Re: Why Isn't Socialism Dead?
Greg Goss
>On Dec 14, 11:00�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson �<ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 14, 2:46�pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > The quest for profits. �If Irish reqources can't be pofitably used for
>> >> > farming, use them for industry and import food. �But, oops, the Corn
>> >> > Laws prevent food imports...
>>
>> >> Couldn't pay for 'em anyway. No money. Stupid.
>>
>> >Borrow money and build a factory.
>>
>> No lenders, idiot.
>
>
>No one in the world has money??? You need a quite unrealistic
>scenario to prevent development in your ideology...
Not if you're broke. The people with the money don't loan it to
peasants with nothing.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Shawn Wilson
> >> >> Couldn't pay for 'em anyway. No money. Stupid.
>
> >> >Borrow money and build a factory.
>
> >> No lenders, idiot.
>
> >No one in the world has money??? You need a quite unrealistic
> >scenario to prevent development in your ideology...
>
> Not if you're broke. The people with the money don't loan it to
> peasants with nothing.
Snicker. Congratulations, you just proved that Vietnam (and every
other 3rd world country...) has no factories.
Development is aparently inpossible in the world you live in. If you
have no wealth you can't ever attract capital to build wealth.
In the REAL WORLD, low wages are a positive reason to build a factory
there. Thus does development happen.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 27, 8:00�am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>
>> >> >> Couldn't pay for 'em anyway. No money. Stupid.
>>
>> >> >Borrow money and build a factory.
>>
>> >> No lenders, idiot.
>>
>> >No one in the world has money??? �You need a quite unrealistic
>> >scenario to prevent development in your ideology...
>>
>> Not if you're broke. �The people with the money don't loan it to
>> peasants with nothing.
>
>Snicker. Congratulations, you just proved that Vietnam (and every
Go away, moron. You're obviously just a wingnut idiot who doesn't
know shit about anything but will lie about it anyway.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Yap
> Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 11:00 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 14, 2:46 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > The quest for profits. If Irish reqources can't be pofitably used for
> >> >> > farming, use them for industry and import food. But, oops, the Corn
> >> >> > Laws prevent food imports...
>
> >> >> Couldn't pay for 'em anyway. No money. Stupid.
>
> >> >Borrow money and build a factory.
>
> >> No lenders, idiot.
>
> >No one in the world has money??? You need a quite unrealistic
> >scenario to prevent development in your ideology...
>
> Not if you're broke. The people with the money don't loan it to
> peasants with nothing.
> --
> Tomorrow is today already.
> Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
So, why does socialism still is alive and well today?
You mean people with money lend it to peasants in the capitalist
countries?
Shawn Wilson
> > >> >> Couldn't pay for 'em anyway. No money. Stupid.
>
> > >> >Borrow money and build a factory.
>
> > >> No lenders, idiot.
>
> > >No one in the world has money??? You need a quite unrealistic
> > >scenario to prevent development in your ideology...
>
> > Not if you're broke. The people with the money don't loan it to
> > peasants with nothing.
No, they build the factory with their own money (foreign investment)
and hire the locals to work in it. Though lending to governments of
poor countries is a multi-squillion dollar enterprise. THAT never
works though. Dictators merely steal it all. Doesn't help anyone but
them. ... And the bureaucrats who congratulate themselves for
'helping poor people' without considering whether they actually get
helped. After WWII the US lent tons of money to poor countries. But
these were European and they paid it back.
James A. Donald
<hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, why does socialism still is alive and well today?
It alive, but not well, unless you measure its health in
the suffering and poverty of those it humiliates and
degrades.
Todays's fans of socialism pretend to capitalism - thus
a world central plan for the economy is decorated as
carbon "credit trading".
The changing character of socialist lies reveals we are winning the
intellectual battle, as we won the cold war.
Lord Calvert
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:06:57 -0800 (PST), Yap
>
> > So, why does socialism still is alive and well today?
>
> It alive, but not well, unless you measure its health in
> the suffering and poverty of those it humiliates and
> degrades.
>
> Todays's fans of socialism pretend to capitalism - thus
> a world central plan for the economy is decorated as
> carbon "credit trading".
>
> The changing character of socialist lies reveals we are winning the
> intellectual battle, as we won the cold war.
It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party in the
US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese Communist Party.
The ties between the Christian Right and the CCP are so strong that it
was one of the major factors behind the disappearance of genuine
limited-government conservatives in the Republican Party...which in
turn led to Obama's election. If the Christian Right wasn't so
staunchly pro-China, they would likely still be in power nationally
today because the limited-government wing of the party wouldn't have
been driven out.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"The great decisions of government cannot be dictated by the concerns
of religious factions. This was true in the days of Madison, and it is
just as true today. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the
affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of
religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that
separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values
upon which the framers built this democratic republic." - Sen. Barry
Goldwater (R-AZ), 16 September 1981
James A. Donald
wrote:
On Dec 28, 10:52 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > The changing character of socialist lies reveals we are winning the
> > intellectual battle, as we won the cold war.
Lord Calvert
> It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party in the
> US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese Communist Party.
"Communism with Chinese characteristics", which looks remarkably like
capitalism with authoritarian characteristics.
In the recent climate talks, China saved the world.
ZnU
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:06:57 -0800 (PST), Yap
> <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, why does socialism still is alive and well today?
>
> It alive, but not well, unless you measure its health in
> the suffering and poverty of those it humiliates and
> degrades.
>
> Todays's fans of socialism pretend to capitalism - thus
> a world central plan for the economy is decorated as
> carbon "credit trading".
Cap-and-trade consists of the government essentially creating a new type
of property and allowing the market to determine how it should be
allocated.
Your rejection of it is typical; when libertarians say they want market
solutions, what they really mean is that they want the government to
enforce a particular set of property rights they happen to find
beneficial to themselves.
> The changing character of socialist lies reveals we are winning the
> intellectual battle, as we won the cold war.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Constantinople
> On Dec 28, 10:52 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:06:57 -0800 (PST), Yap
>
> > <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, why does socialism still is alive and well today?
