Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
1946 Raleighs
283 views
Skip to first unread message
AMuzi
May 5, 2012, 7:22:21 AM5/5/12
to
http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Lou Holtman
May 5, 2012, 8:45:45 AM5/5/12
to
Op 5-5-2012 13:22, AMuzi schreef:
>
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
Nice! Thanks. Those were the days.
Lou
>
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
Nice! Thanks. Those were the days.
Lou
Cam
May 5, 2012, 9:43:50 AM5/5/12
to
Sepp Ruf
May 5, 2012, 1:08:33 PM5/5/12
to
Battenberg's engagement?
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 5, 2012, 1:54:16 PM5/5/12
to
On 5/5/2012 6:22 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
>
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
The absence of safety glasses and machine guards, as well as the amount
of non-automated labor) is striking to someone who has worked in a more
modern factory. Labor was inexpensive, as the British worker at the
time was still poor [1] compared to a couple of decades later, and could
barely afford to buy the bicycles they made.
Management was short-sighted, as profits went to a select few
stockholders, instead of being re-invested in modernization. British
executives who visited Japan in the 1960's were shocked to see how far
behind they were, and were unable to react when the Japanese started
exporting in earnest to the "West" in the late 1960's.
[1] The profits of the British Empire always having gone to the highly
secretive Corporation of the Crown (owner of the City of London [2]),
and not being shared among the people, who were actually taxed to
support the Corporation.
[2] Not to be confused with the much large metropolis of London
surrounding it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London>.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
>
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
The absence of safety glasses and machine guards, as well as the amount
of non-automated labor) is striking to someone who has worked in a more
modern factory. Labor was inexpensive, as the British worker at the
time was still poor [1] compared to a couple of decades later, and could
barely afford to buy the bicycles they made.
Management was short-sighted, as profits went to a select few
stockholders, instead of being re-invested in modernization. British
executives who visited Japan in the 1960's were shocked to see how far
behind they were, and were unable to react when the Japanese started
exporting in earnest to the "West" in the late 1960's.
[1] The profits of the British Empire always having gone to the highly
secretive Corporation of the Crown (owner of the City of London [2]),
and not being shared among the people, who were actually taxed to
support the Corporation.
[2] Not to be confused with the much large metropolis of London
surrounding it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London>.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
Lou Holtman
May 5, 2012, 2:11:55 PM5/5/12
to twsh...@southslope.net
Op zaterdag 5 mei 2012 19:54:16 UTC+2 schreef Tom $herman (-_-) het volgende:
Geezzz, is this the first thing you think of when you seen this clip? Man, you must have a miserable life...
Lou
Lou
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 5, 2012, 2:21:51 PM5/5/12
to
current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the
ECB is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
AMuzi
May 5, 2012, 4:09:21 PM5/5/12
to
you run out of other people's money. Europe's party is over.
Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better
here, we merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing
press. The foreseeable end will be a debacle in both cases
when the music stops.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 5, 2012, 4:20:53 PM5/5/12
to
>>>> Post Free or Die!
>>>
>>> Geezzz, is this the first thing you think of when you seen this clip?
>>> Man, you must have a miserable life...
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>> Do not be too smug - there is a concerted effort to dismantle the
>> current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
>> Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the
>> ECB is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
>> austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
>>
>
> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>
Thatcher is a criminal who should be breaking rocks in a labor camp, and
>>>
>>> Geezzz, is this the first thing you think of when you seen this clip?
>>> Man, you must have a miserable life...
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>> Do not be too smug - there is a concerted effort to dismantle the
>> current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
>> Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the
>> ECB is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
>> austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
>>
>
> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>
one of the primary persons responsible for destroying British industry
and degrading quality of life of those unconnected to the City (i.e.
Corporation of the Crown).
We have socialism for investment bankers, where taxes from wages earned
by labor pay for their losses. Indeed, that is unsustainable.
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
ring known as the super-rich (who are too wealthy to be listed Forbes
and other mass-media outlets on their lists), you are sadly misinformed.
The problem is not lack of actual wealth, but a financial system that is
rigged to benefit a few thousand people at the expense of the other 7
billion. We are, as war criminal Henry Kissinger said, nothing by
"worthless eaters" in their eyes.
AMuzi
May 5, 2012, 4:45:25 PM5/5/12
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963
I rest my case
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 5, 2012, 5:07:52 PM5/5/12
to
growth, but rather shrinking of the economy, falling wages for those
outside The City, and higher unemployment.
But hey, if you have an ideology to support, only listen to sources you
agree with.
Keynes was correct, and Friedman wrong. Sorry about that. :)
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
Dan O
May 5, 2012, 5:16:26 PM5/5/12
to
traveler dropped in and brought up the concept of "money".
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better
> here, we merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing
> press. The foreseeable end will be a debacle in both cases
> when the music stops.
>
would Gene Roddenberry do?
Peter Cole
May 5, 2012, 6:12:36 PM5/5/12
to
Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
in the White House.
Of course maybe, as Cheney said, deficits don't matter. They didn't seem
to post WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
Of course the real way to balance budgets is to create more jobs by
putting all that idle money to work, something the conservatives have
had a very difficult time doing, historically.
Progressive? Fair?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do-they-pay-now
"To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of
earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United
States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle
20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3
percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of
income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes."
Peter Cole
May 5, 2012, 6:27:45 PM5/5/12
to
On 5/5/2012 4:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
The music stops when the fat cats take their ball and go home. That's
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
what happened in 1929 and 2008. The factories are still there, people
are still willing to work and purchase, nothing has changed except on
some abstract market, but everything grinds to a halt and we start
accumulating real losses, from which many people will never recover.
Look at what happened in Japan.
The real deficit isn't between revenues and expenses, it's the deficit
of what could be made/built/invented and what isn't and won't be. Those
are real tangible losses, not paper ones. The clock is ticking and the
meter is running. Deficit hawks will piss away a decade at a time when
humanity can least afford it. It's swell if you can spend the time
swanning around your Boca retreat or skiing in Aspen, , but for us
working stiffs, not so great.
The only socialism in the US has been for the financial sector. Funny
how that works -- or doesn't, obviously.
pastor...@lanaifaith.com
May 5, 2012, 8:06:09 PM5/5/12
to
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:jo32hd$amc$1...@dont-email.me...
enamel, and bolted on. You work on any of those these ever?
Jay Beattie
May 5, 2012, 10:12:15 PM5/5/12
to
>
> > I rest my case
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_perce...
>
> Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
> in the White House.
If you want to lower the deficit, raise the GDP, at least on that
> Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
> in the White House.
chart, since it measures revenue and expenditures as a percentage of
GDP. The Obama years aren't looking so good. I voted for the dude,
so don't call me a conservative.
>
> Of course maybe, as Cheney said, deficits don't matter. They didn't seem
> to post WWII:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
>
> Of course the real way to balance budgets is to create more jobs by
> putting all that idle money to work, something the conservatives have
> had a very difficult time doing, historically.
not the government. Government doesn't have idle money.
Corporations are holding on to their money for the same reason I'm
holding on to my money. Because it's a big f****** recession, and
only gawd knows what's around the corner -- although I should have
bought Apple stock.. One of the biggest offenders, by the way, is
Apple -- the great progressive company that has enough cash on hand to
buy Bolivia.
>
> Progressive? Fair?
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do...
>
> "To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of
> earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United
> States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle
> 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3
> percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of
> income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes."
The lowest 20 percent pay virtually no federal income tax and many get
> "To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of
> earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United
> States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle
> 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3
> percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of
> income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes."
credits. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Their tax burden in the quoted stat may be sales tax and property tax
and state income taxes.
The fact is that even if you go with the soak the rich plan, we're
still screwed because federal spending has gone nuts as compared to
GDP, and funding tied to non-income tax revenue sources is going away
e.g. USPS income and the Highway Trust Fund (gas tax) -- those are now
becoming general fund obligations. -- Jay Beattie.
datakoll
May 5, 2012, 10:56:05 PM5/5/12
to
a book on Brit frame building exists by Oliver or Olivier ?
I didn't find it right off but there were other interesting Olivers
http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=kw%3Abicycle+au%3Aoliver&fq=x0%3Abook+%3E+-mt%3Afic+%3E+ln%3Aeng+%3E+-mt%3Ajuv&qt=advanced&dblist=638
Oliver the frame author if I remeber is Oliver the frame builder
datakoll
May 5, 2012, 10:59:49 PM5/5/12
to
Andre Jute
May 5, 2012, 11:16:41 PM5/5/12
to
On May 5, 9:09 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better
> here, we merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing
> press. The foreseeable end will be a debacle in both cases
> when the music stops.
I congratulate you on your finely=preserved ears, Mr Muzi. You're the
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better
> here, we merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing
> press. The foreseeable end will be a debacle in both cases
> when the music stops.
only who can still hear the music.
datakoll
May 5, 2012, 11:18:58 PM5/5/12
to
moon rose over Soda Lake. The soda looks like tide
sky deep blue, grass green. air clean
Moon looks like he needs a quart of peptobismol
who would beleive our moon has a face on it "
sky deep blue, grass green. air clean
Moon looks like he needs a quart of peptobismol
who would beleive our moon has a face on it "
Dan O
May 5, 2012, 11:50:30 PM5/5/12
to
Gross Domestic Product? Okay, I can see that; except look at the crap
that's produced. Is that really "productive"?
(Much of reality as experienced from here inside my head has gradually
come to be represented in lines from some of my favorite movies. The
above rolled off my fingers onto the keyboard and rbt directly from
Jake's line - relating to trade, as it happens - early in my *very*
favorite movie, The Blues Brothers. "A *microphone*?? Okay, I can
see that; but what the hell is *this*?")
> ..., since it measures revenue and expenditures as a percentage of
> GDP.
Measurements are kind of like statistics... okay, exactly like
statistics - they don't really *do* anything, and are very useful for
rationalizing the POV of the PTB.
> The Obama years aren't looking so good.
magic; no revolution.
> I voted for the dude, ...
>
Long time comin', eh? ... And he is a pretty cool dude - can't say
that about most presidents.
<snip>
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 12:30:32 AM5/6/12
to
On 5/5/2012 9:12 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
> The fact is that even if you go with the soak the rich plan, we're
> still screwed because federal spending has gone nuts as compared to
> GDP, and funding tied to non-income tax revenue sources is going away
> e.g. USPS income and the Highway Trust Fund (gas tax) -- those are now
> becoming general fund obligations. -- Jay Beattie.
Not if you go after the few dozen richest persons in the world (who by
> The fact is that even if you go with the soak the rich plan, we're
> still screwed because federal spending has gone nuts as compared to
> GDP, and funding tied to non-income tax revenue sources is going away
> e.g. USPS income and the Highway Trust Fund (gas tax) -- those are now
> becoming general fund obligations. -- Jay Beattie.
the way do *not* appear on the media lists of richest people).
