drudge
>tasks. Its as simple as that. And without the rich owning half the
>nation's income, there would be a lot more money left to do it with.
For once in history, workers will suddenly live only for the
betterment of society, they won't slack off, worrying that they are
working harder than the person next to them, and they are going to
find inspiration in their trades. How do you accomplish this
reprogramming?
>--John Bicketts
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:51:57 GMT,
sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:03:15 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:23:48 GMT,
>>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:27:42 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:24:23 GMT, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>>>>if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>>>>
>>>>Except that you wouldn't have money for it.
>>>
>>>No, we'd have more, because we wouldn't waste so much having rich
>>>people or making goods with planned-obsolescence, and many other
>>>reasons..
>>>--John Bicketts
>>
>>Your dreams are quite different from reality. But you should realize
>>that a dream is a dream, and nothing more.
>
>Kind of like democracy used to be? Hehe, if you think things never
>change, how come we dont have kings anymore?
We don't have kings anymore because of the industrial revolution. It
changed economies. It changed the way society was organized. You
seem to think it was something else. Enlighten us.
>--John Bicketts
Divine...@pipeline.com
>Would you mind saying exactly what's wrong with MY model?
Your idea is all dream because it completely neglects human nature. A
world where everyone is worried about pulling their load and making
sure that things are fair will support this. But unfortunately, this
is not the reality of this world. Yours system is better, because the
people who make it up are better human beings, but again, that isn't
the case here on planet Earth. Most people who feel the way you do
say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
anytime soon.
>>> >> > --John Bicketts
Herbert M Sauro
Capitalist systems need regulation just like socialist ones, mainly to
even out the supply and demand miss-matching. The depressions and
stagnations that capitalist country expreience are a result of the miss
management by governements or external factors (eg oil price) which are
usually out of their control causing demand to go out of control (up or
down). If supply and demon can be managed propoerly then I think
capitalist counties would experience very few stagnations.
Note the old adage: Markets are a good servant but a bad master.
Harry
Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
<snip>
Most people who feel the way you do
> say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
> happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
> anytime soon.
>
and then claim that it won't change. For many of us it is our nature to
love our neighbours and to want to see everybody do well, no just
ourselves. Are we not human? How do we know that this is not true
human nature and you others have been corrupted by "competition taken
to the extreme."
Regards, Harry
> >>> >> > --John Bicketts
Derek Nalecki
In article <rayvt-27069...@dd358.comm.mot.com>, ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) says:
>
>In article <33B342...@york.ac.uk>, chris lowe <cl...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ray Van Tassle wrote:
>> >
>> > many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
>> > this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>> >
>> > Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
>> >
>>
>> Socialism has NEVER been tried. It is a anarchistic society, with no
>"army" to
>> speak of, and so would be fairly impossible to defend. This results in it
>> needing to be on a world wide scale.
>> None of the countries that have had "socialist" revos where industrially
>> developed enough to be able to keep up the arms race necessary to defend
>their
>> country without compromising their socialist principles.
>> It is also debatable wether they should ever have attempted a socialist revo
>> in the first place, since most of them were still semi-fedual (or equivilent
>> in Asia), whereas Marx envisaged a progression from feudalism, to capitalism,
>> then to socialism.
>> Also, Marx envisaged the withering away of the "state", which did not happen
>> in any of these "socialist" countries. Indeed, much the opposite happened,
>> with huge state apparatus being established in many cases, to run the "state
>> capitalist" system.
>> In short, socialism has never been tried, instead the countries that you call
>> "socialist", I would call "state capitalist".
>
>reality which is wrong."
>
Which is why socialism is based on total denial of reality... Hey, at
least the dolts are consistent ;-) ;-)
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
Derek Nalecki
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> >'course, there's a small problem here. Socialism has been tried, many
>> >many times, and it NEVER works the way you claim it will. Is there _any_
>>
>> sizeable comeback. Of course by the definitions most of the dittonuts
>
>are talking about some other planet.
When you find out what planet these people come from - it must be one where
black magic works, according to one left-wing fruit, Lloyd - _do_ let
us know. Some of us have been wondering about that for quite some time.
;-)
>
>
>> around here use, the US space program would have to be classed as a
>> resounding failure even if it was soley responsible for spawning a
>> industry that equalls the GDP of France.
>Sorry, the US space program didn't spawn any "successful industry". It
>merely spent huge amounts of forcibly-collected taxpayer money. Giving
>away gobs of money is not quite the same thing as "industry".
And that in an area that should've been a monumental money-maker, much
like the American West was in the 1840s and '50s. Imagine what someone
like J.J. Astor could've done in space. The gangsta'gov, OTOH, just wasted
billions of extorted money, and in return we've got...uhm teflon? ;-)
Some light-weight materials, and a start on monomolecular engineering.
Well, even gangsta'gov couldn't quite screw up entirely an opportunity
like space.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >point at which you will say "Hmm, reality never seems to work the way that
>> >this theory says it will--maybe the _theory_ is wrong."?
>>
>> >Or is it always the theory which is right, and reality which is wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >Lloyd Bryant
>> >> >llo...@ibm.net
>> >>
>> >> --John Bicketts
>> >>
>> >> Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
>> >--
>> >To email me, remove the antispamfilter from my address.
>--
>To email me, remove the antispamfilter from my address.
Don
>>> around here use, the US space program would have to be classed as a
>>> resounding failure even if it was soley responsible for spawning a
>>> industry that equalls the GDP of France.
>>Sorry, the US space program didn't spawn any "successful industry". It
>>merely spent huge amounts of forcibly-collected taxpayer money. Giving
>>away gobs of money is not quite the same thing as "industry".
>And that in an area that should've been a monumental money-maker, much
>like the American West was in the 1840s and '50s. Imagine what someone
>like J.J. Astor could've done in space. The gangsta'gov, OTOH, just wasted
>billions of extorted money, and in return we've got...uhm teflon? ;-)
>Some light-weight materials, and a start on monomolecular engineering.
>Well, even gangsta'gov couldn't quite screw up entirely an opportunity
>like space.
Good point. NASA has actively opposed the industrialization of space.
The opportunities for those industrial processes that require access
to a gravity-free environment, deep cold and a perfect vacuum are
awesome. We could have permanent industrial colonies in space right
now except for government foot dragging and squeamishness. And if the
US doesn't do it, someone else will. The US could lose the enormous
lead that we have in this field. The pathetic little space station
that NASA has in mind, if it ever comes to pass, will be hopelessly
useless for anything but small-scale experiments. The technology
exists. What we lack is any direction from the federal government.
Don
chris lowe
Ray Van Tassle wrote:
>
> In article <33b6bf0d...@News.HTWM.De>,
> sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:39:59 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >John Bicketts wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
Oh, hi Ray, didn't expect to see your postings here.
1) Cooperations rarely plan to far into the future. Your example is
bullshit. If a lumber company didn't plant trees that wouldn't be ready for
20 to 30 yrs, then it have to plant trees that wouldn't be ready for 50 to
60 yrs. A logging company, by definition, must look at least 20 yrs ahead,
unless it wants to go out of buisness.
A better example would be the lack of investment in staple industries in
Britain, resulting in Britain lgging behind over countries, and lossing her
position as number one economy.