>
> > It alive, but not well, unless you measure its health in
> > the suffering and poverty of those it humiliates and
> > degrades.
>
> > Todays's fans of socialism pretend to capitalism - thus
> > a world central plan for the economy is decorated as
> > carbon "credit trading".
>
> > The changing character of socialist lies reveals we are winning the
> > intellectual battle, as we won the cold war.
>
> It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party in the
> US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese Communist Party.
What an odd thing to say, given the abandonment of communism and the
adoption of capitalism under Deng, and the subsequent economic
recovery which continues today. It was hard to miss. How does one go
through life as a human being and not know about this?
James A. Donald
> > It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party in the
> > US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese Communist Party.
Constantinople
> What an odd thing to say, given the abandonment of communism and the
> adoption of capitalism under Deng, and the subsequent economic
> recovery which continues today. It was hard to miss. How does one go
> through life as a human being and not know about this?
These days, capitalism primarily is run from tax and regulatory
havens. In that China is less hostile to tax havens, or less
effectual in preventing them, China is the most capitalist major
nation.
James A. Donald
> These days, capitalism primarily is run from tax and regulatory
> havens.
Used to be capitalism was primarily run from New York. There are many
reasons for this change.
In my judgment, one of the major causes of the change is SoX. The
intent of SoX was to make company accounts reflect the truth, but of
course the actual effect was to make them reflect the legal truth,
thereby utterly severing any contact between accounting reality, and
the actual state of the business. Thus it is now unwise to invest in
companies subject to SoX, since the real state of those companies is
opaque. Indeed, it is difficult even for management to know.
James A. Donald
<z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> Cap-and-trade consists of the government essentially
> creating a new type of property and allowing the
> market to determine how it should be allocated.
Everything that involves energy or vegetation would be
subject to oppressive, world climate treaty organization
regulations. To get permission to do anything, people
will need to buy carbon credits, in large part from rich
people in poor countries. The amount of carbon credits
they need to buy will depend on how politically
incorrect their activities are judged to be.
That is not capitalism, but a system of tribute wherein
the politically incorrect pay money to the politically
correct, which creates an incentive for the politically
correct to generate ever more sweeping and more punitive
condemnations of political incorrectness.
Wexford
Chinese "capitalism" is a particularly murky form. Capitalists exist
in China, but a great deal of economic power is gained through
government connections, favors and corruption. Nothing is accomplished
without having a connection somewhere. Chinese capitalism, too, is
built on the backs of hundreds of millions of transient workers who
have no rights, who are often cheated on their pay, who work for
subsistence wages, and who generally live miserable, poor lives with
little or no hope of ever improving. The Chinese rely on foreign trade
-- foreign consumers. This may change as industries develop to service
their own growing Chinese markets, but we'll have to see. The rich may
want to keep the status quo, and let an army of transient workers
exist that is larger than the entire population of the United States,
while servicing foreign consumers.
James A. Donald
<wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chinese "capitalism" is a particularly murky form.
> Capitalists exist in China, but a great deal of
> economic power is gained through government
> connections, favors and corruption.
It is true that Chinese domiciled companies are not very
capitalist, being excessively cozy with the government -
much like today's Wall Street. But Chinese capitalism
is not, for the most part, composed of chinese domiciled
companies. It is composed of companies whose domiciles
are very hard to find. Such companies are obviously not
based on government connections, favors, and corruption.
> Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of
> hundreds of millions of transient workers who have no
> rights, who are often cheated on their pay, who work
> for subsistence wages, and who generally live
> miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of ever
> improving.
And they hunger for the good old days of socialism :-)
You guys were telling us this story about Hong Kong not
so long ago - indeed the BBC still is telling us this
story about Hong Kong, not that anyone believes them any
more.
China is prospering, and individual Chinese workers are
prospering. If they are poor compared to the west, they
are vastly better off than they were under socialism,
and individual chinese are rapidly catching up to the
west. Increasingly the best and brightest of the west
are heading east, attracted by good wages and conditions
- so far it is only the elite who are finding good
things in China, but observe young British proles
heading to Hong Kong to do pick and shovel jobs that
Hong Kongers will not do. In a few decades, those
proles will be following their betters to China also.
Ray Fischer
><z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> Cap-and-trade consists of the government essentially
>> creating a new type of property and allowing the
>> market to determine how it should be allocated.
>
>Everything that involves energy or vegetation would be
>subject to oppressive, world climate treaty organization
>regulations.
Oooo! A wrldwide conspiracy! Black helicopters!
Kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wexford
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:15:51 -0800 (PST), Wexford
>
> > Chinese "capitalism" is a particularly murky form.
> > Capitalists exist in China, but a great deal of
> > economic power is gained through government
> > connections, favors and corruption.
???????????????????????????????
> It is true that Chinese domiciled companies are not very
> capitalist, being excessively cozy with the government -
> much like today's Wall Street. But Chinese capitalism
> is not, for the most part, composed of chinese domiciled
> companies. It is composed of companies whose domiciles
> are very hard to find. Such companies are obviously not
> based on government connections, favors, and corruption.
You're dreaming. Foreign companies who use China for production are
used by the apparachiks as well. The wealth that stays in China is the
wealth that officials and their companies earn from servicing the
foreigners.
>
> > Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of
> > hundreds of millions of transient workers who have no
> > rights, who are often cheated on their pay, who work
> > for subsistence wages, and who generally live
> > miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of ever
> > improving.
>
> And they hunger for the good old days of socialism :-)
>
> You guys were telling us this story about Hong Kong not
> so long ago - indeed the BBC still is telling us this
> story about Hong Kong, not that anyone believes them any
> more.
Hong Kong is not nor has it ever been mainland China. It's virtually a
different country.
>
> China is prospering, and individual Chinese workers are
> prospering. If they are poor compared to the west, they
> are vastly better off than they were under socialism,
> and individual chinese are rapidly catching up to the
> west.
Tell that to huge population of transients. Tell it to the workers who
built the "birdcage" but were never paid for it. Tell it to the
workers who rioted and were shot.