Nationalizing all the central banks would also do the trick, and would
have the benefit of return the control of countries to their governments
instead of unelected financiers.
Seizing the Corporation of the Crown would pay off all the government
debt in the European Union, with money left over.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 12:35:26 AM5/6/12
to
On 5/5/2012 10:50 PM, Dan O wrote:
> [...]
> Long time comin', eh? ... And he [Obama] is a pretty cool dude -
survival mechanism so he can end up like Bill Clinton and not like John
Kennedy.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
> [...]
> Long time comin', eh? ... And he [Obama] is a pretty cool dude -
> can't say that about most presidents.
Obama appears to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, probably as a
survival mechanism so he can end up like Bill Clinton and not like John
Kennedy.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
datakoll
May 6, 2012, 12:42:19 AM5/6/12
to
WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
Gary Fisher....
Gary Fisher....
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 12:50:15 AM5/6/12
to
On 5/5/2012 11:42 PM, datakoll wrote:
> WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
> Gary Fisher....
Jute listens to recordings of himself reading Andrew McCoy potboilers.
> WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
> Gary Fisher....
Peter Cole
May 6, 2012, 1:14:31 AM5/6/12
to
On 5/5/2012 10:12 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On May 5, 3:12 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2012 4:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Margaret Thatcher Fan Club chart:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spendin...
>>
>>> I rest my case
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_perce...
>>
>> Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
>> in the White House.
>
> If you want to lower the deficit, raise the GDP, at least on that
> chart, since it measures revenue and expenditures as a percentage of
> GDP.
Yes, and the way to do that is to increase investment and pay greater wages.
> On May 5, 3:12 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2012 4:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Margaret Thatcher Fan Club chart:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spendin...
>>
>>> I rest my case
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_perce...
>>
>> Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
>> in the White House.
>
> If you want to lower the deficit, raise the GDP, at least on that
> chart, since it measures revenue and expenditures as a percentage of
> GDP.
The Obama years aren't looking so good. I voted for the dude,
> so don't call me a conservative.
>> Of course maybe, as Cheney said, deficits don't matter. They didn't seem
>> to post WWII:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
>>
>> Of course the real way to balance budgets is to create more jobs by
>> putting all that idle money to work, something the conservatives have
>> had a very difficult time doing, historically.
>
> What idle money? Are you talking corporate retained earnings? That's
> not the government. Government doesn't have idle money.
accomplishes basically the same thing as taxing. Both of which are
considered "theft" by today's conservatives.
> Corporations are holding on to their money for the same reason I'm
> holding on to my money. Because it's a big f****** recession, and
> only gawd knows what's around the corner -- although I should have
> bought Apple stock.. One of the biggest offenders, by the way, is
> Apple -- the great progressive company that has enough cash on hand to
> buy Bolivia.
causing misery to all but the wealthy. It's a highly manipulated
economy, just not run for the benefit of the majority. The government
went much more deeply into relative debt during WWII, because we had an
emergency. We still had bumper economic decades afterward, despite the
fact that so much of that money went to destruction rather than
construction. That should tell you something. We'd be better off now if
we paid people to dig holes and fill them up again, but surely we can
find better things to do.
>>
>> Progressive? Fair?
>>
>> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do...
>>
>> "To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of
>> earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United
>> States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle
>> 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3
>> percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of
>> income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes."
>
> The lowest 20 percent pay virtually no federal income tax and many get
> credits. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
> Their tax burden in the quoted stat may be sales tax and property tax
> and state income taxes.
burden, it's that they only make 3.5% of the income. Our income
inequality is well into 3rd world territory. Distribution of wealth is
even worse. This is not just objectionable on humanitarian terms, it
also creates a much weaker and unstable overall economy. Human potential
is our national treasure, and it's being squandered.
> The fact is that even if you go with the soak the rich plan, we're
> still screwed because federal spending has gone nuts as compared to
> GDP, and funding tied to non-income tax revenue sources is going away
> e.g. USPS income and the Highway Trust Fund (gas tax) -- those are now
> becoming general fund obligations. -- Jay Beattie.
even infrastructure and public services have been neglected to the point
of dysfunction. The Chinese are building mag-lev, we've got a railway
system the Bulgarians would be ashamed of. Conservatives won't even pay
for the highways they drive on. We can still somehow find the money for
tobacco subsidies and oil company tax breaks, additional aircraft
carrier task forces, the wars on terrorism, drugs and crime, etc., but
we won't touch the 15% rate on capital gains. Welcome to the
conservative utopia. I hope you have an inheritance, mobility is not an
option.
I have a nephew who is graduating this June with a chemical engineering
degree -- and no job offers and $182K in debt. We have the money for
incarceration, but not education. That generation hates us boomers, and
they should. It's not much comfort to tell them that I didn't vote for
the crooks.
Owen
May 6, 2012, 2:14:57 AM5/6/12
to
On Saturday, May 5, 2012 9:22:21 PM UTC+10, AMuzi wrote:
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Cor blimey, no wonder the 3 speed Raleigh I bought in 1956 cost so much (about 4 weeks pay). Another day and age.
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Owen
Marcin J.
May 6, 2012, 2:33:06 AM5/6/12
to
Użytkownik "Lou Holtman" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:bd1a8$4fa5206f$541d34fb$25...@cache90.multikabel.net...
Op 5-5-2012 13:22, AMuzi schreef:
>>
>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>
> Nice! Thanks. Those were the days.
These will be the days.
--
Cheers
marcin
dyskusyjnych:bd1a8$4fa5206f$541d34fb$25...@cache90.multikabel.net...
Op 5-5-2012 13:22, AMuzi schreef:
>>
>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>
> Nice! Thanks. Those were the days.
--
Cheers
marcin
Marcin J.
May 6, 2012, 2:40:59 AM5/6/12
to
Użytkownik "AMuzi" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:jo32hd$amc$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
There are some things I don't understand... for example the funny spoke
making machine at 13:10 - 13:15. What's that?
--
Cheers
marcin
dyskusyjnych:jo32hd$amc$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
There are some things I don't understand... for example the funny spoke
making machine at 13:10 - 13:15. What's that?
--
Cheers
marcin
Sepp Ruf
May 6, 2012, 5:28:35 AM5/6/12
to
Peter Cole wrote:
> I have a nephew who is graduating this June with a chemical engineering
> degree -- and no job offers and $182K in debt.
Mining? No Spanish, no Portugese, no Chinese? Western Australia?
> I have a nephew who is graduating this June with a chemical engineering
> degree -- and no job offers and $182K in debt.
Message has been deleted
AMuzi
May 6, 2012, 8:24:02 AM5/6/12
to
Bolted seatstay is necessary for a full chain case.
Or a belt drive.
la plus ca change and all that...
AMuzi
May 6, 2012, 8:29:13 AM5/6/12
to
datakoll wrote:
> WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
> Gary Fisher....
Most days I hear Billie Holiday in the back of my brain.
> WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
> Gary Fisher....
Dan O
May 6, 2012, 12:02:44 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 5:29 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
> > Gary Fisher....
>
> Most days I hear Billie Holiday in the back of my brain.
>
The Who won't leave the stage in here lately (yeah, it's a frenetic
> datakoll wrote:
> > WHOM DO YOU HEAR ? Rodgers, Wagner or Everret Dirksen,
> > Gary Fisher....
>
> Most days I hear Billie Holiday in the back of my brain.
>
existence).
Lou Holtman
May 6, 2012, 12:18:10 PM5/6/12
to
Op 6-5-2012 14:24, AMuzi schreef:
<http://www.rih.nl/site/modellen/sigma/herenmodel/index.php>
<http://www.santosbikes.com/index.php/nl/algemeen/54-riemaandrijving>
Lou
> pastor...@lanaifaith.com wrote:
>> "AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>> news:jo32hd$amc$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>> The "back stays" @14:50 - 15:10 installed after the bike was dipped in
>> enamel, and bolted on. You work on any of those these ever?
>>
>
> Frequently.
> Bolted seatstay is necessary for a full chain case.
>
> Or a belt drive.
> la plus ca change and all that...
???
>> "AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>> news:jo32hd$amc$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>> The "back stays" @14:50 - 15:10 installed after the bike was dipped in
>> enamel, and bolted on. You work on any of those these ever?
>>
>
> Frequently.
> Bolted seatstay is necessary for a full chain case.
>
> Or a belt drive.
> la plus ca change and all that...
<http://www.rih.nl/site/modellen/sigma/herenmodel/index.php>
<http://www.santosbikes.com/index.php/nl/algemeen/54-riemaandrijving>
Lou
Lou Holtman
May 6, 2012, 12:20:36 PM5/6/12
to
Op 5-5-2012 20:21, Tom $herman (-_-) > schreef:
all the time. You wearing us out with OT political drivel on this
podium. It helps no one. Do something usefull with your anger.
Lou
> On 5/5/2012 1:11 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> Op zaterdag 5 mei 2012 19:54:16 UTC+2 schreef Tom $herman (-_-) het
>> volgende:
>>> On 5/5/2012 6:22 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>>>
>>> The absence of safety glasses and machine guards, as well as the amount
>>> of non-automated labor) is striking to someone who has worked in a more
>>> modern factory. Labor was inexpensive, as the British worker at the
>>> time was still poor [1] compared to a couple of decades later, and could
>>> barely afford to buy the bicycles they made.
>>>
>>> Management was short-sighted, as profits went to a select few
>>> stockholders, instead of being re-invested in modernization. British
>>> executives who visited Japan in the 1960's were shocked to see how far
>>> behind they were, and were unable to react when the Japanese started
>>> exporting in earnest to the "West" in the late 1960's.
>>>
>>> [1] The profits of the British Empire always having gone to the highly
>>> secretive Corporation of the Crown (owner of the City of London [2]),
>>> and not being shared among the people, who were actually taxed to
>>> support the Corporation.
>>>
>>> [2] Not to be confused with the much large metropolis of London
>>> surrounding it:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London>.
>>>
>> Op zaterdag 5 mei 2012 19:54:16 UTC+2 schreef Tom $herman (-_-) het
>> volgende:
>>> On 5/5/2012 6:22 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>>>
>>> The absence of safety glasses and machine guards, as well as the amount
>>> of non-automated labor) is striking to someone who has worked in a more
>>> modern factory. Labor was inexpensive, as the British worker at the
>>> time was still poor [1] compared to a couple of decades later, and could
>>> barely afford to buy the bicycles they made.
>>>
>>> Management was short-sighted, as profits went to a select few
>>> stockholders, instead of being re-invested in modernization. British
>>> executives who visited Japan in the 1960's were shocked to see how far
>>> behind they were, and were unable to react when the Japanese started
>>> exporting in earnest to the "West" in the late 1960's.