Also, the lack of diversification in British industry, the owners putting
"all their eggs in one basket", and so fucking the workers lives up when the
buisness goes bust and a whole town is beset by unemployment of about 70%.
This is compared to Japanese buisnesses, which have diversified, treated
their workforces well, etc., and as a result have strong home markets, and
control many export markets as well.
2) The USSR and East Germany WERE NEVER SOCIALIST, and therefore, to cite
their failures as proving the inability of socialism to deliver is fucking
stupid.
> Do you even _notice_ that the world is the opposite of what you claim? Or
> do you think that it is the real world which is wrong, and it is your
> theory which is right?
>
Do you ever open your mind to over peoples arguements? Or do you think that
other people don't really exist, they are just figments of your imagination,
and so their views are worthless.
Ray, your points above were as stupid as the ones posted in your arguement
against same-sex marriages. You accuse people of being closed minded, while
being the most closeded minded of all. You repeat your arguements over and
over again, while accusing others of not giving reasoned arguements.
Go away until you have learnt to open your mind a bit more.
CL
John Bicketts
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 01:57:54 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:51:59 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>Surely the workers will see it in their interest to create more
>>inventions, more labor-saving devices, more automation of drudge
>>tasks. Its as simple as that. And without the rich owning half the
>>nation's income, there would be a lot more money left to do it with.
>
>For once in history, workers will suddenly live only for the
>betterment of society, they won't slack off, worrying that they are
>working harder than the person next to them, and they are going to
>find inspiration in their trades. How do you accomplish this
>reprogramming?
>
>>--John Bicketts
Actualy, I dont expect them to. I see no reason why democratic
socialism requires everyone to just live for the betterment of
society. Why can't workers be payed more if they work more and less
if they slack off?
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 02:27:38 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:52:02 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>Would you mind saying exactly what's wrong with MY model?
>
>Your idea is all dream because it completely neglects human nature. A
>world where everyone is worried about pulling their load and making
>sure that things are fair will support this. But unfortunately, this
>is not the reality of this world. Yours system is better, because the
>people who make it up are better human beings, but again, that isn't
>the case here on planet Earth. Most people who feel the way you do
>say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
>happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
>anytime soon.
>
Not that "human nature" argument again. Is that the only problem you
can think of?
For one thing, as I say in another post, "human nature" is not
immutable, and humans can be as cooperative as they are competitive
(as amply demonstrated by man in his "natural condition", as a
hunter-gatherer).
For another, why do you stupidly assume we would give full pay to a
worker who refused to work? We could if we wanted to, but...
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 16:51:20 -0700, Harry <ha...@estrie.com> wrote:
>Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
> <snip>
> Most people who feel the way you do
>> say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
>> happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
>> anytime soon.
>>
> It's interesting to define "Human Nature" to suit your own arguements
>and then claim that it won't change. For many of us it is our nature to
>love our neighbours and to want to see everybody do well, no just
>ourselves. Are we not human? How do we know that this is not true
>human nature and you others have been corrupted by "competition taken
>to the extreme."
EXCELLENT!!!!! AND THANK YOU!!!! You are indeed the perfect example.
You're warm and fuzzy, but those EVIL GREEDY types (anyone who doesn't
see things your way) are corrupted by.....COMPETITION!!!! Maybe it's
possible (and convenient) for you to view things so narrowly.
But you see human nature all around you in the news. It's in wars,
it's in crime, it's in violence, it's in hypocrisy (both yours and
mine, no matter how hard we each try). It's nice to strive for the
things you mentioned, and we each as individuals believe that WE do,
but that damn other guy DOESN'T. Before you try another lame dodge
let me just tell you that it manifests itself in our work habits
(stealing, fucking off, abusing sick days, etc....) and our home lives
(stealing, cheating, violence, etc....). One corporate guy can fuck a
hundred thousand people, and a hundred thousand people can
individually fuck a company they work for, one they do business with,
or their neighbors. We are supposed to overcome these negative
traits, but no group of people are immune to having them, which you
could plainly see if you wanted to. Only seeing the bad in those you
disagree with doesn't help the human situation, and doesn't begin to
allow you to help humanity, which is what you seem to claim you want
to do.
> Regards, Harry
Mike Wooding
Herbert M Sauro wrote:
> Capitalist systems need regulation just like socialist ones, mainly to
> even out the supply and demand miss-matching. The depressions and
> stagnations that capitalist country expreience are a result of the miss
> management by governements or external factors (eg oil price) which are
> usually out of their control causing demand to go out of control (up or
> down). If supply and demon can be managed propoerly then I think
> capitalist counties would experience very few stagnations.
>
> Note the old adage: Markets are a good servant but a bad master.
Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
"capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
the market adjust it. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Barry Gaudet
John Bicketts (sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 01:57:54 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
[...]
: >For once in history, workers will suddenly live only for the
: >betterment of society, they won't slack off, worrying that they are
: >working harder than the person next to them, and they are going to
: >find inspiration in their trades. How do you accomplish this
: >reprogramming?
: Actualy, I dont expect them to. I see no reason why democratic
: socialism requires everyone to just live for the betterment of
: society. Why can't workers be payed more if they work more and less
: if they slack off?
It seems that you are describing a free markety system and calling it
socialist... interesting......
--
-the shambling wreck
'...always have, always will'
-King
Roger Dapson
John Bicketts wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 02:27:38 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:52:02 GMT,
> >sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
> >
> >
> >world where everyone is worried about pulling their load and making
> >sure that things are fair will support this. But unfortunately, this
> >is not the reality of this world. Yours system is better, because the
> >people who make it up are better human beings, but again, that isn't
> >say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
> >happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
> >anytime soon.
> >
>
> can think of?
> For one thing, as I say in another post, "human nature" is not
> immutable, and humans can be as cooperative as they are competitive
> (as amply demonstrated by man in his "natural condition", as a
> hunter-gatherer).
Please don't tell me you know about the characteristics exhibited by man
as a hunter-gather. "Human nature" has disrupted virtually every large
scale form of government that has ever been devised, including
socialism/communism.
Bill Reid
>Herbert M Sauro wrote:
>> Capitalist systems need regulation just like socialist ones, mainly to
>> even out the supply and demand miss-matching. The depressions and
>> stagnations that capitalist country expreience are a result of the miss
>> management by governements or external factors (eg oil price) which are
>> usually out of their control causing demand to go out of control (up or
>> down). If supply and demon can be managed propoerly then I think
>> capitalist counties would experience very few stagnations.
>>
>> Note the old adage: Markets are a good servant but a bad master.
>
> Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
> don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> "capitalism" really needs.
If that ethic was in place, it would no longer be capitalism.
>Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
> which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> the market adjust it. No?
I'd just prefer the master (a free market, i.e. the holders of wealth to
whatever extent they do) didn't do all the adjusting, especially if he's
handed an ethic of total selfishness to go along with it.
Charles Stewart
Ray Van Tassle <ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam> wrote:
> sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>> Wrong. Corporations are forced, by competition and the desire of their
>> stockholders for quick profits, to base everything on short-term
>> profit motives. Socialist corporations would produce for use rather
>> than profit. Therefore, they can be reasonable to the environment, to
>> workers, and to longer-term plans like R&D.