Increasingly the best and brightest of the west
> are heading east, attracted by good wages and conditions
> - so far it is only the elite who are finding good
> things in China, but observe young British proles
> heading to Hong Kong to do pick and shovel jobs that
> Hong Kongers will not do. In a few decades, those
> proles will be following their betters to China also.
Fantasy. I can walk down the street to a Chinese restaurant staffed by
girls and men from Hong Kong. It's so lovely in Hong Kong, they moved
here to work 10 hours a day, seven days a week.
William December Starr
Lord Calvert <Calver...@msn.com> said:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> The changing character of socialist lies reveals we are winning
>> the intellectual battle, as we won the cold war.
>
> It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party in
> the US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese Communist
> Party.
Not that the Chinese Communist Party is all that communist these days.
If there was a global truth-in-advertising law they'd have had to
change their name to just the "Chinese Ruling Party" some time ago.
-- wds
ZnU
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:18:43 -0500, ZnU
> <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Cap-and-trade consists of the government essentially
> > creating a new type of property and allowing the
> > market to determine how it should be allocated.
>
> Everything that involves energy or vegetation would be
> subject to oppressive, world climate treaty organization
> regulations. To get permission to do anything, people
> will need to buy carbon credits, in large part from rich
> people in poor countries. The amount of carbon credits
> they need to buy will depend on how politically
> incorrect their activities are judged to be.
I could write a mostly parallel paragraph attempting to make e.g.
government enforcement of land ownership rights seem like some
oppressive dystopian horror. I mean, think about this for a second.
Right now, anyone who wants to do anything that involves land use --
even just living there or attempting to grow food for one's family --
has to buy or rent land, mostly from rich people, often at a cost equal
to a substantial fraction of their income.
Of course, though I wouldn't rule it out if someone made a sufficiently
compelling case, I'm not actually advocating eliminating enforcement of
that particular property right, because I understand that while it
appears to limit human freedom at one level, it probably actually
increases allocative efficiency and therefore overall prosperity when
implemented correctly, as compared with other possible allocation models.
What you're doing is *precisely* what I described in my previous post:
you approve of governments enforcing property rights you like,
disapprove of governments enforcing property rights you don't like, and
pretend there is some sort of objective moral difference between the two.
This is precisely the problem with libertarianism generally. It pretends
to replace inefficient political solutions with efficient market
solutions, but its advocates fail to recognize that the outcomes markets
produce are largely determined by the property rights that are enforced,
which is ultimately a political decision.
[snip]
ZnU
<08b65451-2df2-46d0...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 4:40�pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 11:00�pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party
> > > > in the US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese
> > > > Communist Party.
> >
> > Constantinople
> >
> > > What an odd thing to say, given the abandonment of communism and
> > > the adoption of capitalism under Deng, and the subsequent
> > > economic recovery which continues today. It was hard to miss. How
> > > does one go through life as a human being and not know about
> > > this?
> >
> > These days, capitalism primarily is run from tax and regulatory
> > havens. �In that China is less hostile to tax havens, or less
> > effectual in preventing them, China is the most capitalist major
> > nation.
>
> Chinese "capitalism" is a particularly murky form. Capitalists exist
> in China, but a great deal of economic power is gained through
> government connections, favors and corruption. Nothing is
> accomplished without having a connection somewhere.
It's worth noting that while there are plenty of stories in the Western
capitalist lore about people who hoist themselves up by their own
bootstraps, connections help here as well. A lot. In general, people who
are already connected within the elite classes have far easier access to
the resources necessary to be successful.
> Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of hundreds of
> millions of transient workers who have no rights, who are often
> cheated on their pay, who work for subsistence wages, and who
> generally live miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of ever
> improving. The Chinese rely on foreign trade -- foreign consumers.
> This may change as industries develop to service their own growing
> Chinese markets, but we'll have to see. The rich may want to keep the
> status quo, and let an army of transient workers exist that is larger
> than the entire population of the United States, while servicing
> foreign consumers.
--
James A. Donald
> > > Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of
> > > hundreds of millions of transient workers who have
> > > no rights, who are often cheated on their pay, who
> > > work for subsistence wages, and who generally live
> > > miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of
> > > ever improving.
James A. Donald:
> > And they hunger for the good old days of socialism
> > :-)
> >
> > You guys were telling us this story about Hong Kong
> > not so long ago - indeed the BBC still is telling us
> > this story about Hong Kong, not that anyone believes
> > them any more.
Wexford <wry...@gmail.com>
> Hong Kong is not nor has it ever been mainland China.
> It's virtually a different country.
Capitalism in China is having the same effects on China
as it earlier had on Hong Kong: making everyone
reasonably well off and some people stinking rich.
> > Increasingly the best and brightest of the west are
> > heading east, attracted by good wages and conditions
> > - so far it is only the elite who are finding good
> > things in China, but observe young British proles
> > heading to Hong Kong to do pick and shovel jobs that
> > Hong Kongers will not do. In a few decades, those
> > proles will be following their betters to China
> > also.
> Fantasy. I can walk down the street to a Chinese
> restaurant staffed by girls and men from Hong Kong.
> It's so lovely in Hong Kong, they moved here to work
> 10 hours a day, seven days a week.
I doubt you have checked out where those restaurant
workers came from, rather you have evidently been
listening to strident and ludicrous BBC propaganda.
In 2005, the purchasing power parity of a hotel
receptionist in Hong Kong, was PPP $ 1,739 Similarly
for other low level jobs.
<http://www.worldsalaries.org/hongkong.shtml>
In 2005, the purchasing power parity of a hotel
receptionist in United Kingdom was PPP $ 1,376 Similarly
for other low level jobs.
<http://www.worldsalaries.org/uk.shtml>
The poor in Hong Kong are markedly and obviously better
off than the poor in the UK. The rich in Hong Kong are
way better off than the rich in the UK. I do not have
the figures for 2009, but over the past few years, the
difference has increased dramatically. Increasingly,
Europe is getting a third world appearance due to
economic decline and infrastructure decay.