>>>
>>> [1] The profits of the British Empire always having gone to the highly
>>> secretive Corporation of the Crown (owner of the City of London [2]),
>>> and not being shared among the people, who were actually taxed to
>>> support the Corporation.
>>>
>>> [2] Not to be confused with the much large metropolis of London
>>> surrounding it:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London>.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
>>> Post Free or Die!
>>
>>> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
>>> Post Free or Die!
>>
>> Geezzz, is this the first thing you think of when you seen this clip?
>> Man, you must have a miserable life...
>>
>> Lou
>
> Do not be too smug - there is a concerted effort to dismantle the
> current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
> Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the ECB
> is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
> austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
>
free advice: try to see your glass as half full instead of half empty
>> Man, you must have a miserable life...
>>
>> Lou
>
> Do not be too smug - there is a concerted effort to dismantle the
> current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
> Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the ECB
> is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
> austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
>
all the time. You wearing us out with OT political drivel on this
podium. It helps no one. Do something usefull with your anger.
Lou
AMuzi
May 6, 2012, 12:54:13 PM5/6/12
to
A split frame end 3cm below the old bolted stay is
essentially the same thing just prettier.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 2:36:13 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/5/2012 3:09 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>
> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>
> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
Sorry, but you are unwittingly promoting the Big Lie.
> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
There is no moral obligation to repay "odious debts", which includes all
the debt based money that governments allowed central banks to create
for free and then loaned to the governments at interest (i.e. usury on
the working class taxpayer). So the simple solution is to declare these
debts void and go back to government issued debt free money. The only
losers would be the hereditary members of the criminal international
banking cabal.
You say it would cause financial turmoil? Really? It would only change
paper assets, as the real means of creating added value are unaffected.
Simply order businesses to keep working (as is done in war time) and
maintain employment for a couple of months until things settle down.
Hardly a high price to pay for freeing mankind from the de-facto slavery
that all by a tiny elite live in.
But hey, this would require belief in what you see, not what you are
told by authority figures.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 2:38:19 PM5/6/12
to
bankers, by dismissing the issue. Is your stand out of ignorance or
cowardice?
Lou Holtman
May 6, 2012, 3:33:56 PM5/6/12
to twsh...@southslope.net
Op zondag 6 mei 2012 20:38:19 UTC+2 schreef Tom $herman (-_-) het volgende:
Dismissing the issue here doesn't mean anything. I even didn't say I disagree with you in this matter. Only your timing and the arena you choose to ventilate your opinion pissed me off again.
Lou
Lou
Sir Ridesalot
May 6, 2012, 3:37:36 PM5/6/12
to
On May 5, 7:22 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Crikey! It sure didn't take long for this to degenerate into a
> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
political thread did it? Too bad comments couldn't have stayed on the
topic of how the Raleighs were made back in 1946. :<( VBSG It's
fascinating to see the craftmanship at play here on the various
components and steps of assembly. I found the making of the cranks and
the stamping of the chainring teeth to be of particualr interest. I
showed the clip to a friend of mine who owns a vintage Raleigh and he
was quite intrigued also. Thanks Andrew for sharing this clip.
Cheers
AMuzi
May 6, 2012, 4:43:16 PM5/6/12
to
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Crikey! It sure didn't take long for this to degenerate into a
> political thread did it? Too bad comments couldn't have stayed on the
> topic of how the Raleighs were made back in 1946. :<( VBSG It's
> fascinating to see the craftmanship at play here on the various
> components and steps of assembly. I found the making of the cranks and
> the stamping of the chainring teeth to be of particualr interest. I
> showed the clip to a friend of mine who owns a vintage Raleigh and he
> was quite intrigued also. Thanks Andrew for sharing this clip.
I not only rode my 1953 this morning, but I got the Free
> Crikey! It sure didn't take long for this to degenerate into a
> political thread did it? Too bad comments couldn't have stayed on the
> topic of how the Raleighs were made back in 1946. :<( VBSG It's
> fascinating to see the craftmanship at play here on the various
> components and steps of assembly. I found the making of the cranks and
> the stamping of the chainring teeth to be of particualr interest. I
> showed the clip to a friend of mine who owns a vintage Raleigh and he
> was quite intrigued also. Thanks Andrew for sharing this clip.
Bike Wash, and with some lightning too.
Ian Field
May 6, 2012, 4:53:29 PM5/6/12
to
"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
message news:jo44rc$e76$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/5/2012 3:45 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2012 3:09 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Post Free or Die!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geezzz, is this the first thing you think of when you seen this clip?
>>>>>> Man, you must have a miserable life...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not be too smug - there is a concerted effort to dismantle the
>>>>> current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
>>>>> Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the
>>>>> ECB is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
>>>>> austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geezzz, is this the first thing you think of when you seen this clip?
>>>>>> Man, you must have a miserable life...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not be too smug - there is a concerted effort to dismantle the
>>>>> current systems in Western Europe and make them much more like the US.
>>>>> Go across the English Channel to see the most advanced case. And the
>>>>> ECB is having it's way with Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece, with
>>>>> austerity for workers, and subsidies for investment bankers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out
>>>> of
>>>> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>>>>
>>>> of
>>>> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>>>>
>>> Thatcher is a criminal who should be breaking rocks in a labor camp,
>>> and one of the primary persons responsible for destroying British
>>> industry and degrading quality of life of those unconnected to the
>>> City (i.e. Corporation of the Crown).
>>>
>>> We have socialism for investment bankers, where taxes from wages
>>> earned by labor pay for their losses. Indeed, that is unsustainable.
>>>
>>> and one of the primary persons responsible for destroying British
>>> industry and degrading quality of life of those unconnected to the
>>> City (i.e. Corporation of the Crown).
>>>
>>> We have socialism for investment bankers, where taxes from wages
>>> earned by labor pay for their losses. Indeed, that is unsustainable.
>>>
>>>> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
>>>> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable
>>>> end
>>>> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
>>>
>>>> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable
>>>> end
>>>> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
>>>
>>> If you think the US is run by anything other than the organized crime
>>> ring known as the super-rich (who are too wealthy to be listed Forbes
>>> and other mass-media outlets on their lists), you are sadly misinformed.
>>>
>>> The problem is not lack of actual wealth, but a financial system that
>>> is rigged to benefit a few thousand people at the expense of the other
>>> 7 billion. We are, as war criminal Henry Kissinger said, nothing by
>>> "worthless eaters" in their eyes.
>>>
>>
>>> ring known as the super-rich (who are too wealthy to be listed Forbes
>>> and other mass-media outlets on their lists), you are sadly misinformed.
>>>
>>> The problem is not lack of actual wealth, but a financial system that
>>> is rigged to benefit a few thousand people at the expense of the other
>>> 7 billion. We are, as war criminal Henry Kissinger said, nothing by
>>> "worthless eaters" in their eyes.
>>>
>>
>> Margaret Thatcher Fan Club chart:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963
>>
>>
>> I rest my case
>>
>
> But the Cameron/Clegg austerity measures are not bringing the promised
> growth, but rather shrinking of the economy, falling wages for those
> outside The City, and higher unemployment.
That always happens when the thieving toraidhe get in.
The first thing most people notice is all the boarded up shops in the high
street.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 4:55:47 PM5/6/12
to
of bicycles in the world disappeared in less than 60 years to become
little more than a brand name (sold within the last month to the Accell
Group, which also has the Batavus and Koga Miyata brands among others),
with production being by various subcontractor factories in China,
Vietnam, etc?
Ian Field
May 6, 2012, 5:09:59 PM5/6/12
to
message news:jo6ogm$omr$1...@dont-email.me...
Fuckwits in high places.
AMuzi
May 6, 2012, 5:12:28 PM5/6/12
to
Fiat etc?
Oh, if only Wilson had saved those buggy whip makers' jobs!
What could a hundred years of buggy whip maker support have
cost? Think of the children!
Frank Krygowski
May 6, 2012, 5:53:50 PM5/6/12
to
AMuzi wrote:
> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>>
> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>>
>> You do not find it interesting how what was likely the largest
>> producer of bicycles in the world disappeared in less than 60 years to
>> become little more than a brand name (sold within the last month to
>> the Accell Group, which also has the Batavus and Koga Miyata brands
>> among others), with production being by various subcontractor
>> factories in China, Vietnam, etc?
>>
>
> You expected the heavy hand of the state as with Harley, GM, Fiat etc?
>
> Oh, if only Wilson had saved those buggy whip makers' jobs! What could a
> hundred years of buggy whip maker support have cost? Think of the children!
I'm rather glad that the "heavy hand of the state" saved GM. That's a
>> producer of bicycles in the world disappeared in less than 60 years to
>> become little more than a brand name (sold within the last month to
>> the Accell Group, which also has the Batavus and Koga Miyata brands
>> among others), with production being by various subcontractor
>> factories in China, Vietnam, etc?
>>
>
> You expected the heavy hand of the state as with Harley, GM, Fiat etc?
>
> Oh, if only Wilson had saved those buggy whip makers' jobs! What could a
> hundred years of buggy whip maker support have cost? Think of the children!
gamble that seems to have worked well.
I'll also note that many other countries exert heavy hands to help their
manufacturing industries. In the U.S., the help seems to go
disproportionately to the oil industry and the money-handling industry.
Feh.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 6:20:25 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/6/2012 3:53 PM, Ian Field wrote:
> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
> message news:jo44rc$e76$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
> message news:jo44rc$e76$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> But the Cameron/Clegg austerity measures are not bringing the promised
>> growth, but rather shrinking of the economy, falling wages for those
>> outside The City, and higher unemployment.
>
>
> That always happens when the thieving toraidhe get in.
>
> The first thing most people notice is all the boarded up shops in the high
> street.
>
>
I like the description in Brassed Off (by the trombone player at the
>> growth, but rather shrinking of the economy, falling wages for those
>> outside The City, and higher unemployment.
>
>
> That always happens when the thieving toraidhe get in.
>
> The first thing most people notice is all the boarded up shops in the high
> street.
>
>
Harvest Festival) of Tories the best.
Chalo
May 6, 2012, 5:40:54 PM5/6/12
to
pastorgreg wrote:
>
> The "back stays" @14:50 - 15:10 installed after the bike was dipped in
> enamel, and bolted on. You work on any of those these ever?
I do, from time to time. It's a common feature of traditional
>
> The "back stays" @14:50 - 15:10 installed after the bike was dipped in
> enamel, and bolted on. You work on any of those these ever?
European city bikes.
I made my tallbike that way-- for convenient construction, easy
repairability, and uncomplicated mixing of materials. The chainstays
were separate pieces, too, made to provide a mounting step.
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallside4.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallchainstays.jpg
Chalo
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 6:22:00 PM5/6/12
to
Feature (aka rain filled pothole)?