> Does it ever bother you to notice that the events in the real world play
> out the exact OPPOSITE of what you say will happen? Corporations focus
> very much on the long term. Example: The lumber companies replant trees
> that won't be ready to harvest for 20 or 30 years.
> And in ACTUAL FACT, in both the USSR and Eact Germany, industrial
> pollution was incredibly terrible.
In the existence of balance sheet accounting and futures markets,
there is no reason why the fact that a product takes many years to
realize means that such companies take a long term view. A logging
company may well be motivated only by short-term profits, and yet
still plant new trees.
Charles
Herbert M Sauro
In article <33BA93...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes
>Herbert M Sauro wrote:
>> Capitalist systems need regulation just like socialist ones, mainly to
>> even out the supply and demand miss-matching. The depressions and
>> stagnations that capitalist country expreience are a result of the miss
>> management by governements or external factors (eg oil price) which are
>> usually out of their control causing demand to go out of control (up or
>> down). If supply and demon can be managed propoerly then I think
>> capitalist counties would experience very few stagnations.
>>
>> Note the old adage: Markets are a good servant but a bad master.
>
> Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
> don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> the market adjust it. No?
>
interest rates even thougt the intention I think is to try and manage
demand. I have wondered why governments don't introduce a floating
consumption tax rate (purchase tax, VAT etc) which moves up and down
according to demand. At the moment in the UK demand is beginning to
outstrip supply which if unchecked will result in the usual British
disease of boom/bust. I can't understand why the government doesn't
simply use the VAT rate to take the heat out of cusumer spending.
Industry wouldn't be too effected, especially the export side. Once
demand starts to flatten out, down comes the floating VAT rate. By a mix
of interest rate and purchase tax changes, the violent swings that can
happen in unregulated capitilist systems would be evened out and all
would benefit in the long run.
What you say above might be right in general terms, i.e that markets
should be able to adjust themselves, but I think the UK has a peculiar
problem where the market hasn't in the past managed to adjust fast
enough to avoid damaging swings is economic activity. The problem might
stem from British governments over the past 50 years continually running
the country for political reasons rather than long term economics
reasons. For example the spending on Education and R&D by the UK state
is one of the lowest in the Western world, which may explain the root
cause of the UK's problems.
Herbert
Derek Nalecki
In article <33b6bead...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) says:
>
>>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:27:42 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:24:23 GMT, sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>PS, I think science will flourish even more under socialism, because
>>>>>if I had my say we'd fund scientific research a LOT more..
>>>>
>>>>Except that you wouldn't have money for it.
>>>
>>>No, we'd have more, because we wouldn't waste so much having rich
>>>people or making goods with planned-obsolescence, and many other
>>>reasons..
>>>--John Bicketts
>>
>>Your dreams are quite different from reality. But you should realize
>>that a dream is a dream, and nothing more.
>
>Kind of like democracy used to be? Hehe, if you think things never
>change, how come we dont have kings anymore?
And here I thought you called the corporate system "monarchical" just a
few days ago, Bicketts? Short memory? Or you just don't care about that
credibility-thing? No, perhaps it was another one of those 'argument of
the convienience of the moment' (tm), leftist so excell (little M$ lingo
here) in.
Derek Nalecki
In article <33b6bf0d...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) says:
>
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:39:59 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
>wrote:
>
>>John Bicketts wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:06:14 -0700, Lloyd Bryant <llo...@ibm.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> <<snipped>>
>>> >Oh really???? And just *how* are those companies going to pay the
>>> >scientists and engineers without the income from those temporary
>>> >monopolies? Without any profit incentive, why should a company spend
>>> >the bucks for R&D?
>>> >
>>>
>>> There wont BE companies, so I dont see the point of this....
>>
>>There will still be organizations that deal in the development,
>>marketing, and sales of products. Whether you call them "companies" or
>>"government agencies" or anything else is irrelevant - they will still
>>be subject to the economic constraints that current companies are. They
>>MUST earn more than they spend to survive. If these organizations are
>>limited in what they can earn, then they must reduce spending to
>>compensate. R&D, which has little short-term potential for increasing
>>earnings, will be the first thing cut from the budget.
>>
>
>stockholders for quick profits, to base everything on short-term
>profit motives. Socialist corporations would produce for use rather
>than profit. Therefore, they can be reasonable to the environment, to
>workers, and to longer-term plans like R&D.
Just like they were in Soviet Union?!? Right.
>And remember, all the money which today profits the head corporate
>honchos and investors would go to R&D or better pay...
All those profits are reinvested and create opporutnities, jobs, better
life for millions of people. Under socialism all profist go to a small
clique of hoodlums. Hardly a channel for improvement of, either economy
or human life.
>
>>> >A scientist or engineer is typically paid a good salary. In addition,
>>> >he/she generally requires assorted tools (computers, electronics, etc.)
>>> >in order to turn a raw idea into something patentable. Where is this
>>> >money supposed to come from? Government grants? Or do you propose a
>>> >complete end to scientific/technological research?
>>>
>>> Why are you even bothering to ask this? No, instead of the
>>> corporations paying the scientists and engineers, the socialist
>>> industries will. Simple enuff 4 u?
>>
>>Please explain the exact difference between your "socialist industry"
>>and a current corporation. As near as I can figure, the *only*
>>difference is that your socialist industry is a corporation that is 100%
>>owned by the government. Which means that the government will be
>>subject to the same temptations of exploitation that capitalist
>>corporations are. Same sh*t, different label...
>
>The difference is that they will be democratically worker-controlled,
>either by bottum-up worker councils or less direct election of top
>officials. Will the workers choose to exploit themselves? Uh-Uh.
Yes, and it will work just as well as the democratically elected governments
of the welfare states work today. And those elected in such a fashion will
be just as responsive to the views of the electors as the gangsta'gov
politicos are today.
We don't have to wait for your fantasy to become reality, Bicketts.
Everything you have ever proposed - you or any other socialist - have
already been tried. Admittedly not at the same time, but with the same
result = disaster. The only thing different in your proposals is to take
all those nigthmares and implement them *simultaneously*:
unresponsive mob-"democracy",
infantile economics,
clientelist political system,
and villeinage (property-denied) servitude of everyone outside of the
political clique in power.
Derek Nalecki
In article <33b6c1a9...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) says:
>
>On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:14:40 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:24:13 GMT,
>>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>>
>>>>The workers were very dissapointed about the ways things went and told us
>>>>the following:
>>>>"What is the use of working more if you are equally paid considerinq your
>>>>neighbour, who does nothing with the same wages. In former times, there
>>>>had been incentives for work, but now those are no longer existant."
>>>
>>>Well, I'm no expert on E.Germany, but if it's anything like the rest
>>>of the old Russian Bloc, I dont think it's exactly what I have in
>>>mind.
>>>
>>>Remmeber, I'm for the rule of the worker, not the state bureacrat. I
>>>believe in democracy, and reward for harder work.
>>
>>The person already made the point that what you just suggested had
>>been tried. And you once again made reference to rewarding some more
>>than others.