The people leaving Hong Kong are not working in
restaurants. They are wealthy men who preferred to run
their chinese businesses from some place where China has
no jurisdiction.
The fact that people who run chinese businesses have a
marked preference for running them from some place that
the Chinese government cannot get them shows that they
do not enjoy cozy relationships with the state.
Ray Fischer
>> > > Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of
>> > > hundreds of millions of transient workers who have
>> > > no rights, who are often cheated on their pay, who
>> > > work for subsistence wages, and who generally live
>> > > miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of
>> > > ever improving.
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > And they hunger for the good old days of socialism
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > You guys were telling us this story about Hong Kong
>> > not so long ago - indeed the BBC still is telling us
>> > this story about Hong Kong, not that anyone believes
>> > them any more.
>
>Wexford <wry...@gmail.com>
>> Hong Kong is not nor has it ever been mainland China.
>> It's virtually a different country.
>
>Capitalism in China is having the same effects on China
>as it earlier had on Hong Kong: making everyone
>reasonably well off and some people stinking rich.
And many people dead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wexford
> Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of
> > > > hundreds of millions of transient workers who have
> > > > no rights, who are often cheated on their pay, who
> > > > work for subsistence wages, and who generally live
> > > > miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of
> > > > ever improving.
>
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > And they hunger for the good old days of socialism
> > > :-)
>
> > > You guys were telling us this story about Hong Kong
> > > not so long ago - indeed the BBC still is telling us
> > > this story about Hong Kong, not that anyone believes
> > > them any more.
>
>
> > Hong Kong is not nor has it ever been mainland China.
> > It's virtually a different country.
>
> Capitalism in China is having the same effects on China
> as it earlier had on Hong Kong: making everyone
> reasonably well off and some people stinking rich.
>
> > > Increasingly the best and brightest of the west are
> > > heading east, attracted by good wages and conditions
> > > - so far it is only the elite who are finding good
> > > things in China, but observe young British proles
> > > heading to Hong Kong to do pick and shovel jobs that
> > > Hong Kongers will not do. In a few decades, those
> > > proles will be following their betters to China
> > > also.
> > Fantasy. I can walk down the street to a Chinese
> > restaurant staffed by girls and men from Hong Kong.
> > It's so lovely in Hong Kong, they moved here to work
> > 10 hours a day, seven days a week.
> I doubt you have checked out where those restaurant
> workers came from, rather you have evidently been
> listening to strident and ludicrous BBC propaganda.
I spoke to them, Sport. I know a few words of Chinese, and they all
speak English. Some came from Hong Kong, some from the Mainland
(different restaurant), some from Taiwan (still another restaurant)
and some from other places with Chinese minorities -- Indonesia,
Vietnam, Malayasia.
>
> In 2005, the purchasing power parity of a hotel
> receptionist in Hong Kong, was PPP $ 1,739 Similarly
> for other low level jobs.
> <http://www.worldsalaries.org/hongkong.shtml>
>
> In 2005, the purchasing power parity of a hotel
> receptionist in United Kingdom was PPP $ 1,376 Similarly
> for other low level jobs.
> <http://www.worldsalaries.org/uk.shtml>
That's a selective analysis.
> The poor in Hong Kong are markedly and obviously better
> off than the poor in the UK.
Oh, give us a break. They can't buy health care and they live in
squalor.
> The rich in Hong Kong are
> way better off than the rich in the UK. I do not have
> the figures for 2009, but over the past few years, the
> difference has increased dramatically. Increasingly,
> Europe is getting a third world appearance due to
> economic decline and infrastructure decay.
I was in Europe last year -- at different times in Italy, Belgium,
Germany, and France. I once lived in Spain, and have visited England,
Scotland an Ireland. Those countries sure as hell didn't look third
world to me. I've lived in the third world. You have no idea of what
you're talking about.
> The people leaving Hong Kong are not working in
> restaurants. They are wealthy men who preferred to run
> their chinese businesses from some place where China has
> no jurisdiction.
And your proof for this is????
> The fact that people who run chinese businesses have a
> marked preference for running them from some place that
> the Chinese government cannot get them shows that they
> do not enjoy cozy relationships with the state.
The discussion was initially of Chinese prosperity versus that of the
West. I stated that Hong Kong has never, ever been part of mainland
China and is virtually a different country. Your response was to
contest my allegation that Hong Kong is not a worker's paradise.
Whatever Hong Kong was or is, is irrelevant to the discussion.
Capitalism in China is murky. It's not a land of free enterprize. At
its core are Communist apparatchiks who exploit their positions and
build wealth not by venturing their own capital but by expoiting
national resources. One of the biggest enterprizes in China is the
Army, for Christ's sake. The investments and interests of the Army are
so pervasive and so complicated, that almost every native industry is
involved with it. The Army in turn expolits slave labor from
prisoners, violently puts down labor organizations and kills labor
leaders.
There is much good that has come to China from its Capitalist
ventures, but don't pretend that their form of capitalism is analogous
to ours, or that they enjoy a splendour that we have lost. Hundreds of
millions of Chinese are still poor, miserable, bottled-up, expolited
and silenced.
Wexford
> In article
> <08b65451-2df2-46d0-8264-75d65503e...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 4:40 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 28, 11:00 pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is really hard to claim that when the "conservative" party
> > > > > in the US's closest foreign economic allies are the Chinese
> > > > > Communist Party.
>
> > > Constantinople
>
> > > > What an odd thing to say, given the abandonment of communism and
> > > > the adoption of capitalism under Deng, and the subsequent
> > > > economic recovery which continues today. It was hard to miss. How
> > > > does one go through life as a human being and not know about
> > > > this?
>
> > > These days, capitalism primarily is run from tax and regulatory
> > > havens. In that China is less hostile to tax havens, or less
> > > effectual in preventing them, China is the most capitalist major
> > > nation.
>
> > Chinese "capitalism" is a particularly murky form. Capitalists exist
> > in China, but a great deal of economic power is gained through
> > government connections, favors and corruption. Nothing is
> > accomplished without having a connection somewhere.
????????????????????????????????????