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 6, 2012, 6:40:23 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/6/2012 4:12 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>> On 5/6/2012 2:37 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> On May 5, 7:22 am, AMuzi<a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>>>
> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>> On 5/6/2012 2:37 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> On May 5, 7:22 am, AMuzi<a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> http://film.britishcouncil.org/how-a-bicycle-is-made
>>>>
>>> Crikey! It sure didn't take long for this to degenerate into a
>>> political thread did it? Too bad comments couldn't have stayed on the
>>> topic of how the Raleighs were made back in 1946. :<( VBSG It's
>>> fascinating to see the craftmanship at play here on the various
>>> components and steps of assembly. I found the making of the cranks and
>>> the stamping of the chainring teeth to be of particualr interest. I
>>> showed the clip to a friend of mine who owns a vintage Raleigh and he
>>> was quite intrigued also. Thanks Andrew for sharing this clip.
>>
>> You do not find it interesting how what was likely the largest
>> producer of bicycles in the world disappeared in less than 60 years to
>> become little more than a brand name (sold within the last month to
>> the Accell Group, which also has the Batavus and Koga Miyata brands
>> among others), with production being by various subcontractor
>> factories in China, Vietnam, etc?
>>
>
> You expected the heavy hand of the state as with Harley, GM, Fiat etc?
>
I thought Italy was a subsidiary of FIAT?
>>> political thread did it? Too bad comments couldn't have stayed on the
>>> topic of how the Raleighs were made back in 1946. :<( VBSG It's
>>> fascinating to see the craftmanship at play here on the various
>>> components and steps of assembly. I found the making of the cranks and
>>> the stamping of the chainring teeth to be of particualr interest. I
>>> showed the clip to a friend of mine who owns a vintage Raleigh and he
>>> was quite intrigued also. Thanks Andrew for sharing this clip.
>>
>> You do not find it interesting how what was likely the largest
>> producer of bicycles in the world disappeared in less than 60 years to
>> become little more than a brand name (sold within the last month to
>> the Accell Group, which also has the Batavus and Koga Miyata brands
>> among others), with production being by various subcontractor
>> factories in China, Vietnam, etc?
>>
>
> You expected the heavy hand of the state as with Harley, GM, Fiat etc?
>
Note the various Chrysler bailouts and the GM bailout did not save the
jobs in Janesville and Kenosha.
The H-D case (70% import tariffs on Japanese motorcycles 700c or more)
has always aggravated me, since anyone that knows anything about
motorcycles knows that H-D cruisers are/were almost never cross-shopped
against "metric" brands (except for police department fleet buyers), so
the main effect of the tariffs was to penalize buyers of larger
displacement standards and sport-bikes. The real problem was AMF-H-D
not having their act together, with such products as these being offered
to the market:
<http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-american-motorcycles/harley-davidson-confederate.aspx>
Speaking of fairness, why no tariff on Moto Guzzi, which had success for
a while selling bikes to police departments in the US; although why any
police department would use a motorcycle with a dry clutch (or why a
manufacturer would fit a dry clutch to anything but a race replica) is
beyond me, as it rules out the brake-torque technique in low-speed
maneuvering (unless you like rebuilding clutches).
> Oh, if only Wilson had saved those buggy whip makers' jobs! What could a
> hundred years of buggy whip maker support have cost? Think of the children!
>
non-existent, while the bicycle market is still high volume. Raleigh's
loss of market share was taken up by other brands.
Dan O
May 6, 2012, 6:40:19 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 1:55 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
I miss my Japanese Miyata(s) :-( Oh, well - still have Stumpy, which
I believe came out of the same factory.
Speaking of music on the brain - got the (German made under Siwss
license) Thorens spinning "Emotional Rescue" ATM - Joe Grado Signature
pickup (yea USA!!! :-)
I believe came out of the same factory.
Speaking of music on the brain - got the (German made under Siwss
license) Thorens spinning "Emotional Rescue" ATM - Joe Grado Signature
pickup (yea USA!!! :-)
Jay Beattie
May 6, 2012, 9:07:27 PM5/6/12
to
On May 5, 10:14 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/5/2012 10:12 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 3:12 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I rest my case
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_perce...
>
> >> Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
> >> in the White House.
>
> > If you want to lower the deficit, raise the GDP, at least on that
> > chart, since it measures revenue and expenditures as a percentage of
> > GDP.
>
> Yes, and the way to do that is to increase investment and pay greater wages.
>
> The Obama years aren't looking so good. I voted for the dude,
>
> > so don't call me a conservative.
>
> Looking better than the Reagan years after you take out the Bush crater.
>
> >> Of course maybe, as Cheney said, deficits don't matter. They didn't seem
> >> to post WWII:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
>
> >> Of course the real way to balance budgets is to create more jobs by
> >> putting all that idle money to work, something the conservatives have
> >> had a very difficult time doing, historically.
>
> > What idle money? Are you talking corporate retained earnings? That's
> > not the government. Government doesn't have idle money.
>
> The government can print money, which devalues assets, which
> accomplishes basically the same thing as taxing. Both of which are
> considered "theft" by today's conservatives.
>
> > Corporations are holding on to their money for the same reason I'm
> > holding on to my money. Because it's a big f****** recession, and
> > only gawd knows what's around the corner -- although I should have
> > bought Apple stock.. One of the biggest offenders, by the way, is
> > Apple -- the great progressive company that has enough cash on hand to
> > buy Bolivia.
>
> It's a crazy system that just periodically has the wheels fall off,
> causing misery to all but the wealthy. It's a highly manipulated
> economy, just not run for the benefit of the majority. The government
> went much more deeply into relative debt during WWII, because we had an
> emergency. We still had bumper economic decades afterward, despite the
> fact that so much of that money went to destruction rather than
> construction. That should tell you something. We'd be better off now if
> we paid people to dig holes and fill them up again, but surely we can
> find better things to do.
We can't use the post-war experience as a modern guide. The post-war
economy boomed because US industry had a corner on the market -- every
market, from food to cars. Everyone bought our crap. Now everyone
buys China's crap.
-- Jay Beattie.
> On 5/5/2012 10:12 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 3:12 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2012 4:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> Margaret Thatcher Fan Club chart:
>
> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spendin...
> >>> Margaret Thatcher Fan Club chart:
>
>
> >>> I rest my case
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_perce...
>
> >> Moral: (at least in US) If you want to lower the deficit, put a Democrat
> >> in the White House.
>
> > If you want to lower the deficit, raise the GDP, at least on that
> > chart, since it measures revenue and expenditures as a percentage of
> > GDP.
>
> Yes, and the way to do that is to increase investment and pay greater wages.
>
> The Obama years aren't looking so good. I voted for the dude,
>
> > so don't call me a conservative.
>
> Looking better than the Reagan years after you take out the Bush crater.
>
> >> Of course maybe, as Cheney said, deficits don't matter. They didn't seem
> >> to post WWII:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
>
> >> Of course the real way to balance budgets is to create more jobs by
> >> putting all that idle money to work, something the conservatives have
> >> had a very difficult time doing, historically.
>
> > What idle money? Are you talking corporate retained earnings? That's
> > not the government. Government doesn't have idle money.
>
> The government can print money, which devalues assets, which
> accomplishes basically the same thing as taxing. Both of which are
> considered "theft" by today's conservatives.
>
> > Corporations are holding on to their money for the same reason I'm
> > holding on to my money. Because it's a big f****** recession, and
> > only gawd knows what's around the corner -- although I should have
> > bought Apple stock.. One of the biggest offenders, by the way, is
> > Apple -- the great progressive company that has enough cash on hand to
> > buy Bolivia.
>
> It's a crazy system that just periodically has the wheels fall off,
> causing misery to all but the wealthy. It's a highly manipulated
> economy, just not run for the benefit of the majority. The government
> went much more deeply into relative debt during WWII, because we had an
> emergency. We still had bumper economic decades afterward, despite the
> fact that so much of that money went to destruction rather than
> construction. That should tell you something. We'd be better off now if
> we paid people to dig holes and fill them up again, but surely we can
> find better things to do.
We can't use the post-war experience as a modern guide. The post-war
economy boomed because US industry had a corner on the market -- every
market, from food to cars. Everyone bought our crap. Now everyone
buys China's crap.
-- Jay Beattie.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ian Field
May 7, 2012, 9:13:18 AM5/7/12
to
message news:jo6tia$j79$4...@dont-email.me...
In the UK the potholes are so bad we have to swerve round the pinnacles of
tarmac still remaining!
tarmac still remaining!
Radey Shouman
May 7, 2012, 10:42:57 AM5/7/12
to
http://videosift.com/video/In-the-News-Russian-Roads-Have-Potholes
Peter Cole
May 7, 2012, 12:26:15 PM5/7/12
to
scanty during the war years and the immediate aftermath, but by 1960, US
exports were at about the same levels as the decades preceding the war.
This should be put into perspective in that 1960 US trade amounted to
~3% of GDP. Hardly a big factor. The US GDP did grow by a factor of 2.5
from 1940 to 1960.
The big commotion made about US debt often overlooks the 3-4x ratio of
total debt to public (gvt.) debt. In the mortgage crisis, the housing
market lost an amount of wealth approximately equal to the US current
public debt. One could argue that was only a "paper" loss, but one could
also argue that the government debt is perhaps even more of a paper
phenomenon, since we print the paper.
Everyone wrings hands over US decline in manufacturing, but
manufacturing plays a relatively small part in our economy. What we
really lead the world in, and drives our economy, is innovation.
Education is critical to that, and that is where the most troubling
decline and policy is occurring. One of the biggest post-war economic
drivers was the GI Bill, expensive at the time, but a terrific
investment. We seem to have forgotten that. A return to pre New Deal
economics is a recipe for disaster. The noteworthy growth in recent
decades in the US has been the growth of inequality. Over our history,
inequality has been inversely correlated to both economic progress and
social well being (health, crime, etc.).
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
We seem to be forgetting that.
Peter Cole
May 7, 2012, 12:31:29 PM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
is you don't know how deep they are. This can make night riding in
particular very dangerous on bad roads with standing water.
> "Ian Field"<gangprob...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>> In the UK the potholes are so bad we have to swerve round the pinnacles of
>> tarmac still remaining!
>
> You have nothing on the Russians:
>
> http://videosift.com/video/In-the-News-Russian-Roads-Have-Potholes
>
As this video demonstrates, the real problem with water filled potholes
>> In the UK the potholes are so bad we have to swerve round the pinnacles of
>> tarmac still remaining!
>
> You have nothing on the Russians:
>
> http://videosift.com/video/In-the-News-Russian-Roads-Have-Potholes
>
is you don't know how deep they are. This can make night riding in
particular very dangerous on bad roads with standing water.
Ian Field
May 7, 2012, 3:10:34 PM5/7/12
to
"Radey Shouman" <sho...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:87k40or...@comcast.net...