>
>
>OK , so it would- but not in grossly disproportionate fashion like
>now, and because of actual work done, rather than because you happen
>to already have tons of capital. -
Which represents actual work having been done, and proceeds frugally
accumulated by ... the capitalist.
Ed Seedhouse
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
> don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
> which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> the market adjust it. No?
On the contrary, it has been shown that pure unregulated markets do
not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
not themselves participants in those markets.
Ed Seedhouse
Victoria, B.C.
"One day when I'm old and gray
n' consider what's gone by,
I always will be proud
of every tear I ever cried.
And all of the old jokes we told
around the candlelight,
to all those tender damsels
who had helped us in the night" - G. Lightfoot
Divine...@pipeline.com
>On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 02:27:38 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:52:02 GMT,
>>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>>
>>>Would you mind saying exactly what's wrong with MY model?
>>
>>Your idea is all dream because it completely neglects human nature. A
>>world where everyone is worried about pulling their load and making
>>sure that things are fair will support this. But unfortunately, this
>>is not the reality of this world. Yours system is better, because the
>>people who make it up are better human beings, but again, that isn't
>>the case here on planet Earth. Most people who feel the way you do
>>say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
>>happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
>>anytime soon.
>>
>
>Not that "human nature" argument again. Is that the only problem you
>can think of?
Gee, just the one thing that will ensure your pie in the sky crashes
rather rapidly......
> For one thing, as I say in another post, "human nature" is not
>immutable, and humans can be as cooperative as they are competitive
CAN be, I agree to that......
>(as amply demonstrated by man in his "natural condition", as a
>hunter-gatherer).
And I believe we will again, once your utopian system crashes.
> For another, why do you stupidly assume we would give full pay to a
>worker who refused to work? We could if we wanted to, but...
Why do you STUPIDLY assume that you will also be big brother and spy
on everyone to ensure productivity? Go out and get a job, you will
see that some people WORK and some people SLACK. Don't you think the
evil corporate giants who (you say) are out fucking everyone would
FIRE slackers in a heartbeat??? They CAN'T find them any better than
your imaginary police in your imaginary utopia. Better men than you
have envisioned it. Sing along, everyone..... "Imagine all the
people, sharing all the world................
>>>>> >> > --John Bicketts
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 21:45:29 GMT,
sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 01:57:54 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:51:59 GMT,
>>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>>
>>>Surely the workers will see it in their interest to create more
>>>inventions, more labor-saving devices, more automation of drudge
>>>tasks. Its as simple as that. And without the rich owning half the
>>>nation's income, there would be a lot more money left to do it with.
>>
>>For once in history, workers will suddenly live only for the
>>betterment of society, they won't slack off, worrying that they are
>>working harder than the person next to them, and they are going to
>>find inspiration in their trades. How do you accomplish this
>>reprogramming?
>>
>>>--John Bicketts
>
>Actualy, I dont expect them to. I see no reason why democratic
>socialism requires everyone to just live for the betterment of
>society. Why can't workers be payed more if they work more and less
>if they slack off?
Since it's a dream, add anything you want. Utopia always works
between the ears.
>--John Bicketts
Lloyd Lawrence
NNTP-Posting-Host: merak.cc.umanitoba.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <5BF4936A9AFE434B.3710DD7F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
Xref: nic.wat.hookup.net talk.politics.theory:133333 alt.politics.economics:95365 can.politics:218986 man.politics:3806 alt.politics.socialism:15122 sci.econ:51913 talk.politics.libertarian:224727 misc.invest.stocks:208583
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Lloyd Bryant wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Lloyd Bryant wrote:
> > > Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
> > > The "evils of capitalism" that we see
> > > today aren't even pale imitations of what was happening at the beginning
> > > of the industrial revolution.
> > So what? Apparently, activism has improved the lives of all workers by
> > stopping some of the worst evils of capitalism. But there's plenty of
> > them still to be addressed.
> > > It wasn't socialist philosophers who
> > > brought the exploiters under control - it was a bunch of guys who banded
> > > together, and told the industrialists "give us more, or else".
> > You appear to be thinking of specific unions. Perhaps you'd share the
> > specifics of your thoughts, so that we can sort out the details of who
> > held the means of control.
> I'm thinking of just about ALL of the industrial unions (those that are
> connected to the AFL-CIO). Automotive, Steelworkers, Teamsters, etc.
> In short, a large percentage of all unions in this country.
It's a distortion of history to characterise any movement, or group
members of that movement, by selecting one factor in its emergence,
exaggerate it, and identify it with the rise of the movement. Conditions
of work, job security, job safety, income protection, hiring and firing
practices, and many other issues were also the basis of establishing all
the unions you've mentioned. Left to their own consciences, the
industrialists would continue to endanger the lives of their workers and
prey on their insecurities (as they're trying to do now).
> > > Then, as is usual in the course of human history, the unions in turn
> > > became the exploiters, taking more and more from the union members and
> > > giving less and less in return, until support for unions waned.
> > ..Definitely specific unions...
> Can you name any union that has been in existence more than 50 years
> that *hasn't* turned to exploiting the union members? The old "power
> corrupts" game...
It's not so much the concept of whether or not any particular union,
corporation, government, or non-profit organisation contains elements of
corruption and exploitation of its members. It's the idea that support for
unions in particular has waned because of this any more than support for
governments has waned (for e.g.) because of this. And it's the idea that
this is the main reason for the decrease in support for unions from their
members, or the general public. Fact is, the working population is now
philosophically more middle-liberal than middle-left. And this has more to
do with media propoganda, consumerism, and the enormous power of
commercial advertising than it has to do with any union record. Pavlovian
associationism and Skinnerian reinforcements drive the mainstream worker's
loyalty-rudder. And unions can't create the psychological stresses that
corporations can.
> > > They
> > > served their purpose, and have faded out somewhat. If and when they are
> > > *really* needed again, then they will regain their prominence.
> > ..Which suggests that corporate benificence is a satisfactory state and
> > every part-time employee is grateful for the unreliable hours, the
> > opportunity to "volunteer" overtime, the temperament of a dictator-boss,
> > the insecurity of the job,...
> You have unreliable hours? I don't. Most of the people I know don't.
Then you don't know anyone working for multinational supermarket chains.
There have been (and still are) some brutal strikes concerning guaranteed
hours here in Canada during the past 10 years. Also, many (if not all)
so-called "casual" jobs have unreliable hours, despite workers being
permanently on the payroll (but only paid when they get work of course).
> Corporate "benificence" has nothing to do with it - push people to the
> limit, and at the first opportunity they will jump ship to another job.
> Corporations that lose their best people don't last (it may take years
> before the "flood of talent" actually shows up in the balance sheet, but
> CEO's are *quite* aware of the danger represented by this problem).
As usual, this addresses those members of an elite who are considered
"important" to the corporation because of their "talent". It emphasises
the capitalist perspective on how workers are valued. But it ignores the
rank and file, who can't "jump ship" because they don't have such
"talent", because they're considered disposable, replaceable drones and
neither CEOs nor the balance sheet care if they leave.
> Corporations don't try to keep their employees happy/healthy because of
> their better nature - they do so because it is in their best interest
> (in the long term) to do so. And self-interest, unlike benificence, is
> quite reliable.