> It's worth noting that while there are plenty of stories in the Western
> capitalist lore about people who hoist themselves up by their own
> bootstraps, connections help here as well. A lot. In general, people who
> are already connected within the elite classes have far easier access to
> the resources necessary to be successful.
I don't disagree, but, then again, there are lots of people even in
our era who have come up the hard way. Bill Gates, the richest man in
the world, immediately comes to mind. Before him, Wang. Philippe Kanh.
Lots of others in various industries.
Back in the 1970s, when there was talk then about a depression as
severe as the 1930s, I saw a television show that featured a cast of
professional economists, JK Galbriath, Elliot Janeway, Samuelson,
Freedman, etc. I'll never forget the gloominess of the discussion.
Galbraith said outright that there would be no new industries, and
that Capitalism was entering a new era of amalgamation and
conglamortization that would result in an industrial state whose
economy was dominated by some very large companies and cartels. Milton
Freedman was the only one who uttered even a weak spark of optimism,
but even he was doleful.
At the same time Galbraith and the crew were yammering doom and gloom,
the Atari game machines were being designed. Wozniac and Jobs got the
idea to build computers in their garage, and Bill Gates was learning
to program. Some people in DoD were experimenting with distrubted
computing, which eventually became the internet. And one clown started
packaging pet rocks. Things certainly changed but in no way ever
foreseen by the economists.
In any event, although connections certainly help, you can succeed
here without taking on a clutch of government bureaucrats as your
clients, or without joining the government and using your position as
a springboard to business success.
>
> > Chinese capitalism, too, is built on the backs of hundreds of
> > millions of transient workers who have no rights, who are often
> > cheated on their pay, who work for subsistence wages, and who
> > generally live miserable, poor lives with little or no hope of ever
> > improving. The Chinese rely on foreign trade -- foreign consumers.
> > This may change as industries develop to service their own growing
> > Chinese markets, but we'll have to see. The rich may want to keep the
> > status quo, and let an army of transient workers exist that is larger
> > than the entire population of the United States, while servicing
> > foreign consumers.
>
> --
> "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
> anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
> must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:49 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > I doubt you have checked out where those restaurant
> > workers came from, rather you have evidently been
> > listening to strident and ludicrous BBC propaganda.
> I spoke to them, Sport. I know a few words of Chinese, and they all
> speak English. Some came from Hong Kong, some from the Mainland
> (different restaurant), some from Taiwan (still another restaurant)
> and some from other places with Chinese minorities -- Indonesia,
> Vietnam, Malayasia.
In other words, came from places where the chinese are persecuted by
the government. Quite possibly the *owners* came from Hong Kong
> > In 2005, the purchasing power parity of a hotel
> > receptionist in Hong Kong, was PPP $ 1,739 Similarly
> > for other low level jobs.
> > <http://www.worldsalaries.org/hongkong.shtml>
> >
> > In 2005, the purchasing power parity of a hotel
> > receptionist in United Kingdom was PPP $ 1,376 Similarly
> > for other low level jobs.
> > <http://www.worldsalaries.org/uk.shtml>
> That's a selective analysis.
So sample a few more - plus just look at Hong Kong. It simply obvious
that Hong Kong is richer than Europe, Hong Kongers richer than
Europeans.
> > The poor in Hong Kong are markedly and obviously better
> > off than the poor in the UK.
> Oh, give us a break. They can't buy health care and they live in
> squalor.
Compare their mouths with British mouths. Who is it that cannot
afford dentistry?
> I was in Europe last year -- at different times in Italy, Belgium,
> Germany, and France. I once lived in Spain, and have visited England,
> Scotland an Ireland. Those countries sure as hell didn't look third
> world to me.
Visit Liverpool. I would advise you to visit Parisian housing
projects in the suburbs of Paris, except that you would likely be
killed.
ZnU
<e132e256-9e0d-4c52...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill Gates is possibly an example of the contrary. His mother served on
the board of United Way along with John Opel, who happened to be the
chairman of IBM. It is widely believed that this is why the upstart
Microsoft got its foot in the door at IBM in the first place.
Had this connection not existed, it is fairly likely IBM would have
never even heard of Microsoft.
> Back in the 1970s, when there was talk then about a depression as
> severe as the 1930s, I saw a television show that featured a cast of
> professional economists, JK Galbriath, Elliot Janeway, Samuelson,
> Freedman, etc. I'll never forget the gloominess of the discussion.
> Galbraith said outright that there would be no new industries, and
> that Capitalism was entering a new era of amalgamation and
> conglamortization that would result in an industrial state whose
> economy was dominated by some very large companies and cartels. Milton
> Freedman was the only one who uttered even a weak spark of optimism,
> but even he was doleful.
>
> At the same time Galbraith and the crew were yammering doom and gloom,
> the Atari game machines were being designed. Wozniac and Jobs got the
> idea to build computers in their garage, and Bill Gates was learning
> to program. Some people in DoD were experimenting with distrubted
> computing, which eventually became the internet. And one clown started
> packaging pet rocks. Things certainly changed but in no way ever
> foreseen by the economists.
>
> In any event, although connections certainly help, you can succeed
> here without taking on a clutch of government bureaucrats as your
> clients, or without joining the government and using your position as
> a springboard to business success.
Power merely resides in different places here; connections are still
very nearly as important.
Wexford
> In article
??????????????
> Bill Gates is possibly an example of the contrary. His mother served on
> the board of United Way along with John Opel, who happened to be the
> chairman of IBM. It is widely believed that this is why the upstart
> Microsoft got its foot in the door at IBM in the first place.
IBM planned to run its computers using C/PM, the sine quo non of the
time for microcomputer operating systems. The IBM team went to the
West Coast to see Gates's BASIC for Microcomputers, which they
intended to offer in a bundle with C/PM, and talk with the C/PM folks
about acquiring it for their microsystem. The rep for C/PM stood them
up, however, and they mentioned the rebuff to Gates. Gates, in turn,
mentioned that he had a friend who had developed his own system, a C/
PM-type program, but easier to use (MS-DOS). He arranged an impromptu
demo for the IBM people, who liked what the saw, took the program back
to NY wher a corporate decision was made to buy it.