Chalo
May 7, 2012, 3:39:50 PM5/7/12
to
John B. wrote:
>
> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
Iceland went the way of default as you describe. Whether things
continued "as usual" is up to your definition of usual. But to an
objective and remote examination, things seem to be running more
smoothly there than in Greece, where they've gone to extremes not to
default on their sovereign debt.
I'll take this opportunity to observe that investments are presumed to
earn interest because of the risk of loss of the principal. Rich fux
these days want the people to cover their risks and make good on their
losses, while the rich fux take all the winnings. We can already see
the direction this is heading.
When the single biggest line item in a national budget is interest,
you have to wonder what else we could be doing with all that money.
Especially when we're borrowing money at interest to pay the interest
on money that was already borrowed. There comes a time when we'll
have to say, "to hell with them". As Iceland illustrates, sooner
might be better than later.
Who really stands to lose, except the ones who have accumulated all
the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
Chalo
>
> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
Iceland went the way of default as you describe. Whether things
continued "as usual" is up to your definition of usual. But to an
objective and remote examination, things seem to be running more
smoothly there than in Greece, where they've gone to extremes not to
default on their sovereign debt.
I'll take this opportunity to observe that investments are presumed to
earn interest because of the risk of loss of the principal. Rich fux
these days want the people to cover their risks and make good on their
losses, while the rich fux take all the winnings. We can already see
the direction this is heading.
When the single biggest line item in a national budget is interest,
you have to wonder what else we could be doing with all that money.
Especially when we're borrowing money at interest to pay the interest
on money that was already borrowed. There comes a time when we'll
have to say, "to hell with them". As Iceland illustrates, sooner
might be better than later.
Who really stands to lose, except the ones who have accumulated all
the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
Chalo
pastor...@lanaifaith.com
May 7, 2012, 5:06:45 PM5/7/12
to
"Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cff6cc9-baf9-4566...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Message has been deleted
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 7, 2012, 9:12:25 PM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 6:44 AM, John B. wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what sort of financial system do you recommend, if
> the central bank scheme is ineffective?
>
The US did not have a central bank or debt based money until the Wilson
administration.
> Little store front, Mom and Pop, banks? I went into a savings and
> loan, in Bangor Maine with a 1,000 dollar check and they wouldn't cash
> it.... not that much cash in the till.
>
> Perhaps, every state and business issuing their own currency, sort of
> like the old Confederate dollars?
>
The government could issue currency, instead of the Federal Reserve.
Probably one of the reasons Kennedy was killed (along with opposing the
Israeli nuclear weapons program and escalation in Vietnam).
> the central bank scheme is ineffective?
>
The US did not have a central bank or debt based money until the Wilson
administration.
> Little store front, Mom and Pop, banks? I went into a savings and
> loan, in Bangor Maine with a 1,000 dollar check and they wouldn't cash
> it.... not that much cash in the till.
>
> Perhaps, every state and business issuing their own currency, sort of
> like the old Confederate dollars?
>
The government could issue currency, instead of the Federal Reserve.
Probably one of the reasons Kennedy was killed (along with opposing the
Israeli nuclear weapons program and escalation in Vietnam).
Jay Beattie
May 7, 2012, 9:26:36 PM5/7/12
to
seen quotes as high as 30%, although I believe those are wrong. It is
now running 8% -- and a huge trade deficit. Post war, there was high
domestic and foreign demand for US goods, and public debt was mostly
for the cost of war, one finished and one underway. Social Security
was running a surplus, and there was no Medicare/Medicaid/AFDC/SCHIP
or other entitlement programs. We had debt, but it was not
intractable. The world was a very different place in the late 40's
and '50s. Moreover, whether the New Deal would have worked without
the war is speculative.
Anyway, we can't look back 60 years to solve current problems. The
world is too different.
> The big commotion made about US debt often overlooks the 3-4x ratio of
> total debt to public (gvt.) debt. In the mortgage crisis, the housing
> market lost an amount of wealth approximately equal to the US current
> public debt. One could argue that was only a "paper" loss, but one could
> also argue that the government debt is perhaps even more of a paper
> phenomenon, since we print the paper.
>
> Everyone wrings hands over US decline in manufacturing, but
> manufacturing plays a relatively small part in our economy. What we
> really lead the world in, and drives our economy, is innovation.
> Education is critical to that, and that is where the most troubling
> decline and policy is occurring. One of the biggest post-war economic
> drivers was the GI Bill, expensive at the time, but a terrific
> investment. We seem to have forgotten that. A return to pre New Deal
> economics is a recipe for disaster. The noteworthy growth in recent
> decades in the US has been the growth of inequality. Over our history,
> inequality has been inversely correlated to both economic progress and
> social well being (health, crime, etc.).
>
> "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
>
> We seem to be forgetting that.
state of Virginia to sterilize a “feeble-minded white woman“ against
her will):
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the
best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not
call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these
lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in
order to prevent our being swamped by incompetence. It is better for
all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring
for a crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can
prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The
principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to
cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are
enough."
We seem to be forgetting that, too. All sorts of wags say all sorts
of things, many of them quotable, but totally irrelevant to an actual,
modern problem.
-- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
May 7, 2012, 10:00:54 PM5/7/12
to
foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
invention of calculus, etc. etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Radey Shouman
May 7, 2012, 11:22:25 PM5/7/12
to
It's not always easy to say.
> Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
> that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law
> of gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in
> optics, his invention of calculus, etc. etc.
are incorrect Laws.
Chalo
May 7, 2012, 11:39:14 PM5/7/12
to
John B. wrote:
> away free bikes just because you have a show room full of them? Should
> my father have been shafted because he invested his savings in
> "Defense, i.e., US Government, Bonds"? Should your accumulated savings
> disappear because the savings and loan you hide your money in can't
> recover monies that they have loaned.
Usury isn't work. Lending isn't productivity. Having isn't doing.
Money isn't value. Until official practice comes into line with these
basic truths, we should still take back what has been stolen by rich
fux whenever it's possible. I mean, they swindle working people out
of their property, work, and legal protection whenever they can.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Who really stands to lose, except the ones who have accumulated all
> > the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
> > Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
>
> What's with the "accumulated all the money"? Are you going to give
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Who really stands to lose, except the ones who have accumulated all
> > the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
> > Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
>
> away free bikes just because you have a show room full of them? Should
> my father have been shafted because he invested his savings in
> "Defense, i.e., US Government, Bonds"? Should your accumulated savings
> disappear because the savings and loan you hide your money in can't
> recover monies that they have loaned.
Usury isn't work. Lending isn't productivity. Having isn't doing.
Money isn't value. Until official practice comes into line with these
basic truths, we should still take back what has been stolen by rich
fux whenever it's possible. I mean, they swindle working people out
of their property, work, and legal protection whenever they can.
Chalo
AMuzi
May 7, 2012, 11:52:06 PM5/7/12
to
rate of gold to Sterling held up until The Great War.
Back to Mr Bernanke, who is no Isaac Newton, I found this:
"In 1124, a disgusted Henry I had 94 mint workers castrated
for producing bad coins. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399693/A-history-of-sterling.html
Jay Beattie
May 7, 2012, 11:56:50 PM5/7/12
to
by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
justification for unlimited taxes. John Marshall had a lot to say
about taxes, as did Thomas Paine and other famous people -- mostly
against them, but I didn't quote them because it would be equally
irrelevant.
What we need to do is look at how we are going to manage an ever
growing government, how we will fund that government, and how
increasing funding will affect the economy -- and in particular,
innovation and sustainable industry. I'm not taking a side on this.
I'm just saying that all the speechifying and quoting and emoting gets
us nowhere. We're not in the New Deal or the Fair Deal or any deal.
It's 2012. Things are different.
-- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
May 8, 2012, 12:27:13 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 11:56 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > That's a weird debate tactic, to counter a wise quote by putting up a
> > foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
>
> > Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
> > that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
> > gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
> > invention of calculus, etc. etc.
>
> The debate point is that it is stupid to rely on some pithy statement
> by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
> budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
> was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
> which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
> justification for unlimited taxes.
And AFAIK it was meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes,
> On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > That's a weird debate tactic, to counter a wise quote by putting up a
> > foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
>
> > Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
> > that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
> > gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
> > invention of calculus, etc. etc.
>
> The debate point is that it is stupid to rely on some pithy statement
> by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
> budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
> was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
> which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
> justification for unlimited taxes.
either by Holmes or by Cole.
The fact remains, your statement was a pretty crude attempt at
discrediting Holmes, as well as a derailing of the discussion. It
would have made sense to talk honestly about whether Holmes was right
or wrong on taxation. It made no sense to shift to his views on a
completely unrelated topic.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 12:47:23 AM5/8/12
to
Intentional brainwashing through the mass media and entertainment
industry to advance the agenda of the 0.0001%.
Things are not yet bad enough to wake the people from their slumber.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 12:53:26 AM5/8/12
to
society. As would making them work at a place where they have to ask,
"Would you like fries with that?"
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 1:52:39 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/7/2012 6:44 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:36:13 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2012 3:09 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>>> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
>>> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>>>
>>> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
>>> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
>>> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
>>
>> Sorry, but you are unwittingly promoting the Big Lie.
>>
>> There is no moral obligation to repay "odious debts", which includes all
>> the debt based money that governments allowed central banks to create
>> for free and then loaned to the governments at interest (i.e. usury on
>> the working class taxpayer). So the simple solution is to declare these
>> debts void and go back to government issued debt free money. The only
>> losers would be the hereditary members of the criminal international
>> banking cabal.
>>
>
> Lets see, what money are you talking about? The money that came from
> the purchase of government bonds? Certainly that is the usual manner
> that governments raise cash.
>
> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>
You are making the mistake of confusing paper wealth with real wealth.
> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>
>> You say it would cause financial turmoil? Really? It would only change
>> paper assets, as the real means of creating added value are unaffected.
>> Simply order businesses to keep working (as is done in war time) and
>> maintain employment for a couple of months until things settle down.
>> Hardly a high price to pay for freeing mankind from the de-facto slavery
>> that all by a tiny elite live in.
>>
>
> Well, given that the government would no longer have cash to pay its
> bills - you know, meet the monthly payroll and stuff like that, and
> "ordering" businesses to keep on paying people who aren't producing
> stuff for sale? How in the world do you plan on doing that? With the
> Army that you are no longer paying?
>
The government would issue debt free money directly, instead of
borrowing debt based money from privately controlled central banks -
this is actually the more natural order of things.
> Or are you planning on some sort of unpaid militia?
>
>> But hey, this would require belief in what you see, not what you are
>> told by authority figures.