This was Adam Smith's basis for a theory of economics and it didn't
satisfactorily explain the distribution of wealth. It still doesn't. But
then, it's only a THEORY that self-interest is the rational expression of
human apprehension of Nature. Consider the result of proposing the
opposite, i.e. that self-interest is irrational in the face of the its
deleterious effects (historically) on public benefits (i.e. corruption,
dictatorships, etc). Then self-interest contradicts Nature and you know
where that leads...
> > > Net result - society is a self-regulating system. Temporary imbalances
> > > can and will occur. There's no reason to scrap the system because of
> > > them - it'll balance itself out. Maybe not enough to suit some people,
> > > but as long as the majority is willing to accept the result it'll do...
> > Those euphemism about "imbalances", "suit some people", stand for loss of
> > life and limbs, and sweatshop poverty...
> Companies *should* be held responsible for their actions. If a person
> is crippled while performing his/her job duties, then the employer
> should be held liable. This doesn't require a complete restructuring of
> government - just a court system that actually works...
This is a different argument altogether: it doesn't address social justice
and it tacitly ignores the fact that capitalist justice serves a
capitalist system. Tinkering with the court system maintains the status
quo, which continues to represent the capitalist machine that feeds it.
You won't get rid of sweatshop poverty through the court system.
> > > > (2) the post-feudal state described by Vico Giambattista (1688-1744) as
> > > > the "adulthood of humanity" and part of the evolution towards democracy
> > > > through class struggle;
> > > >
> > > > ...are you following so far?
> > > Except that full-blown Socialism is a spur to anti-democratic forces.
> > > Anytime you concentrate power, you tempt individuals into misusing it.
> > > If you place ALL the power currently possessed by property owners in the
> > > hands of a government (any government, I don't care HOW it's organized),
> > > then unscrupulous individuals will seek to gain control of that power.
> > > That's human nature, which is something that socialist theory has never
> > > seemed to grasp.
> > That's just what I was thinking about free-market theories, which all
> > advocate a government protection of individual rights to property. The
> > same control argument applies. Except that socialism advocates control by
> > the whole population of workers, not government.
> Now who's playing semantic games? The "whole population of workers"
> cannot control anything - there are just too many people. You plan on
> holding a general election over every minor issue? The trick isn't to
> try and have the whole population running things, but to have a system
> that requires a minimum of management. You can't do that with Socialism
> - by it's nature, it requires an all-powerful central government (or
> Soviet, or Collective, or whatever label you attach to it).
In the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is contained the concept
of mass democratic rule - democratic socialism. It's a process, not an
end-product. Representation is necessary, but not institutionally.
Control of the means of production is the primary control. Decisions
relating to this can be made by referendum. As a process, centralised
government is only a transitional requirement towards this kind of
socialism.
-lloyd
Mike Wooding
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> > Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
> > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
> > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> > the market adjust it. No?
>
> On the contrary, it has been shown that pure unregulated markets do
> not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
> participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
> that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
> value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
> a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
> can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
I'm not at all familiar with this "evidence." However, it is by
no means clear that the accuracy of one's judgements over time
as a person fares any worse than the accuracy of "institutional"
judgements. Mr. Ed Seedhouse seems to subscribe to the theory
that people aren't capable of running their own lives ... which
leaves one wondering who is capable of running eveyone's lives
for them?
> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
> not themselves participants in those markets.
No such evidence has been forthcoming.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Mike Wooding
Herbert M Sauro wrote:
> In article <33BA93...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes
> >Herbert M Sauro wrote:
> >> Capitalist systems need regulation just like socialist ones, mainly to
> >> even out the supply and demand miss-matching. The depressions and
> >> stagnations that capitalist country expreience are a result of the miss
> >> management by governements or external factors (eg oil price) which are
> >> usually out of their control causing demand to go out of control (up or
> >> down). If supply and demon can be managed propoerly then I think
> >> capitalist counties would experience very few stagnations.
> > Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
> > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
> > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> > the market adjust it. No?
> In the UK, supply management is largely done by changing the level of
> interest rates even thougt the intention I think is to try and manage
> demand.
And I'm sure it's all done with the conviction that something must
be done to bring order to the chaos of people doing whatever it is
that suits them. It often seems though that attempts to regulate
markets seem to fall far short of their expectations and create an
entire set of new and unforseen problems. Would that be a fair
assesment of how market regulation has worked in the UK?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
John Bicketts
Do I detect a note of desperation here, bud? I refute your argument
here, and state ways that socialism is practical, and the best
response you can make is this?
Actually, I've been hearing a lot of "this is a drea,, it'll never
work" responses lately, without really adequate explanations of WHY.
Is this your way of admitting your stumped?
John Bicketts
On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 03:00:30 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 21:45:40 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 02:27:38 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:52:02 GMT,
>>>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Would you mind saying exactly what's wrong with MY model?
>>>
>>>Your idea is all dream because it completely neglects human nature. A
>>>world where everyone is worried about pulling their load and making
>>>sure that things are fair will support this. But unfortunately, this
>>>is not the reality of this world. Yours system is better, because the
>>>people who make it up are better human beings, but again, that isn't
>>>the case here on planet Earth. Most people who feel the way you do
>>>say that because the proposed system will be fair, people will be
>>>happy, productive, etc...... But human nature is not due to change
>>>anytime soon.
>>>
>>
>>Not that "human nature" argument again. Is that the only problem you
>>can think of?
>
>Gee, just the one thing that will ensure your pie in the sky crashes
>rather rapidly......
The one thing? Uh-uh, I think your in trouble then, if thats what your
counting on.
>
>> For one thing, as I say in another post, "human nature" is not
>>immutable, and humans can be as cooperative as they are competitive
>
>CAN be, I agree to that......
>
>>(as amply demonstrated by man in his "natural condition", as a
>>hunter-gatherer).
>
>And I believe we will again, once your utopian system crashes.
Aint utopian- demonstrate how it is. Or are you just yelling to
yourself for fun?
>
>> For another, why do you stupidly assume we would give full pay to a
>>worker who refused to work? We could if we wanted to, but...
>
>Why do you STUPIDLY assume that you will also be big brother and spy
>on everyone to ensure productivity?
Gee, thats what many corporations do, spy on workers...
No, I dont think "Big Brother" spying is a good idea. Would the
workers approve of it? Unliley
Go out and get a job, you will
>see that some people WORK and some people SLACK. Don't you think the
>evil corporate giants who (you say) are out fucking everyone would
>FIRE slackers in a heartbeat??? They CAN'T find them any better than
>your imaginary police in your imaginary utopia.
So if capitalism and socialism supposedly both have this problem,
what's your point? Why does that bode ill for socialism?
Better men than you
>have envisioned it. Sing along, everyone..... "Imagine all the
>people, sharing all the world................
>
Don
sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>Aint utopian- demonstrate how it is. Or are you just yelling to
>yourself for fun?