I've served on non-profit boards. The surest way to fired from the
board is to try to use your position to gain a business advantage by
propositioning another board member. Aside from that, Corporate Board
Chairman are usually completely disengaged from active company
management. It's very unlikely that Opel would have tried to exercise
his influence to get IBM's management to adopt an unknown program
developed not by Gates himself, but by a buddy, to run the
microcomputers that would carry the IBM insignia.
In any event, even its true that Bill Gates's mother spoke to the IBM
Board Chairman about her son's company, suggesting a mutually-
beneficial business deal is a hell of a far cry from bribing a
Government minister, fixing him up with pretty teenage prostitutes or
buying his mistress a diamond necklace (or both), and cutting him in
on future profits.
> must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Wexford
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:21 -0800 (PST),Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com>
????????
> Visit Liverpool. I would advise you to visit Parisian housing
> projects in the suburbs of Paris, except that you would likely be
> killed.
Visit Kenya or Guyana. For that matter, visit Brazil. Those are 3rd
world countries. Hong Kong is fine, if you have money and power, but
Hong Kong was never Communist. It was built by foreigners and has been
an trading and industrial center for most of the 20th Century. Chengdu
is more of what the Chinese economic miracle is about -- exploitation,
gross pollution, and filth.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
> Hong Kong is fine, if you have money and power, but
>Hong Kong was never Communist. It was built by foreigners and has been
>an trading and industrial center for most of the 20th Century. Chengdu
>is more of what the Chinese economic miracle is about -- exploitation,
>gross pollution, and filth.
I'd have said Tianjin, rather than Chengdu -- my daughter spent a
month in Tianjin about a decade back and reported seeing the sun there
exactly once; it was completely obscured by smog the other twenty-nine
days.
However, she went back for a visit in 2006 and said she literally
didn't recognize the city -- it's been rebuilt and largely cleaned up
as the economy has continued to thrive. Still much dirtier than most
Western cities, though.
Exploitation, gross pollution, and filth is a normal stage in economic
development, as anyone familiar with the history of London or
Pittsburgh knows.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
ZnU
<8f12cdaa-c81c-481c...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not really quite how these things work. I seriously doubt Mrs.
Gates walked up to Opel after a meeting and said "Hey, have I got a deal
for you!"
They moved in the same circles. Each would have been generally aware of
what the other was involved with, and what the other's immediate
associates were up to. Even if IBM had heard of Microsoft independently,
it's likely that this connection lent him a sort of credibility he
wouldn't have otherwise had.
Ever see Barry Lyndon, the Kubrick film? There's a great line delivered
by an earl of something or other that goes like this:
"When I take up a person, he or she is safe. There is no question about
them any more. My friends are the best people. I don't mean the most
virtuous, or, indeed, the least virtuous, or the cleverest, or the
stupidest, or the richest, or the best born, but the 'best.' In a word,
people about whom there is no question."
I won't say there's been no progress on class mobility since 1750s
Europe, but things do, to some extent, still work like this. And Gates
was part of the class of "people about whom there is no question"
because of the circles his family moved in.
> In any event, even its true that Bill Gates's mother spoke to the IBM
> Board Chairman about her son's company, suggesting a mutually-
> beneficial business deal is a hell of a far cry from bribing a
> Government minister, fixing him up with pretty teenage prostitutes or
> buying his mistress a diamond necklace (or both), and cutting him in
> on future profits.
They're both fundamentally systems for giving certain people
preferential access to resources based on criteria that are unrelated to
merit. Passing things around on the elite party circuit and the system
of interlocking corporate boards is more "civilized", I suppose. But one
could make the case it's actually more of a barrier to upward mobility,
as bribing local officials is probably easier for the non-elite than
infiltrating elite social circles.
James A. Donald
> Chengdu
> is more of what the Chinese economic miracle is about -- exploitation,
> gross pollution, and filth.
A short while ago, Chengdu streets were wall to wall bicycles, with
pedal rickshaws. Now they are wall to wall cars, bicycles less
common.
That is a real economic miracle.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> I'd have said Tianjin, rather than Chengdu -- my daughter spent a
> month in Tianjin about a decade back and reported seeing the sun there
> exactly once; it was completely obscured by smog the other twenty-nine
> days.
>
> However, she went back for a visit in 2006 and said she literally
> didn't recognize the city -- it's been rebuilt and largely cleaned up
> as the economy has continued to thrive. Still much dirtier than most
> Western cities, though.
>
> Exploitation, gross pollution, and filth is a normal stage in economic
> development, as anyone familiar with the history of London or
> Pittsburgh knows.
First, people want cars rather than bicycles. AFTER they have cars,
and after they have air conditioning, THEN they start worrying about
what comes out of the exhaust pipe.
James A. Donald
> Bill Gates is possibly an example of the contrary. His mother served on
> the board of United Way along with John Opel, who happened to be the
> chairman of IBM. It is widely believed that this is why the upstart
> Microsoft got its foot in the door at IBM in the first place.
Widely believed by nuts.
Fred Weiss
Even if true, it hardly begins to explain what subsequently transpired
or the extraordinary success of Microsoft. Many thousands of young men
were similarly situated as Bill Gates and did little or nothing with
it.
Furthermore it does not explain the many thousands who essentially
claw their way to the top with little or no similar "advantages".
It's not nuts, just typical Marxist class determinism which has as its
primary purpose to denigrate individual achievement. The purpose of
that is to promote dictatorship to supposedly "equalize" things and
"level the planning field". It's leveled all right at the price of
elevating mediocrity and stagnation.
Fred Weiss
ZnU
<25a26507-6fe0-44b0...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:41�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:33:42 -0500, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > Bill Gates is possibly an example of the contrary. His mother served on
> > > the board of United Way along with John Opel, who happened to be the
> > > chairman of IBM. It is widely believed that this is why the upstart
> > > Microsoft got its foot in the door at IBM in the first place.
> >
> > Widely believed by nuts.
>
> Even if true, it hardly begins to explain what subsequently transpired
> or the extraordinary success of Microsoft. Many thousands of young men
> were similarly situated as Bill Gates and did little or nothing with
> it.
It is obviously not my claim that coming from a well connected family
insures that one will be a billionaire.
> Furthermore it does not explain the many thousands who essentially
> claw their way to the top with little or no similar "advantages".
It also is not my claim that nobody who is not well connected can ever
become successful. My two claims in this thread are that 1) those
connected in elite circles have easier access to resources and therefore
achieve substantially better average outcomes and 2) Bill Gates,
specifically, had such connections.
How many sons of bank presidents, regardless of how mediocre their
innate abilities might be, end up working at gas stations?
> It's not nuts, just typical Marxist class determinism which has as its
> primary purpose to denigrate individual achievement. The purpose of
> that is to promote dictatorship to supposedly "equalize" things and
> "level the planning field". It's leveled all right at the price of
> elevating mediocrity and stagnation.
Just about my most extreme position with respect to "leveling the
playing field" is that I think it might be a good idea to equalize
public education funding nationally (instead of funding it from property
taxes, which results in richer areas having better schools) and take
steps to insure easier access to higher education.
Yes, those connected in elite circles will still have substantial
advantages, but attempting to fully rectify that situation would
probably require far measures more destructive than the original problem.
Fred Weiss
> It also is not my claim that nobody who is not well connected can ever
> become successful.
It is far, far more than just "nobody who is". The whole history of
this country is of people who struggled up from modest, even dirt
poor, beginnings and achieved success.
> How many sons of bank presidents, regardless of how mediocre their
> innate abilities might be, end up working at gas stations?
So what?
It takes absolutely nothing away from the opportunities of anyone
else. In fact it's very likely those bank presidents and their sons
who will invest in the efforts of those who don't have those
advantages. And furthermore, those advantages might not be so
advantageous if the investors think it means the entrepreneur is
lacking in hunger for success, which is far more likely to come from
someone who has had to work hard for everything they've achieved.
> Just about my most extreme position with respect to "leveling the
> playing field" is that I think it might be a good idea to equalize
> public education funding nationally (instead of funding it from property
> taxes, which results in richer areas having better schools) and take
> steps to insure easier access to higher education.
The assumption being of course that "public education" is the best way
to accomplish that.
When has "public" anything proven to be better than fully unleashed
private efforts?
Fred Weiss
Free Lunch
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Jan 1, 12:18�pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It also is not my claim that nobody who is not well connected can ever
>> become successful.
>
>It is far, far more than just "nobody who is". The whole history of
>this country is of people who struggled up from modest, even dirt
>poor, beginnings and achieved success.
Yes, they are wonderfully inspirational stories, but the reality is that
the USA is no better at allowing people to become successful than
Western Europe has been.
ZnU
<6951b46c-472d-434c...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 12:18�pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It also is not my claim that nobody who is not well connected can
> > ever become successful.
>
> It is far, far more than just "nobody who is". The whole history of
> this country is of people who struggled up from modest, even dirt
> poor, beginnings and achieved success.
>
> > How many sons of bank presidents, regardless of how mediocre their
> > innate abilities might be, end up working at gas stations?
>
> So what?
>
> It takes absolutely nothing away from the opportunities of anyone
> else. In fact it's very likely those bank presidents and their sons
> who will invest in the efforts of those who don't have those
> advantages.
Look, I'm not one of those people who makes the mistake of treating
economies as generally zero-sum, but some of this stuff really *is*
zero-sum. Given some well paying and reasonably prestigious mid-level
corporate position that could be filled by either the mediocre son of
the CEO's golf partner or the mediocre son of a gas station attendant,
who gets the job?
> And furthermore, those advantages might not be so advantageous if the
> investors think it means the entrepreneur is lacking in hunger for
> success, which is far more likely to come from someone who has had to
> work hard for everything they've achieved.
I doubt this is an especially widespread phenomenon. Indeed, there tends
to be a certain mistrust of people who "want it too much".
> > Just about my most extreme position with respect to "leveling the
> > playing field" is that I think it might be a good idea to equalize
> > public education funding nationally (instead of funding it from
> > property taxes, which results in richer areas having better
> > schools) and take steps to insure easier access to higher
> > education.
>
> The assumption being of course that "public education" is the best
> way to accomplish that.
>
> When has "public" anything proven to be better than fully unleashed
> private efforts?
In virtually every developed nation, government is closely involved in,
or the is the direct provider or funder of, education, health care,
transportation infrastructure, telecom infrastructure, basic research,
public safety, contract enforcement, and quite a number of other
things.
Libertarian types *claim* the market would be better at all of these
things, but they can't generally point to any examples, and those of us
who don't believe as a matter of religious doctrine that market failure
is impossible can see pretty clearly why, in these particular sectors,
markets might not produce very good outcomes.
Geode
the investors are not necessarily well informed. Why I know this?
Because they are fooled by Wall Street brokers and other con men.
Where is the prove? In the frequent collapse of stocks and bonds. If
investors were well informed, there would not be any fall on the value
of stocks.
Why this happen? Because of the profits. The profits are good and
work well as far as they are expended back in the consumer market.
This is the case usually when they invest in anything, form commercial
centers, to construction building or any other contrive to earn
money. The problem of all these investments is that the people are
always the same, and the amount of salaries is the same. The there
can not be constantly growing sources of profit, soaring in
exponential growth. This cannot be possible. For some business to
have a profit others had to loose money. The progress we show it
happened has been due to growing productivity, that is machines and
cheap energy; oil mostly. So people who was making things by hand was
kicked out of the market in favor of those that produced good with the
help of machines. But this has a drawback more and more not qualified
people is getting out of the productive loop. So more and more people
has to be put into jail, or is homeless in the case of those meek
enough, or those begging. So the high productivity gives us more
criminals, and more people in prison. Many old factories had been
closed, and those still working with a lot less people; are working
mostly by robots. What would be doing most of the other unused people?
Work as therapist? Work in massage parlors? As escorts? As
psychologist? Psychoanalysts? Bar tenders? waiters? Most and most
people is getting kicked out of work from outsourcing already, by
cheap imports from Asia, ans so on.
But the exhaustion of oil is lurking around the corner. The
predictable increase of oil prices would sent the economy in a
downward spiral. This time we would have not enough money to rescue
failed banks and fraudulent financial enterprises. This would be times
for going war. Politicians would not have more option that going
crazy. An this world with nearly seven billion people already would
end to have only 2 and a half billion, that was the population of the
world when I was in the primary school.
Leopold
-
Fred Weiss
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:09:41 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss
>
> >On Jan 1, 12:18 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> It also is not my claim that nobody who is not well connected can ever
> >> become successful.
>
> >It is far, far more than just "nobody who is". The whole history of
> >this country is of people who struggled up from modest, even dirt
> >poor, beginnings and achieved success.
>
> Yes, they are wonderfully inspirational stories, but the reality is that
> the USA is no better at allowing people to become successful than
> Western Europe has been.
The USA doesn't "allow" it - or not. It's our right and we don't need
the gov'ts permission to pursue it.
It might surprise you to learn that 80% of American millionaires are
*first generation* millionaires, i.e. they didn't inherit their
wealth.
Here's some more facts:
" Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a
trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000
or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the
ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or
other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance
in the future. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm
Btw, the total numbers aren't small. In 2007, there were over 9million
households in the USA with a net worth over $1million.
Fred Weiss
Free Lunch
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
How do changes in income in the US compare with changes in Western
Europe? Being a millionaire isn't that hard in this country because the
value of the dollar has dropped notably over the past century.
Quadibloc
This is true. But what if failing to worry about what comes out of the
exhaust pipe happens to be a mistake?
John Savard
James A. Donald
> > First, people want cars rather than bicycles. AFTER
> > they have cars, and after they have air
> > conditioning, THEN they start worrying about what
> > comes out of the exhaust pipe.
Quadibloc
> This is true. But what if failing to worry about what
> comes out of the exhaust pipe happens to be a mistake?
Which proposition sounds suspiciously like telling the
Chinese they should remain in picturesque socialist
poverty to protect planet earth from capitalist rape.
Bill Snyder
Why don't you pipe the exhaust from your car into the passenger
compartment for a while, and then get back to us on that one,
Quacko?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Greg Goss
>Bill Gates is possibly an example of the contrary. His mother served on
>the board of United Way along with John Opel, who happened to be the
>chairman of IBM. It is widely believed that this is why the upstart
>Microsoft got its foot in the door at IBM in the first place.
>
>Had this connection not existed, it is fairly likely IBM would have
>never even heard of Microsoft.
By the time IBM decided to get into the PC business, Microsoft had the
boot-up software for all Commodore PCs, and their optional upgrade
version for Apple or Radio Shack was adopted by just about every
buyer. MS had a lower penetration into the CP/M market that IBM was
eyeing, but was still a major player. I think it's absurd to say IBM
wouldn't have heard of them without insider networking.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>Even if true, it hardly begins to explain what subsequently transpired
>or the extraordinary success of Microsoft. Many thousands of young men
>were similarly situated as Bill Gates and did little or nothing with
>it.
As of the early nineties, while Gates was already the richest man in
the world, he was known to say something like "Six good decisions got
me where I am today. Six bad decisions could undo it all." He was
known to be paranoid about emerging competing technologies.
A TV comment by his archnemesis Ellison about how, with the internet
and net-loaded software, a computer barely needs an OS led to
Microsoft's panic over Netscape and to the browser wars to prevent the
emergence of such internet terminals playing centralized apps. No OS?
Centralized apps? Without windows and office on every computer, MS
would be a faint shadow of its previous self.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If he has a modern car, this will have little effect; the scrubbers,
etc., used in modern vehicles has reduced the CO emissions drastically.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Bill Snyder
Best argument against worrying about what comes out of the exhaust
pipe that I've heard, then. But maybe the CO2 is enough to do the
job.
ZnU
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
It's perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. But there's a very large
difference between having vaguely heard of some company, and deciding to
actively approach them for a major contract. And that difference is
often a result of precisely who moves in what circles.
Fred Weiss
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:16:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss
> >Btw, the total numbers aren't small. In 2007, there were over 9million
> >households in the USA with a net worth over $1million.
>
> >Fred Weiss
>
> How do changes in income in the US compare with changes in Western
> Europe? Being a millionaire isn't that hard in this country because the
> value of the dollar has dropped notably over the past century.
Well, it's true that a million dollars ain't what it used to be.:-)
Still, it's not exactly chopped liver either.
I can't tell you about W. Europe but I was surprised at a little
tidbit I learned fairly recently- that Norway has the highest per
capita number of millionaires in the world. I assume it has something
to do with their huge oil wealth.
Fred Weiss
Greg Goss
>Well, it's true that a million dollars ain't what it used to be.:-)
>
>Still, it's not exactly chopped liver either.
My parents were lower-middle-class in income, but as depression kids
kept spending under intense control. I didn't realize it until I was
co-executor on her estate, but my mother's net worth was RISING in her
late retirement as she failed to spend the money she was earning even
on low-interest government bonds and insured savings accounts. The
estate value (before very-high taxes caused by "moment of death"
collapse of tax deferral accounts) was almost $900K. My sister, who
was the one helping my mother with managing her affairs was wondering
if my mother might make millionaire before dying.
Day Brown
> When has "public" anything proven to be better than fully unleashed
> private efforts?
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Oh; then we should quit using public police and hire Blackwater?
Pinkertons.
The big objection to pinkertons is that they frequently succeeded.
Mike Schilling
It would save the taxpayers money, since Blackwater is de jure immune from
being sued.
Fred Weiss
wrote:
This is one area where "save the taxpayers money" is not the primary
issue. Our rights are at stack and that's the exclusive and proper
purpose of gov't.
Furthermore it is essential in a free society that we be able to sue
the gov't, including the police.
Fred Weiss
Ray Fischer
They provided service to whoever paid them and were not about upholding
the laws.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net