>
Hanging a few Satan worshiping, criminal bankers out to dry would be of
immense benefit to everyone else in the world.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 1:58:38 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/7/2012 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> word?) recognized their problem and moved to correct them while Greece
> seems to be doing exactly the opposite.
>
Yes, Greece is making the working people suffer, while looking out for
the interests of the criminal bankers.
>> I'll take this opportunity to observe that investments are presumed to
>> earn interest because of the risk of loss of the principal. Rich fux
>> these days want the people to cover their risks and make good on their
>> losses, while the rich fux take all the winnings. We can already see
>> the direction this is heading.
>
> Given that investments are normally of one of two basic forms, one,
> one becomes a partner in a business and participates in the profit
> earned (stocks) or two, one loans an entity money (bonds) your first
> assertion is faulty. Interest is paid primarily as a fee for using
> someone else's money. Of course, if there is a chance that the money
> won't be repaid then the cost of money goes up as there has to be some
> compensation for the risk taken.
>
> As for "Rich Fux", are you telling me that if you loan someone 10
> bucks you don't want it paid back? Or if you have partners in your
> business you don't have to divvy up the profits with them?
>
> (You do realize, I hope, that to some people you, the business owner,
> are a "Rich Fux", and an exploiter too for that matter, as your income
> is derived from selling things to people at a higher price then you
> acquired it for.)
>
The Rich-Filth bankers are allowed to create money at no cost, then they
loan it to governments at interest. This is simple usury, as they
provide no added value to anyone. Defaulting on the loans to them would
be the same as stopping a leech from sucking your blood - the bankers
have as moral right to the money as the leech has to your blood.
>> When the single biggest line item in a national budget is interest,
>> you have to wonder what else we could be doing with all that money.
>> Especially when we're borrowing money at interest to pay the interest
>> on money that was already borrowed. There comes a time when we'll
>> have to say, "to hell with them". As Iceland illustrates, sooner
>> might be better than later.
>>
> I didn't think that the last time I looked interest was the largest
> item in the budget. I thought that the defense budget was the highest.
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 12:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
> <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
>>> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>>
>> Iceland went the way of default as you describe. Whether things
>> continued "as usual" is up to your definition of usual. But to an
>> objective and remote examination, things seem to be running more
>> smoothly there than in Greece, where they've gone to extremes not to
>> default on their sovereign debt.
>>
> I believe that the difference was that the Icelandics (is that a
> <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
>>> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>>
>> Iceland went the way of default as you describe. Whether things
>> continued "as usual" is up to your definition of usual. But to an
>> objective and remote examination, things seem to be running more
>> smoothly there than in Greece, where they've gone to extremes not to
>> default on their sovereign debt.
>>
> word?) recognized their problem and moved to correct them while Greece
> seems to be doing exactly the opposite.
>
Yes, Greece is making the working people suffer, while looking out for
the interests of the criminal bankers.
>> I'll take this opportunity to observe that investments are presumed to
>> earn interest because of the risk of loss of the principal. Rich fux
>> these days want the people to cover their risks and make good on their
>> losses, while the rich fux take all the winnings. We can already see
>> the direction this is heading.
>
> one becomes a partner in a business and participates in the profit
> earned (stocks) or two, one loans an entity money (bonds) your first
> assertion is faulty. Interest is paid primarily as a fee for using
> someone else's money. Of course, if there is a chance that the money
> won't be repaid then the cost of money goes up as there has to be some
> compensation for the risk taken.
>
> As for "Rich Fux", are you telling me that if you loan someone 10
> bucks you don't want it paid back? Or if you have partners in your
> business you don't have to divvy up the profits with them?
>
> (You do realize, I hope, that to some people you, the business owner,
> are a "Rich Fux", and an exploiter too for that matter, as your income
> is derived from selling things to people at a higher price then you
> acquired it for.)
>
The Rich-Filth bankers are allowed to create money at no cost, then they
loan it to governments at interest. This is simple usury, as they
provide no added value to anyone. Defaulting on the loans to them would
be the same as stopping a leech from sucking your blood - the bankers
have as moral right to the money as the leech has to your blood.
>> When the single biggest line item in a national budget is interest,
>> you have to wonder what else we could be doing with all that money.
>> Especially when we're borrowing money at interest to pay the interest
>> on money that was already borrowed. There comes a time when we'll
>> have to say, "to hell with them". As Iceland illustrates, sooner
>> might be better than later.
>>
> item in the budget. I thought that the defense budget was the highest.
>> Who really stands to lose, except the ones who have accumulated all
>> the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
>> Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
>>
>> Chalo
>
>> the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
>> Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> What's with the "accumulated all the money"? Are you going to give
> away free bikes just because you have a show room full of them? Should
> my father have been shafted because he invested his savings in
> "Defense, i.e., US Government, Bonds"? Should your accumulated savings
> disappear because the savings and loan you hide your money in can't
> recover monies that they have loaned.
>
Should people be allowed to keep the profits from criminal activities?
> away free bikes just because you have a show room full of them? Should
> my father have been shafted because he invested his savings in
> "Defense, i.e., US Government, Bonds"? Should your accumulated savings
> disappear because the savings and loan you hide your money in can't
> recover monies that they have loaned.
>
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 2:09:41 AM5/8/12
to
his so-called followers [1] ignore him on this point.
[1] The Muslims (who consider Jesus (PBUH) the second greatest prophet
of God [2]) are better on this point, since while they too have had
corrupted clerics and theologians, they follow the word of Muhammad
(PBUH) better than Christians follow the word of Jesus (PBUH) [3], as
Islam lacks a corrupter of the stature of Constantine.
[2] Unlike those whose religion claims Jesus is dammed to eternity in a
pot of boiling excrement.
[3] Which of course has also been corrupted from the original Gospels
into the various New Testament versions in use.
Dan O
May 8, 2012, 2:51:23 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
(I was viewing the Wikipedia page on alchemy once. It mentioned
alchemists like, Newton, so-and-so, and Howie Mandel. ALways keep a
grain of salt handy.)
(I wasn't impressed with the [snipped?] statistics. Money bites.
Worshiping it with statistics only makes it worse.)
Dan O
May 8, 2012, 2:52:34 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 9:27 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:56 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's a weird debate tactic, to counter a wise quote by putting up a
> > > foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
>
> > > Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
> > > that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
> > > gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
> > > invention of calculus, etc. etc.
>
> > The debate point is that it is stupid to rely on some pithy statement
> > by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
> > budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
> > was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
> > which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
> > justification for unlimited taxes.
>
> And AFAIK it was meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes...
> On May 7, 11:56 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's a weird debate tactic, to counter a wise quote by putting up a
> > > foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
>
> > > Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
> > > that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
> > > gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
> > > invention of calculus, etc. etc.
>
> > The debate point is that it is stupid to rely on some pithy statement
> > by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
> > budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
> > was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
> > which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
> > justification for unlimited taxes.
>
Produce to fulfill the need. That's all.
<snip>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Frank Krygowski
May 8, 2012, 10:22:16 AM5/8/12
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
> And AFAIK it was meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes,
> either by Holmes or by Cole.
That's a typo. I meant "And AFAIK it was NOT meant to be a
>
>
> And AFAIK it was meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes,
> either by Holmes or by Cole.
justification for unlimited taxes, either by Holmes or by Cole."
--
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
May 8, 2012, 10:36:16 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 9:27 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
from which the quote is excerpted?
The meaning of Holmes' tax quote is contextualized by his quote in
Bell, and in his personal writing, too. His original opinion in Bell
was worked-over by his fellow justices because it was too caustic.
Holmes also wrote that taxes can be punitive. The suggestion is that
Holmes would not be a huge welfare supporter. That is not to say he
supported laissez faire either, but his notion of "civilization" was
not a welfare state. Welfare was unheard of during his time, and in
fact, he lived most of his life without a federal income tax.
Why don't we just get our tax policy out of Leviticus or Deuteronomy?
How about Emerson or ee cummings?
-- Jay Beattie.
Jay Beattie
May 8, 2012, 11:53:33 AM5/8/12
to
local), union pensions, mutual funds, savings bond holders and foreign
governments. $2.6 trillion of our national debt consists of bonds owed
to the Social Security Trust Fund. You better hope it gets repaid. --
Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
May 8, 2012, 1:31:51 PM5/8/12
to
is glorious"
AMuzi
May 8, 2012, 1:49:42 PM5/8/12
to
This is well worth $1.79 in paperback
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=economics+in+one+lesson+Hazlitt&mtype=B&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
AMuzi
May 8, 2012, 1:55:10 PM5/8/12
to
and just moved on.
Chalo
May 8, 2012, 2:36:02 PM5/8/12
to
> cheap, sell dear and bitch about the rich folks. Nice rhetoric.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same rich fux. I'm
talking about folks who are rich enough to buy laws that favor their
class. Rich enough that if they paid taxes like the rest of us, it
would not change their lifestyles one iota but would raise significant
public funds (but they buy laws that allow them to skip out on their
fair tax burden).
I don't own a shop; I earn a wage. But the guy who owns my shop? He
makes roughly the same money that I do, and he's also a shop
mechanic. I try to see to it that he makes some money, and he honors
his obligations to me and the three other guys who work in his shop.
I think it's pretty amazing that we can help as many people as we do
on the revenue our shop brings in. It's a very honorable business,
loved and respected in the community.
There's not much comparison between my shop's owner and someone who
borrows money from the government for free, on the basis of being rich
to begin with, and then lends it back to the government at interest.
Or between my shop's owner and someone who screws hardworking people
out of fair pay and benefits for the sake of yet more profit, and then
uses some of that profit to fight their rightful claims. Or between
my shop's owner and someone who uses his access to government to
require people to buy things that give him a profit.
If you're smart and industrious and luck is on your side, it's
possible to make a very comfortable living doing honorable work. But
we live in a world that has billionaires in it, and you don't get to
be a billionaire by doing honorable work. You get to be a billionaire
mainly by gambling, stacking the deck in your favor, and colluding
with the casino and with the mob to let you get away with it. It's
the nature of a billionaire to be unsatisfied with winning just one
game every time, too. Billionaires don't recognize limits of ethics,
decency, enough being enough, or anything else that would stop the
rest of us before we made our thousandth million. And that means they
use their winnings to try to stack all other decks in their favor as
well.
It appears you have been snookered, buddy. You've been told that what
is good for rich fux is good for you, and you believed it. But you
are wrong about that. That misconception you hold is just another
unfair advantage they contrived to buy, by owning your sources of
information.
Chalo
Frank Krygowski
May 8, 2012, 5:14:15 PM5/8/12
to
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On May 7, 9:27 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 11:56 pm, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's a weird debate tactic, to counter a wise quote by putting up a
>>>> foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
>>
>>>> Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
>>>> that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
>>>> gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
>>>> invention of calculus, etc. etc.