John. John. John. Your proposals are quintessentially utopian. Have
you not ever read More's Utopia? In case you haven't, the very word
"utopia" means "no place". The first objection that More raises in
the conversation with the proponent of socialism is that it could
never work because there are perverse incentives and disincentives
that would discourage productivity. To this, Raphael, the proponent of
socialism responds that More only says this because he has never seen
the system in action. Raphael then goes on to explain how the perfect
socialist society, an island off the coast of Florida named Utopia, is
constructed. But of course, there is no such place and there really
is no example of a functioning socialist society that can stand for
more than a few generations before it falls completely apart.
There have been innumerable socialist communities throughout history,
many of them in the US. They all failed. You argue that Socialism
has never failed because "true" Socialism has never been tried.
Baloney! True socialism has never been "tried" because it is just too
damned hard to implement.
Socialism assumes that people will change their basic nature in
response to this benign tyranny that you advocate. That makes it
utopian. A proper social system bases all of its assumptions upon
people as they are and merely tries to nudge them into constructive
behavior through incentives and disincentives.
As an economic system Socialism has been so thoroughly discredited in
both theory and practice that for a long time I thought you were some
kind of libertarian prankster who was just having fun at our expense.
Now I believe you are sincere and I can only scratch my head in mute
disbelief.
Read Aristotle's Politics. He had this all figured out a long time
ago. Read Freud's criticism of Marx. Read Hayek's analysis of
socialism's inability to determine correct supply and demand. Even
Plato abandoned his socialistic tendancies once he realized that
finding a philosopher-king to run things was a lot harder than it
seemed. Get the viewpoints of philosophers who have analyzed this
subject deeply and rationally.
The French have a saying: He who is not a Socialist at 20 has no
heart; he who is still a Socialist at 40 has no head.
How old are you, John?
Don
Ray Van Tassle
> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
> > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
> > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> > the market adjust it. No?
>
> On the contrary, it has been shown that pure unregulated markets do
> not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
> participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
> that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
> value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
> a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
> can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
>
> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
> not themselves participants in those markets.
And, of course, you are to be one of those who will control other peoples
lives, because they cannot make accurate judgements as to what is in their
own interest. How magnanimous of you!
>
>
> Ed Seedhouse
> Victoria, B.C.
>
> "One day when I'm old and gray
> n' consider what's gone by,
> I always will be proud
> of every tear I ever cried.
> And all of the old jokes we told
> around the candlelight,
> to all those tender damsels
> who had helped us in the night" - G. Lightfoot
Divine...@pipeline.com
>>Since it's a dream, add anything you want. Utopia always works
>>between the ears.
>
>Do I detect a note of desperation here, bud? I refute your argument
>here, and state ways that socialism is practical, and the best
>response you can make is this?
If you have instituted it, and it is successful, you have refuted it.
>Actually, I've been hearing a lot of "this is a drea,, it'll never
>work" responses lately, without really adequate explanations of WHY.
>Is this your way of admitting your stumped?
The old theory vs reality thing.
>>>--John Bicketts
Herbert M Sauro
In article <33C00D...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes
>Herbert M Sauro wrote:
>> In article <33BA93...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes
>> >Herbert M Sauro wrote:
>> >> Capitalist systems need regulation just like socialist ones, mainly to
>> >> even out the supply and demand miss-matching. The depressions and
>> >> stagnations that capitalist country expreience are a result of the miss
>> >> management by governements or external factors (eg oil price) which are
>> >> usually out of their control causing demand to go out of control (up or
>> >> down). If supply and demon can be managed propoerly then I think
>> >> capitalist counties would experience very few stagnations.
>
>> > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
>> > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
>> > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
>> > the market adjust it. No?
>
>> interest rates even thougt the intention I think is to try and manage
>> demand.
>
> And I'm sure it's all done with the conviction that something must
> be done to bring order to the chaos of people doing whatever it is
> that suits them. It often seems though that attempts to regulate
> markets seem to fall far short of their expectations and create an
> entire set of new and unforseen problems. Would that be a fair
> assesment of how market regulation has worked in the UK?
>
individuals making decisions and driving the market. We all benefit in
the long run from such behaviour. It's just that in the UK we seem to go
round and round the boom/bust cycle with very few periods of steady
stable growth and is no wonder that the UK is slowly slipping behind
other western countries. Maybe you are right that a complete hand-off
approach would eventually work because although initially the violent
swings would occur they would probably over time damp down. Since
economics is not a repeatable science one can never know for sure which
is the right direction to take. I am sure that Economic systems are
highly non-linear systems, probably chaotic and in consequence perhaps
almost uncontrollable, and certainly unpredicable. I would therefore
agree that the prodding I suggest could do more harm that good but
compared to the present situation it might be worth the experiment.
JMH
Ray Van Tassle wrote:
>
> In article <33bc772e....@news.islandnet.com>, e...@islandnet.com wrote:
>
> > Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
> > > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
> > > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
> > > the market adjust it. No?
> >
> > not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
> > participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
> > that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
> > value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
> > a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
> > can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
> >
> > There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
> > beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
> > not themselves participants in those markets.
There is also plenty of evidence of the oposite.
For an historical account, an article in the Journal of Political
Economy a few years back which looked at variour Trade and Merchant
Guild policies found that the policies were more consistent with
the promotion of higher quality and lower costs than with monopolistic
or cartel profit maximization.
Such things as court-made laws, common law rules, or various forms of
industry standards for acceptible behavior--such found in many
professions--
and even a number of local laws and customs are "self" imposed and
enforced,
i.e. by the participants involved, and serve to mediate potential
conflicts
of interest for the general good.
JMH
--
"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
Montaigne
Ed Seedhouse
ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
>> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
>> not themselves participants in those markets.
>And, of course, you are to be one of those who will control other peoples
>lives, because they cannot make accurate judgements as to what is in their
Mr. Von Tassle can only reply with lies about the personal morality of
someone who has the temerity to disagree with him, I see. I say lies
because he shows a reckless disregard for finding out whether I am in
fact such a person as he accuses me of being but spouts off anyway.
He won't check his facts before telling the lie because,presumably, of
the extreme danger (in fact certainty in this particular case) that he
would be proven wrong about me.
Can't disprove what someone says? No matter, simply tell lies about
his character!! What a high level of morality Mr. Von Tassle
subscribes to, eh?
Ed Seedhouse
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>> ...it has been shown that pure unregulated markets do
>> not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
>> participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
>> that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
>> value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
>> a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
>> can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
> I'm not at all familiar with this "evidence."
This is hardly surprising from someone who only looks for evidence
that supports his belief system and ignores any that doesn't.
> However, it is by
> no means clear that the accuracy of one's judgements over time
> as a person fares any worse than the accuracy of "institutional"
> judgements.
Whatever that means, it does not have anything to do with what I
stated.
> Mr. Ed Seedhouse seems to subscribe to the theory
> that people aren't capable of running their own lives
Mr. Wooding is simply setting up straw men. I of course believe
nothing of the sort, nor did what I said imply that in any way. But
it is an experimental fact that people do not correctly evaluate the
outcome of two economic events widely separated in time.
>> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
>> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
>> not themselves participants in those markets.
> No such evidence has been forthcoming.
The evidence is available to anyone who is willing to look for it
instead of allowing himself to be blinded by an ideology that ignores
any evidence that contradicts it's pretty little theories. Mr.
Wooding has made all sorts of assertions without benefit of evidence,
presumably on the grounds that if he believes it it must therefore be
true. But when someone else does the same thing he demurs. Very
rational.
Steven Hales
Please remove sci.econ from the distribution I've already trimmed this
message. Comeon guys and gals (but I think it is mostly guys) have a
heart. If I see Socialism, understanding what it is... one more time
I'm going to scream because it is so far from its subject its bizarre.
The size of this thread and its offspring boggles. I've seen some long
incoherent, non-sequitor threads before but this one is really bizzare.
:-)
Bill Reid
In article <rayvt-07079...@dd358.comm.mot.com>,
ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>In article <33bc772e....@news.islandnet.com>, e...@islandnet.com wrote:
>
>> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
>> > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
>> > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
>> > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
>> > the market adjust it. No?
>>
>> On the contrary, it has been shown that pure unregulated markets do
>> not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
>> participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
>> that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
>> value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
>> a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
>> can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
>> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
>> not themselves participants in those markets.
>
>And, of course, you are to be one of those who will control other peoples
>lives, because they cannot make accurate judgements as to what is in their
>own interest. How magnanimous of you!
In a free market people are only allowed to "make accurate judgements as
to what is in their own interest" to the extent they can afford to.
Contrary to popular religion, a free market does not dis-impose
limitations upon people.
Victor Levis
Bill Reid <br...@din.com> wrote in article
<breid-09079...@pm2-86.orf.infi.net>...
> In article <rayvt-07079...@dd358.comm.mot.com>,
> ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>
> >In article <33bc772e....@news.islandnet.com>, e...@islandnet.com
wrote:
> >
> >> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
> >> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
> >> not themselves participants in those markets.
> >
> >And, of course, you are to be one of those who will control other peoples
> >lives, because they cannot make accurate judgements as to what is in
their
> >own interest. How magnanimous of you!
>
> In a free market people are only allowed to "make accurate judgements as
> to what is in their own interest" to the extent they can afford to.
That's silly. They can make all manner of judgments. I judge for example
that a Mercedes is worth more than a Lexus. Now, if I want to purchase a
Mercedes I expect to have to compensate the people who made it for my
benefit. I don't expect to be able to dictate that they MUST provide me
with this Mercedes nor at what price they MUST offer it (though I can
decline to buy it if I find it more than I'm able or willing to pay).
> Contrary to popular religion, a free market does not dis-impose
> limitations upon people.
The limit would be to respect the 'free' in free-market. Of course, if
everyone is free, then everyone can decide what and when to produce, so
there is no way to simply DEMAND that stuff be made available without
abandoning the commitment to freedom. Which is not to say that an 'unfree'
system is logically impossible, because obviously it IS possible to have
one. But I think most people hold a moral that prefers freedom to slavery.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Mike Wooding
> > be done to bring order to the chaos of people doing whatever it is
> > that suits them. It often seems though that attempts to regulate
> > markets seem to fall far short of their expectations and create an
> > entire set of new and unforseen problems. Would that be a fair
> > assesment of how market regulation has worked in the UK?
> >
> I am very much in favour (in fact would definetely encourage it) of
> individuals making decisions and driving the market. We all benefit in
> the long run from such behaviour. It's just that in the UK we seem to go
> round and round the boom/bust cycle with very few periods of steady
> stable growth and is no wonder that the UK is slowly slipping behind
> other western countries. Maybe you are right that a complete hand-off
> approach would eventually work because although initially the violent
> swings would occur they would probably over time damp down. Since
> economics is not a repeatable science one can never know for sure which
> is the right direction to take. I am sure that Economic systems are
> highly non-linear systems, probably chaotic and in consequence perhaps
> almost uncontrollable, and certainly unpredicable. I would therefore
> agree that the prodding I suggest could do more harm that good but
> compared to the present situation it might be worth the experiment.
Oddly enuf, one would think that in the UK of all places,
the problem of regulating stability into the market would
be understood. It seems that since WWII, the UK market has
come to be increasingly "regulated" while its "colony" in
HongKong was ingored as an un-wanted step child. Mr. Herbert
M Sauro characterizes the UK economy as slipping behind other
Western economies, while HK seems to be a poster child for
the relatively free (more or less un-regulated) market.
It's often claimed that markets are "unstable" ... but then
the "regulatory systems" are unstable as well. Surely we have
more instability in political systems than in markets and with
far more dire consequences. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Ed Seedhouse
JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>> > There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
>> > beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
>> > not themselves participants in those markets.
>There is also plenty of evidence of the oposite.
If so, "JMH" doesn't provide any.
>For an historical account
In other words, a piece of propaganda. I was referring, on the other
hand, to properly conducted studies published in peer reviewed
scientific journals, and an article, with references to those
journals, that was published in the magazine "The Sciences" several
years ago. The fundamental underlying assumption of lassez faire
(spelling?) capitalist models (and we are talking about the
mathematical models that economists use to support their conclusions)
is that people act consistently in virtually all situations to
maximize the "marginal utility" of their decisions. This has been
shown experimentally to be an invalid assumption because the referred
studies show that people consistently misjudge the marginal utility of
certain decisions, namely those about events in the fairly distant
future. People consistently underestimate the present value of future
events.
The conclusion reached in the article was not that markets do not
work, but that in order for markets to work well their rules must be
adjusted to take into account this observed fact of human behaviour.
Since people's inability to judge marginal utility is predictable it
is possible to so adjust markets by adjusting the rules that govern
them. That is, to make markets work most efficiently they must be
properly regulated.
Bill Reid
In article <01bc8c71$c04b88a0$0bac9a8e@viclevis>, "Victor Levis"
<vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>Bill Reid <br...@din.com> wrote in article
><breid-09079...@pm2-86.orf.infi.net>...
>
>> In article <rayvt-07079...@dd358.comm.mot.com>,
>> ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van Tassle) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <33bc772e....@news.islandnet.com>, e...@islandnet.com
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
>> >> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
>> >> not themselves participants in those markets.
>> >
>> >And, of course, you are to be one of those who will control other peoples
>> >lives, because they cannot make accurate judgements as to what is in
>their
>> >own interest. How magnanimous of you!
>>
>> In a free market people are only allowed to "make accurate judgements as
>> to what is in their own interest" to the extent they can afford to.
>
>That's silly. They can make all manner of judgments. I judge for example
>that a Mercedes is worth more than a Lexus. Now, if I want to purchase a
>Mercedes I expect to have to compensate the people who made it for my
>benefit. I don't expect to be able to dictate that they MUST provide me
>with this Mercedes nor at what price they MUST offer it (though I can
>decline to buy it if I find it more than I'm able or willing to pay).
So by "that's silly" you mean my statement is self-evident?
>> Contrary to popular religion, a free market does not dis-impose
>> limitations upon people.
>
>The limit would be to respect the 'free' in free-market. Of course, if
>everyone is free, then everyone can decide what and when to produce, so
>there is no way to simply DEMAND that stuff be made available without
>abandoning the commitment to freedom.
A free market does not guarantee an infinite supply of capital to everyone
such that everyone may simply "decide what and when to produce." Lack of
access to capital (in all its forms), e.g., definitely constitutes one
kind of limitation imposed by free markets. (Alternative systems may
distribute access to capital differently.)
> Which is not to say that an 'unfree'
>system is logically impossible, because obviously it IS possible to have
>one. But I think most people hold a moral that prefers freedom to slavery.
. . . and likewise empowerment over dis-empowerment, etc.
JMH
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>
> JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >> > There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
> >> > beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
> >> > not themselves participants in those markets.
>
>
> If so, "JMH" doesn't provide any.
>
> >For an historical account
And this wasn't "any" evidence?!
The other areas I suggested you consider offer no insights?!
> In other words, a piece of propaganda. I was referring, on the other
> hand, to properly conducted studies published in peer reviewed
> scientific journals, and an article, with references to those
> journals, that was published in the magazine "The Sciences" several
And here we find Ed claiming that arguable *the* premere economic
journal, the _Journal of Political Economy_, isn't a peer reviewed,
scientific journal.
And I'm the one throwing propaganda around.
> years ago. The fundamental underlying assumption of lassez faire
> (spelling?) capitalist models (and we are talking about the
> mathematical models that economists use to support their conclusions)
> is that people act consistently in virtually all situations to
> maximize the "marginal utility" of their decisions. This has been
> shown experimentally to be an invalid assumption because the referred
> studies show that people consistently misjudge the marginal utility of
> certain decisions, namely those about events in the fairly distant
> future. People consistently underestimate the present value of future
> events.
But this doesn't prove anything, nor was it a point I contested.
The only thing I said on this issue was that if people make these
errors in a laissez faire setting what makes them do better in
some other setting?
The fact that people has something which might be called systematic
errors in their expectations only shows one of two things--though I
guest others might think of additional issue to add to the list:
a) rational expectations is not a feature of the real world, but
simply one found in our models of the real world, or b) there is
some reason why--perhaps risk-aversion--people systematically under
estimate the value of future events/outcomes.
One might think that imposing a rational expectations restriction
in a model might be valuable to remove the posibility of realying
on some ad hoc explanation of why a failed model is still "valid."
It's not clear that our inability to accurately estimate the
value of future events give us any insight to a persons behavior.
The might be under estimating a good, so acting in a way to maximize
short-term gains not long-term gains. Conversely, they might be
under estimating the costs and risks (counting their chickens before
they hatch) and so maximizing long-term loses. These errors
in expectations and valuations of future events can make people
either myopic or long-term "dreamers."
Fianlly, claims about the consistency of "rational man" are not claims
that he will consistently be correct about future events of which
he can have no real knowledge, only expectations. It is a claim that
behavior is consistent with the expectations and that claim is largely
tautological since we have not way of observing anyone's expectations;
we only get to observe actual behavior and infer the pychological state
from that behavior.
> The conclusion reached in the article was not that markets do not
> work, but that in order for markets to work well their rules must be
> adjusted to take into account this observed fact of human behaviour.
> Since people's inability to judge marginal utility is predictable it
> is possible to so adjust markets by adjusting the rules that govern
> them. That is, to make markets work most efficiently they must be
> properly regulated.
And just who is going to make these adjustments?
Also, since when were markets intended to produce accurate
measures of anyone's marginal utility? They can only reflect
people's own assessments of those values. Since it will be
people who think up and insitute the regulations why are
these people in any better position to evaluate marginal
utility?
Don't you see the inconsistency in you claims here?
Mike Wooding
> >> not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
> >> participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
> >> that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
> >> value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
> >> a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
> >> can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
>
>
> This is hardly surprising from someone who only looks for evidence
> that supports his belief system and ignores any that doesn't.
It is hardly surprising that Mr.Ed Seedhouse declines my invitation
to produce some of this evidence.
> > However, it is by
> > no means clear that the accuracy of one's judgements over time
> > as a person fares any worse than the accuracy of "institutional"
> > judgements.
>
> Whatever that means, it does not have anything to do with what I
> stated.
Basically it means that Mr.Ed Seedhouse doesn't trust market
decisions but does trust "regulatory institutions." I cannot
fathom whence this trust arise, and he gives no clues.
> > Mr. Ed Seedhouse seems to subscribe to the theory
> > that people aren't capable of running their own lives
>
> Mr. Wooding is simply setting up straw men. I of course believe
> nothing of the sort, nor did what I said imply that in any way. But
> it is an experimental fact that people do not correctly evaluate the
> outcome of two economic events widely separated in time.
It's not straw man ... it's implicit in this position that
markets need to be regulated for stability.
> >> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
> >> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
> >> not themselves participants in those markets.
>
> > No such evidence has been forthcoming.
>
> The evidence is available to anyone who is willing to look for it
> instead of allowing himself to be blinded by an ideology that ignores
> any evidence that contradicts it's pretty little theories. Mr.
> Wooding has made all sorts of assertions without benefit of evidence,
> presumably on the grounds that if he believes it it must therefore be
> true. But when someone else does the same thing he demurs. Very
> rational.
I'm not the one claiming all the evidence. If it is there for the
looking then it will not be that difficult to produce it. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
John Bicketts
On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:22:13 -0500, ra...@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van
Tassle) wrote:
>In article <33bc772e....@news.islandnet.com>, e...@islandnet.com wrote:
>
>> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, actually, other than "do whatever you want as long as you
>> > don't hurt others" it's not really clear what sorts of regulation
>> > "capitalism" really needs. Surely there's no sort of "regulation"
>> > which can adjust demand and supply ... at least not better than
>> > the market adjust it. No?
>>
>> On the contrary, it has been shown that pure unregulated markets do
>> not necessarily act to the long term benefit of even those who
>> participate in the markets. It has also been shown experimentally
>> that people cannot in general make accurate judgements of the relative
>> value of two outcomes separated by significant lengths of time. It is
>> a fundamental underlying axiom of "free market" economics that people
>> can and do do this, but it has been shown expermentally to be wrong.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence that markets, to be successful and
>> beneficial to humanity at large, must be regulated by people who are
>> not themselves participants in those markets.
>
>And, of course, you are to be one of those who will control other peoples
>lives, because they cannot make accurate judgements as to what is in their
>own interest. How magnanimous of you!
Err, um, doesnt democracy count?
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
John Bicketts
On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:57:10 GMT, Divine...@pipeline.com wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 22:10:07 GMT,
>sfei...@SPAMMERS.DIE.DIE.DIEmach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>
>>>Since it's a dream, add anything you want. Utopia always works
>>>between the ears.
>>
>>Do I detect a note of desperation here, bud? I refute your argument
>>here, and state ways that socialism is practical, and the best
>>response you can make is this?
>
>If you have instituted it, and it is successful, you have refuted it.
There's a first time for everything; And before that first time, you
have to use speculation, and evaluate the potential pros and cons that
way.
>
>>Actually, I've been hearing a lot of "this is a drea,, it'll never
>>work" responses lately, without really adequate explanations of WHY.
>>Is this your way of admitting your stumped?
>
>The old theory vs reality thing.
>
>>>>--John Bicketts
Actually, I think it' very ironic that a libertarian (you are one,
aren't you? I get you all confused) would use this sort of argument.
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com