>>
>>> The debate point is that it is stupid to rely on some pithy statement
>>> by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
>>> budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
>>> was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
>>> which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
>>> justification for unlimited taxes.
>>
>> And AFAIK it was meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes,
>> either by Holmes or by Cole.
Again, I don't know how much I confused things by my typo, leaving "not"
> On May 7, 9:27 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 11:56 pm, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 7, 7:00 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's a weird debate tactic, to counter a wise quote by putting up a
>>>> foolish one from the same person. It does not disprove the wise quote.
>>
>>>> Isaac Newton was very enthusiastic about alchemy. He was wrong about
>>>> that, but that certainly doesn't disprove his laws of motion, his law of
>>>> gravitation, his work in fluid mechanics, his discoveries in optics, his
>>>> invention of calculus, etc. etc.
>>
>>> The debate point is that it is stupid to rely on some pithy statement
>>> by a poet qua judge about a complex subject like taxation and federal
>>> budgeting. Saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization
>>> was, for Holmes, merely a way of distinguishing taxes from penalties,
>>> which are treated differently under the Constitution. It was not a
>>> justification for unlimited taxes.
>>
>> And AFAIK it was meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes,
>> either by Holmes or by Cole.
out of my previous sentence. But my response to your statement "It was
not a justification for unlimited taxes" was supposed to read "It was
NOT meant to be a justification for unlimited taxes." In fact, nobody
I've ever heard of favors unlimited taxes.
>> The fact remains, your statement was a pretty crude attempt at
>> discrediting Holmes, as well as a derailing of the discussion. It
>> would have made sense to talk honestly about whether Holmes was right
>> or wrong on taxation. It made no sense to shift to his views on a
>> completely unrelated topic.
>
> Do you even know what Holmes was saying -- have you read the opinion
> from which the quote is excerpted?
that one shouldn't attack one's opinion on topic A (be it laws of
motion, calculus, or taxes) based on his mistaken opinion on topic B (be
it alchemy or eugenics).
However, you're doing a bit better now. You're actually discussing taxes.
> The meaning of Holmes' tax quote is contextualized by his quote in
> Bell, and in his personal writing, too. His original opinion in Bell
> was worked-over by his fellow justices because it was too caustic.
different case, not Buck vs. Bell. It seems he also stated a version of
the quote in some speech or other, but I've seen no indication that
speech was related to Buck vs. Bell. Perhaps we should stay away from
that case entirely?
> Holmes also wrote that taxes can be punitive. The suggestion is that
> Holmes would not be a huge welfare supporter. That is not to say he
> supported laissez faire either, but his notion of "civilization" was
> not a welfare state. Welfare was unheard of during his time, and in
> fact, he lived most of his life without a federal income tax.
>
> Why don't we just get our tax policy out of Leviticus or Deuteronomy?
> How about Emerson or ee cummings?
something pertinent to say about taxes, we can consider their points and
give them whatever weight seems appropriate.
It's good to note, though, that if Leviticus or Charlie Brown had
happened to confirm (say) the fundamental theorem of calculus, their
approval would not disprove the theorem. Examine the idea on its
merits, don't disparage it because you don't like the source.
Now, to get firmly on topic: I certainly favor many kinds of taxation,
and I agree that taxes are necessary to pay for civilization. Holmes
was right on that point. Those who disagree can always try a life in
the wilderness.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
May 8, 2012, 5:28:03 PM5/8/12
to
Chalo wrote:
>
> There's not much comparison between my shop's owner and someone who
> borrows money from the government for free, on the basis of being rich
> to begin with, and then lends it back to the government at interest.
> Or between my shop's owner and someone who screws hardworking people
> out of fair pay and benefits for the sake of yet more profit, and then
> uses some of that profit to fight their rightful claims. Or between
> my shop's owner and someone who uses his access to government to
> require people to buy things that give him a profit.
>
> If you're smart and industrious and luck is on your side, it's
> possible to make a very comfortable living doing honorable work. But
> we live in a world that has billionaires in it, and you don't get to
> be a billionaire by doing honorable work. You get to be a billionaire
> mainly by gambling, stacking the deck in your favor, and colluding
> with the casino and with the mob to let you get away with it.
For what it's worth: Long ago, one of my uncles ran a gas station. A
>
> There's not much comparison between my shop's owner and someone who
> borrows money from the government for free, on the basis of being rich
> to begin with, and then lends it back to the government at interest.
> Or between my shop's owner and someone who screws hardworking people
> out of fair pay and benefits for the sake of yet more profit, and then
> uses some of that profit to fight their rightful claims. Or between
> my shop's owner and someone who uses his access to government to
> require people to buy things that give him a profit.
>
> If you're smart and industrious and luck is on your side, it's
> possible to make a very comfortable living doing honorable work. But
> we live in a world that has billionaires in it, and you don't get to
> be a billionaire by doing honorable work. You get to be a billionaire
> mainly by gambling, stacking the deck in your favor, and colluding
> with the casino and with the mob to let you get away with it.
certain local businessman began dealing there, filling his company
vehicles and running up quite a bill.
At a certain point in time, my uncle tried to collect on the bill. He
never got any of the money. My uncle had a low income and was a nobody,
a regular guy. The businessman was very well connected politically and
extra-politically, and there was nothing my uncle could do but refuse to
give him any more gasoline.
That businessman went on to become one of the denizens of Forbes' list
of the wealthy. I guess I could write to his corporation and say it
still owes my family money plus interest, but I don't think much would
come of it.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Radey Shouman
May 8, 2012, 8:49:58 PM5/8/12
to
John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> writes:
> How do these evil bankers create money? I'm real interested in that
> point.
Bankers, evil or good, create money by lending out more than they take
in deposits. If you deposit a dollar in your bank, and the bank loans
two dollars with that dollar as reserve, then a dollar has been created.
Most of the two dollars loaned will probably be deposited shortly, and
they chain continues. With the exception of coins all US dollars are
created in exactly this way, by lending.
If everyone managed to pay off their debts simultaneously there would be
no money whatsoever.
All of these money-creating loans are made, barring banking
incompetence, at a positive real rate of interest. This means that the
sum of real wealth in the economy has to increase exponentially (as a
percentage of the total). If it does not then in short order the few
bankers who are not broke own everything.
It's no wonder that our modern systems of finance were pioneered in
expanding empires, and only became somewhat stable after the industrial
revolution allowed exploiting an exponentially growing supply of energy.
Economists, for example the guys who compute the CPI, are fond of
pointing out that growth in wealth (utility) does not logically require
growth in the use of natural resources, but historically the two have
certainly gone together.
If we cannot figure out how to maintain exponential growth in the supply
of energy, and in the long run we almost certainly cannot, then at some
point we will have to rework not only the real economy, but the
financial one as well.
> point.
Bankers, evil or good, create money by lending out more than they take
in deposits. If you deposit a dollar in your bank, and the bank loans
two dollars with that dollar as reserve, then a dollar has been created.
Most of the two dollars loaned will probably be deposited shortly, and
they chain continues. With the exception of coins all US dollars are
created in exactly this way, by lending.
If everyone managed to pay off their debts simultaneously there would be
no money whatsoever.
All of these money-creating loans are made, barring banking
incompetence, at a positive real rate of interest. This means that the
sum of real wealth in the economy has to increase exponentially (as a
percentage of the total). If it does not then in short order the few
bankers who are not broke own everything.
It's no wonder that our modern systems of finance were pioneered in
expanding empires, and only became somewhat stable after the industrial
revolution allowed exploiting an exponentially growing supply of energy.
Economists, for example the guys who compute the CPI, are fond of
pointing out that growth in wealth (utility) does not logically require
growth in the use of natural resources, but historically the two have
certainly gone together.
If we cannot figure out how to maintain exponential growth in the supply
of energy, and in the long run we almost certainly cannot, then at some
point we will have to rework not only the real economy, but the
financial one as well.
Radey Shouman
May 8, 2012, 9:11:24 PM5/8/12
to
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> writes:
> On May 7, 12:39 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>
>> > So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
>> > I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>>
>> Iceland went the way of default as you describe. Whether things
>> continued "as usual" is up to your definition of usual. But to an
>> objective and remote examination, things seem to be running more
>> smoothly there than in Greece, where they've gone to extremes not to
>> default on their sovereign debt.
Iceland did not default. They did refuse to use public money to bail
> On May 7, 12:39 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>
>> > So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
>> > I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>>
>> Iceland went the way of default as you describe. Whether things
>> continued "as usual" is up to your definition of usual. But to an
>> objective and remote examination, things seem to be running more
>> smoothly there than in Greece, where they've gone to extremes not to
>> default on their sovereign debt.
out some foreigners who had made foolish investments in Icelandic banks.
The most recent example of national default I remember is Argentina.
>> I'll take this opportunity to observe that investments are presumed to
>> earn interest because of the risk of loss of the principal. Rich fux
>> these days want the people to cover their risks and make good on their
>> losses, while the rich fux take all the winnings. We can already see
>> the direction this is heading.
>>
>> When the single biggest line item in a national budget is interest,
>> you have to wonder what else we could be doing with all that money.
>> Especially when we're borrowing money at interest to pay the interest
>> on money that was already borrowed. There comes a time when we'll
>> have to say, "to hell with them". As Iceland illustrates, sooner
>> might be better than later.
>>
>> Who really stands to lose, except the ones who have accumulated all
>> the money (mostly ill-gotten and most of the remainder unearned)?
>> Think of it as deferred progressive taxation come home at last.
>
> Wake up. Look who owns our debt. You, your government (state and
> local), union pensions, mutual funds, savings bond holders and foreign
> governments. $2.6 trillion of our national debt consists of bonds owed
> to the Social Security Trust Fund. You better hope it gets repaid. --
regardless of right or wrong.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 10:22:35 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 12:31 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
> [...]
"Princelings" (sons of the original Communist Party leaders) are now
generally filthy rich through nepotism. Just goes to show that 20th
Century "communism" was a sham by the power hungry, who never intended
to follow the ideas of Karl Marx.
Old Soviet joke:
Leonid Brezhnev's mother comes to visit him. He takes her for a ride in
his limousine, shows her around his mansion, and flies her to his dacha
in his private helicopter. At the end of the day she says, "you better
hope the Communists do not come into power, because they would take all
this away from you".
But at least people in the old Soviet Union knew they were being scammed
by the ruling classes, while in the US the majority still buys into the
nonsense propaganda of a fair economy and free mass media.
> [...]
> We could use a guy like Comrade Deng about now,"To be rich is glorious"
>
The top 1% in China now own 40-60% of the total wealth. The
>
"Princelings" (sons of the original Communist Party leaders) are now
generally filthy rich through nepotism. Just goes to show that 20th
Century "communism" was a sham by the power hungry, who never intended
to follow the ideas of Karl Marx.
Old Soviet joke:
Leonid Brezhnev's mother comes to visit him. He takes her for a ride in
his limousine, shows her around his mansion, and flies her to his dacha
in his private helicopter. At the end of the day she says, "you better
hope the Communists do not come into power, because they would take all
this away from you".
But at least people in the old Soviet Union knew they were being scammed
by the ruling classes, while in the US the majority still buys into the
nonsense propaganda of a fair economy and free mass media.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 10:29:34 PM5/8/12
to
for legal reasons, but who is on the top quartile of Forbes's richest
persons list.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 10:32:08 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 7:49 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> John B.<johnbs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 00:58:38 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
>> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2012 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 12:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
>>>> [...]
> John B.<johnbs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 00:58:38 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
>> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2012 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 12:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
>>> The Rich-Filth bankers are allowed to create money at no cost, then they
>>> loan it to governments at interest. This is simple usury, as they
>>> provide no added value to anyone. Defaulting on the loans to them would
>>> be the same as stopping a leech from sucking your blood - the bankers
>>> have as moral right to the money as the leech has to your blood.
>>>
>>
>> How do these evil bankers create money? I'm real interested in that
>> point.
>
> Bankers, evil or good, create money by lending out more than they take
> in deposits. If you deposit a dollar in your bank, and the bank loans
> two dollars with that dollar as reserve, then a dollar has been created.
> Most of the two dollars loaned will probably be deposited shortly, and
> they chain continues. With the exception of coins all US dollars are
> created in exactly this way, by lending.[...]
>>> loan it to governments at interest. This is simple usury, as they
>>> provide no added value to anyone. Defaulting on the loans to them would
>>> be the same as stopping a leech from sucking your blood - the bankers
>>> have as moral right to the money as the leech has to your blood.
>>>
>>
>> How do these evil bankers create money? I'm real interested in that
>> point.
>
> Bankers, evil or good, create money by lending out more than they take
> in deposits. If you deposit a dollar in your bank, and the bank loans
> two dollars with that dollar as reserve, then a dollar has been created.
> Most of the two dollars loaned will probably be deposited shortly, and
> they chain continues. With the exception of coins all US dollars are
Correct. This is basic Econ 101 stuff.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 10:35:36 PM5/8/12
to
government would stop funding obligations such as Social Security. In
fact, the opposite would happen, as not having to pay interest to the
financial parasites would allow for both greater discretionary spending
and lower taxes.
Tom $herman (-_-)
May 8, 2012, 10:44:25 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 6:31 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 00:52:39 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
> wheels that some south Sea Islanders use for money. Paper is just an
> easy way to move it around. would you rather tote a bushel of beets
> down to Walmart the next time you want to buy a shirt?
>
Wrong. Would farms growing food cease to exist if the government
defaulted on debt? Would minerals in the ground disappear? Would
factories and infrastructure vanish? Would the accumulated technical
knowledge of the society be lost?
The answer to all the above is of course not. Money is but a construct
to represent real wealth.
>>>> You say it would cause financial turmoil? Really? It would only change
>>>> paper assets, as the real means of creating added value are unaffected.
>>>> Simply order businesses to keep working (as is done in war time) and
>>>> maintain employment for a couple of months until things settle down.
>>>> Hardly a high price to pay for freeing mankind from the de-facto slavery
>>>> that all by a tiny elite live in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, given that the government would no longer have cash to pay its
>>> bills - you know, meet the monthly payroll and stuff like that, and
>>> "ordering" businesses to keep on paying people who aren't producing
>>> stuff for sale? How in the world do you plan on doing that? With the
>>> Army that you are no longer paying?
>>>
>> The government would issue debt free money directly, instead of
>> borrowing debt based money from privately controlled central banks -
>> this is actually the more natural order of things.
>>
> Err... the government borrows from private central banks? Whatever are
> you going on about? do you mean that banks buy government debt, i.e.,
> government bonds? Whatever is wrong with that? My father bought War
> Bonds during the war. Was he wrong?
>
When the government loans money to banks and the banks loan it back to
the government at a higher interest rate, the effect is to transfer
wealth from the taxpayers to the bankers. Do you believe the government
should be giving away taxpayers' money to the couple of hundred richest
people in the world, with nothing in return (since the government could
create the same money at no cost to the taxpayer)?
> mortgages, time payments, lines of credit, over drafts, and all the
> other financial services. Businesses will be restricted to what a man
> can finance himself. In short you will return trade to the village
> market and whatever you can tote on your back..
>
Nonsense. You really do not understand even the basics.
> Selling shares originated, I'm sure you know, in shippers financing
> trading voyages as individuals couldn't support the cost of the ship,
> cargo, crews wages, and the very real possibility that the voyage
> might be a bust.
>
Which has squat to do with the US government transferring trillions of
dollars of taxpayer money to a few hundred central bankers for nothing
in return.
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 00:52:39 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2012 6:44 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:36:13 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
>>> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2012 3:09 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>>>>> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
>>>>> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>>>>>
>>>>> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
>>>>> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
>>>>> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but you are unwittingly promoting the Big Lie.
>>>>
>>>> There is no moral obligation to repay "odious debts", which includes all
>>>> the debt based money that governments allowed central banks to create
>>>> for free and then loaned to the governments at interest (i.e. usury on
>>>> the working class taxpayer). So the simple solution is to declare these
>>>> debts void and go back to government issued debt free money. The only
>>>> losers would be the hereditary members of the criminal international
>>>> banking cabal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lets see, what money are you talking about? The money that came from
>>> the purchase of government bonds? Certainly that is the usual manner
>>> that governments raise cash.
>>>
>>> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
>>> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>>>
>> You are making the mistake of confusing paper wealth with real wealth.
>>
> Hardly. You can count your wealth in gold, silver or those big stone
>
>> On 5/7/2012 6:44 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:36:13 -0500, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
>>> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2012 3:09 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>>>>> As Margaret Thatcher pithily noted, socialism works until you run out of
>>>>> other people's money. Europe's party is over.
>>>>>
>>>>> Europe is at least honest in its profligacy. It's not better here, we
>>>>> merely have The Big Lie and a faster printing press. The foreseeable end
>>>>> will be a debacle in both cases when the music stops.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but you are unwittingly promoting the Big Lie.
>>>>
>>>> There is no moral obligation to repay "odious debts", which includes all
>>>> the debt based money that governments allowed central banks to create
>>>> for free and then loaned to the governments at interest (i.e. usury on
>>>> the working class taxpayer). So the simple solution is to declare these
>>>> debts void and go back to government issued debt free money. The only
>>>> losers would be the hereditary members of the criminal international
>>>> banking cabal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lets see, what money are you talking about? The money that came from
>>> the purchase of government bonds? Certainly that is the usual manner
>>> that governments raise cash.
>>>
>>> So Government X defaults on its bonds? And life goes on as usual?
>>> I think you need a better grounding in economics 101.
>>>
>> You are making the mistake of confusing paper wealth with real wealth.
>>
> wheels that some south Sea Islanders use for money. Paper is just an
> easy way to move it around. would you rather tote a bushel of beets
> down to Walmart the next time you want to buy a shirt?
>
Wrong. Would farms growing food cease to exist if the government
defaulted on debt? Would minerals in the ground disappear? Would
factories and infrastructure vanish? Would the accumulated technical
knowledge of the society be lost?
The answer to all the above is of course not. Money is but a construct
to represent real wealth.
>>>> You say it would cause financial turmoil? Really? It would only change
>>>> paper assets, as the real means of creating added value are unaffected.
>>>> Simply order businesses to keep working (as is done in war time) and
>>>> maintain employment for a couple of months until things settle down.
>>>> Hardly a high price to pay for freeing mankind from the de-facto slavery
>>>> that all by a tiny elite live in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, given that the government would no longer have cash to pay its
>>> bills - you know, meet the monthly payroll and stuff like that, and
>>> "ordering" businesses to keep on paying people who aren't producing
>>> stuff for sale? How in the world do you plan on doing that? With the
>>> Army that you are no longer paying?
>>>
>> The government would issue debt free money directly, instead of
>> borrowing debt based money from privately controlled central banks -
>> this is actually the more natural order of things.
>>
> you going on about? do you mean that banks buy government debt, i.e.,
> government bonds? Whatever is wrong with that? My father bought War
> Bonds during the war. Was he wrong?
>
When the government loans money to banks and the banks loan it back to
the government at a higher interest rate, the effect is to transfer
wealth from the taxpayers to the bankers. Do you believe the government
should be giving away taxpayers' money to the couple of hundred richest
people in the world, with nothing in return (since the government could
create the same money at no cost to the taxpayer)?
>
>>> Or are you planning on some sort of unpaid militia?
>>>
>>>> But hey, this would require belief in what you see, not what you are
>>>> told by authority figures.
>>>
>> Hanging a few Satan worshiping, criminal bankers out to dry would be of
>> immense benefit to everyone else in the world.
>
> Of course. and of course it will also wipe out credit cards,
>>> Or are you planning on some sort of unpaid militia?
>>>
>>>> But hey, this would require belief in what you see, not what you are
>>>> told by authority figures.
>>>
>> Hanging a few Satan worshiping, criminal bankers out to dry would be of
>> immense benefit to everyone else in the world.
>
> mortgages, time payments, lines of credit, over drafts, and all the
> other financial services. Businesses will be restricted to what a man
> can finance himself. In short you will return trade to the village
> market and whatever you can tote on your back..
>
Nonsense. You really do not understand even the basics.
> Selling shares originated, I'm sure you know, in shippers financing
> trading voyages as individuals couldn't support the cost of the ship,
> cargo, crews wages, and the very real possibility that the voyage
> might be a bust.
>
Which has squat to do with the US government transferring trillions of
dollars of taxpayer money to a few hundred central bankers for nothing
in return.
Bertrand
May 8, 2012, 11:00:48 PM5/8/12
to
> Now, to get firmly on topic: I certainly favor many kinds of taxation,
Wasn't the topic "1946 Raleighs"?
Frank Krygowski
May 8, 2012, 11:11:36 PM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 11:00 pm, "Bertrand" <bhstempo1ATcomcastDOT...@invalid.com>
wrote:
one step closer to being on topic!
So: Wasn't the video of prints hand-drawn on drafting boards quaint?
You'd think that if they could have done their designs in computer
solid modeling, they'd be able to sell frames for about $10!
- Frank Krygowski
wrote:
> > Now, to get firmly on topic: I certainly favor many kinds of taxation,
>
> Wasn't the topic "1946 Raleighs"?
Well, once upon a time it was. Maybe I should have said I was getting
>
> Wasn't the topic "1946 Raleighs"?
one step closer to being on topic!
So: Wasn't the video of prints hand-drawn on drafting boards quaint?
You'd think that if they could have done their designs in computer
solid modeling, they'd be able to sell frames for about $10!
- Frank Krygowski
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages