Slavery and technology in Roman Empire (Re: damn Romans!)
Martin Ripa
in article <3AF02F9F...@mediaone.net> "Robert J.
Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>mike stone wrote:
>
>> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@mediaone.net
>>
>> >And you are right. Having cheap human labor did not encourage
>> >them to make advances in the areas I have indicated.
Slave labor is not cheap labor !
Slavery, serfdom and similar forms of forced labor are
result of * labor shortage *.
Examples in history: the African slavery in America, the
"second serfdom" in Central Europe after Thirty Years War,
etc..
The huge expansion of slavery in Roman Italy in second
century BC was most probably driven by the same economic
forces.
The result of cheap labor supply is wage labor ( or wage
slavery, as would the Marxists say).
Classical example: the Industrial Revolution
A minor equation:
L = market value of worker's labor
S = cost of worker's subsistence
G = price of guarding and supervising the worker
If S+G < L , slave labor in various form will tend to drive
out the wage labor.
>>
>> Was cheap human labour any less available in the 18th and 19th Centuries?
>> That's not the impression I get from my reading of the Industrial Revolution.
Indeed.
The population of Britain (in millions)
England Wales Scotland
1780 7.1 0.43 1.4
1801 8.3 0.59 1.63
1831 13.1 0.91 2.37
>> And even if it had been, there was nothing to stop slave labour being imported
>> into England etc from Africa - if that was what people had wanted to do
>
>After the bubonic plague, labor in Europe was anything but cheap.
The same after the 180's smallpox plague.
>
>Aside from which labor used to operate machinery returned a much
>better profit then field labor. There were plenty of strong backs for
>the countryside from the native populations.
>
>After the plague reduced the population of Europe there was a
>greater inclination to make use of machines (water powered at
>first). There were grinding mills, felting mills, presses, rollers
>operated by water power.
The same in Rome - there was a noticeable growth in the use
of water power after 180's.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
>
Best wishes
Martin
--
If I had had the money during the last ten days, I would have
been able to make a good deal on the stock exchange. The time has
now come when with wit and very little money one can really make a
killing in London.
Karl Marx, 1864
Ned Latham
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > mike stone wrote:
> > > Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And you are right. Having cheap human labor did not encourage
> > > > them to make advances in the areas I have indicated.
>
> Slave labor is not cheap labor !
>
> Slavery, serfdom and similar forms of forced labor are
> result of * labor shortage *.
Don't be ridiculous. Unskilled slaves were dirt cheap for the Romans.
They were almost constantly at war, and such of their captives as
weren't worth anything as hostages were enslaved. They were cheap
to buy, which meant that they were cheap to replace, which meant
in turn that they were cheap to maintain, because if they died, it
was no great loss.
IOW, they got only enough food to power their work, and were "housed"
for security, not shelter.
----snip----
Ned
--
To reply, cut out my nose * Democracy means "the people rule". *
and make the met a net. * Fight for the power of assent. *
Pjotr
wrote:
>>
>> Slave labor is not cheap labor !
>>
>> Slavery, serfdom and similar forms of forced labor are
>> result of * labor shortage *.
>
>Don't be ridiculous. Unskilled slaves were dirt cheap for the Romans.
>They were almost constantly at war, and such of their captives as
>weren't worth anything as hostages were enslaved. They were cheap
>to buy, which meant that they were cheap to replace, which meant
>in turn that they were cheap to maintain, because if they died, it
>was no great loss.
>
>IOW, they got only enough food to power their work, and were "housed"
>for security, not shelter.
>
>----snip----
>
Slaves were cheap in the expansionist period of the Roman Empire.
After the consolidation of the borders, let's say under Hadrianus,
there were much less POW's to be sold on the slave markets. So prices
went up.
Pjotr.
-------------------
Sancta simplicitas.
Neville Lindsay
"Pjotr" <n...@ilfor.me> wrote in message
news:3af321d...@news.brabant.chello.nl...
That heralded merely a change of technique - if you were no longer having
them surplus after sackings and ravagings, you simply fall back on others to
supply you, and life was so cheap and plentiful that commercial suppliers
became the providores. The sources varied - the barbarians were willing to
supply unlimited quantities to the slave clearing houses at Delos and
elsewhere, many sold themselves into slavery, to benefit from automatic
Roman citizenship by subsequently buying their manumission, and yet others
came from the industry of being retrieved from exposure on the dungheaps as
babies and reared for sale.
Different classes of slaves had different values. Agricultural and mining
slaves were of little value and were often worked and maltreated to death.
Slavery declined not by decrease in supply but, by eventually reducing the
peasantry to serfdom, the non-domestic and non-trade ones were replaced by
even cheaper to maintain and replace workers. Serfs did their own
replacement and had to feed, clothe and house themselves. The overall
surplus value of their labour was significantly greater than those of
slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier, Paul would not have had to
direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
NL
David Lloyd-Jones
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>
> That heralded merely a change of technique - if you were no longer having
> them surplus after sackings and ravagings, you simply fall back on others
to
> supply you, and life was so cheap and plentiful that commercial suppliers
> became the providores.
Neville,
I wonder if you could explain what you mean here. It always seems to me that
life at any time anywhere has eactly the same degree of "plentifulness,"
i.e. 100%, all of it. I don't undertand what yo mean by suggesting that it
was more plentiful in roman times, when the world's humanpopulation might
have been 200,000 at the very most, more likely 20,000,000 -- small
fractions of what t is today.
> The sources varied - the barbarians were willing to
> supply unlimited quantities to the slave clearing houses at Delos and
> elsewhere, many sold themselves into slavery, to benefit from automatic
> Roman citizenship by subsequently buying their manumission, and yet others
> came from the industry of being retrieved from exposure on the dungheaps
as
> babies and reared for sale.
I'm not quite clear on this transaction. If I sell myself as a slave, who
gets the proceeds of the sale? If interest rates are high can I loan the
money out, perhaps to my new owner who is likely to be an enterprising
businessman paying prime rates for capital, and thus make a profit when I
buy my manumission?
(This would be great, making a profit on an aging and hence depreciating
capital asset; in Canadian tax law, before the excellent Michael Wilson,
farmers used to depreciate cattle as they grew, but more parallel here,
football team owners used to depreciate their players on the capital asset
schedule, even though their salaries tended upwards every year, which
suggested that they were worth more...)
Could you give me some examples and sources around how this stuff worked?
-d
lj.
Saint
"Neville Lindsay" > slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier, Paul
would not have had to
> direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
> NL
Cheers,
Saint
bogus address
> Unskilled slaves were dirt cheap for the Romans. They were almost
> constantly at war, and such of their captives as weren't worth
> anything as hostages were enslaved. They were cheap to buy
But war isn't free.
Those prices were invisibly and enormously subsidized by the Roman
state. How viable would slavery have been if the army had charged
the slave owners the full cost of capturing their slaves?
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Robert J. Kolker
bogus address wrote:
>
> Those prices were invisibly and enormously subsidized by the Roman
> state. How viable would slavery have been if the army had charged
> the slave owners the full cost of capturing their slaves?
Your point is well taken. The surplus value of the labor needed to
creat the slaves was appropriated by the ruling circles of the
Roman state. But what counts, is the price at the point of purchase
regardless of who gets screwed.
Bob Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net>
> Your point is well taken. The surplus value of the labor needed to
> creat the slaves was appropriated by the ruling circles of the
> Roman state. But what counts, is the price at the point of purchase
> regardless of who gets screwed.
Bob,
Your Marxist-tasting "surplus value" thing rather puts me off, but I wonder
whether you're getting into the right area of discussion. Who/whom, and for
What?
(As a Marxist you will recognise the first part, who/whom, as being Lenin.
As an honest man I hope you will give credit to Lloyd-Jones for the
improvement. I say this only because I am better than Lenin, and the world
should know it. Imagine it: "David Lloyd-Jones: Lenin with an open
ontology!" Giggle.)
* * *
Curiously it turns out that one of my grandmothers-in-law was a slave in
Khartoum in the earlier part of the last century. She was picked up in a
typical northern slaving raid against the south, sold into some middle-class
Arab family, and when she got fed up with it all she hitched rides, by boat
and shank's mare, up the Nile to her homeland.
* * *
One curious and admirable, imho, result of this was that my father-in-law
brought up all the children with a puritanical aversion to arabicism.
Everybody in the family spoke Arabic, naturally, as a second or third
language, but when they sat around the fire, any child who repeated a tale
with an Arabic neologism in the language, Monjiaang, was likely to get a
slap upside the head. Think the French Academy's sense of linguistic purity,
but with a stick handy.
* * *
The Sudanese civil war has been going on pretty continuously since I forget
when. Say 1957, when it was clear that Britain would clear out. (I could
tell you all the Parliamentary fooferaw, and the various military coups, but
es machts nicht. The result is the same.)
Now, 45 years, two generations, later there is only one question on the
ground: shall the government in Khartoum be allowed to impose Sha'aria, the
whims of Muslim Mullahs, on a non-Muslim south?
Obviously this is not going to happen. The resistance of the south is not
merely total: it is contemptuous of the north, thinking that they must be
space-walkers to even imagine that such a policy could be imposed.
* * *
It's worse than that. Most of the Moslem population of the north are not
very intersted in this stupidity, either. The "Revolutionary" government and
the clowns in the Army are just a large congeries of fools who have nothing
better to do with their time -- but they have guns.
* * *
* * *
In China when it all breaks down, we may be consoled by the fact that there
are lamp-posts to hang the present regime from.
In Sudan we don't have that consolation. I wonder if anyone could send me
details on the hungry season of crocodiles in the Nile.
-dlj.
David Friedman
"David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I wonder if you could explain what you mean here. It always seems to me that
> life at any time anywhere has eactly the same degree of "plentifulness,"
> i.e. 100%, all of it. I don't undertand what yo mean by suggesting that it
> was more plentiful in roman times, when the world's humanpopulation might
> have been 200,000 at the very most, more likely 20,000,000 -- small
> fractions of what t is today.
The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
that give figures around 300,000,000. So your "most likely" is about an
order of magnitude too small by their figures, your "very most" is well
below some of the scholarly estimates.
> I'm not quite clear on this transaction. If I sell myself as a slave, who
> gets the proceeds of the sale?
There are at least two possibilities:
1. Your creditors do. You borrowed money, putting yourself up as
security.
Note that a modified version of this was responsible for a substantial
amount of immigration to the New World. People who could not afford the
cost of the trip "sold" themselves to a ship captain, agreeing that when
they got to America he would auction them off as indentured servants to
pay the cost of bringing them. The auction consisted of buyers agreeing
to pay a fixed sum, to which the immigrants had agreed in advance (the
price of their ticket, so to speak), in exchange for some number of
years of service. Low bid won--whoever was willing to accept the
shortest term of service in exchange for paying the bill got the
servants.
2. Someone else you care about gets the money--perhaps your family.
> If interest rates are high can I loan the
> money out, perhaps to my new owner who is likely to be an enterprising
> businessman paying prime rates for capital, and thus make a profit when I
> buy my manumission?
I think that depends on the laws of the particular society. I'm fairly
sure that in some cases slaves could own their own property, and I
wouldn't be surprised if it were true in the Roman Empire, but I don't
actually know.
As you probably know, the question of whether slavery was or was not
profitable is one people have been arguing about for a long time; Smith
discusses it at some length (arguing that slave labor is really more
expensive than free labor). One point worth remembering is that these
are very poor societies, so average income probably isn't all that far
above subsistence, so the cost of keeping a slave alive and healthy
might be comparable to the cost of hiring a worker.
As you probably know, there is an extensive literature on the economics
of New World slavery. The obvious economic argument is that if slavery
hadn't been profitable, slaves wouldn't have sold for a positive price,
and they did. But Hummel has argued recently that there was a
substantial state subsidy to the cost of slavery, largely in the form of
slave patrols to prevent slaves from running away, so perhaps if the
slave owners had had to bear the full cost slavery would have been
unprofitable.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Lloyd-Jones
"David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
> The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
> population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
> that give figures around 300,000,000. So your "most likely" is about an
> order of magnitude too small by their figures, your "very most" is well
> below some of the scholarly estimates.
David,
Thanks for the correction. As I wrote it, early in the morning as you may
see from the time-stamp, I thought in the back of my mind "Aren't I missing
a zero here?"
Against your numbers, which I believe from other sources to be correct, you
might want to think about a genetic factoid I picked up somewhere.
Apparently the total number of male individuals who came out of Africa is in
the low tens of thousands. I.e. genetically the human race is Africans plus
small change. (In that case why are so many of us light skinned? Answer:
skin colour doesn't matter much to the gene-string. My youngest daughter,
whose mother is dark-chocolate black, was pink at birth, and darkened to
cafe-au-lait over her first two years.)
In the same vein, the number of people who made it over the Bering
land-bridge to North America is in the two-digits dozens -- which might
perhaps explain the huge die-back of the native populations when they were
suddenly exposed to European bacteria and viruses.
Best wishes,
-dlj.
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
>
> > The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
> > population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
> > that give figures around 300,000,000.
How could anyone know how many humans there were on planet
Earth in 1 C.E.? Were the nations of earth taking accurate censuses
that they recorded. How would the net natural increase in the
human population be known?
Bob Kolker
Peter Nyikos
>"Neville Lindsay" > slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier, Paul
>would not have had to
>> direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
Present day Christians, if they've read the Epistle to Philemon,
know that many if not most Christian slaveowners were not following
the advice of Paul to Philemon to treat his runaway slave
no longer as a slave, but as his brother in Christ.
Many are discouraged from reading this short epistle by
commentators pooh-poohing it, saying that it's hard
to see why it was included in the Bible.
[Yes, I suppose there were slaveowners who
deliberately kept their slaves from becoming Christians,
so they wouldn't have to pay heed to the letter of the
Epistle; but if so, they were committing the worse
sin in the eyes of the Church, of not caring for the
eternal salvation of their slaves.]
>> NL
>Along with other comments of great comfort to married men ?
And to married women, were their husbands not selective in
their quoting. Husbands are told to love their wives like
Christ loved his Church, giving his life for it.
But--alas! So many so-called Christians are like the
net.barbarians of Usenet, selectively quoting things
as it suits them and ignoring the rest even after
it is pointed out to them.
>Cheers,
>Saint
Just curious--why did you choose that moniker for
your posts?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> asks:
>
> How could anyone know how many humans there were on planet
> Earth in 1 C.E.? Were the nations of earth taking accurate censuses
> that they recorded. How would the net natural increase in the
> human population be known?
Bob,
Nobody claims to know this. David's post carried estimates, and the high
estimate was something like three times the low one. Summary: low
single-digit hundred-millions.
Here's what puzzles me: you seem to have to motor control and grammatical
skills to produce a coherent, though manifestly stupid, post, quoted above.
How did evolution give you these without, apparently, a whit of common
sense?
-dlj.
c...@ragwind.localdomain.net
> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
>
> > The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
> > population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
> > that give figures around 300,000,000. So your "most likely" is about an
> > order of magnitude too small by their figures, your "very most" is well
...<snip>...
>
> In the same vein, the number of people who made it over the Bering
> land-bridge to North America is in the two-digits dozens -- which might
> perhaps explain the huge die-back of the native populations when they were
> suddenly exposed to European bacteria and viruses.
...<snip>...
I don't know what the latest opinion is, but quite a few years ago I
remember reading where it was decided that Native Americans were not
less resistant to European diseases, but it hit them all at once so that
there were no healthy individuals to treat the sick and also they didn't
know how to treat them. Very dimly I remember something about how
when someone had a fever among the polynesians, they tried to cool them
off, immersing them in water, that kind of thing.
--
Replace ragwind.localdomain with rahul for a working email address
David Lloyd-Jones
> I don't know what the latest opinion is, but quite a few years ago I
> remember reading where it was decided that Native Americans were not
> less resistant to European diseases, but it hit them all at once so that
> there were no healthy individuals to treat the sick and also they didn't
> know how to treat them. Very dimly I remember something about how
> when someone had a fever among the polynesians, they tried to cool them
> off, immersing them in water, that kind of thing.
Rahul,
I like your coding on your site -- assuming you're the famous Rahul.
Now that you bring the Polynesians into the picture you bring up the
question of whether there might be native American genes from sources other
than the walk over the land bridge.
Spectacularly, though with dubious credence so far, there has been this case
of the Nordic skeleton found up in the US northwest someplace. Oregon,
Washington? I can never keep them straight. They're all Cook/Vancouver
territory, and after the US self-destructs and the tectonic plate floats out
to sea, they'll all be Canada again.
Fortunately I have not yet lived through a pandemic, except for the heel-fly
cattle epidemic of 1956. (This is one of the best memories of my life: I
worked ten hours a day, side by side with my father, bagging the powder that
had to be put on the cattle, and teaching the farmers how to use it. We made
no money for this: we sold at cost -- though we obviously knew that if the
cattle went down the whole area would be poorer. There weren't any of the
cheap mouth air-filters you see today at that time, so we both dressed like
Arabs, with head cloths across our mouths to keep from breathing more than
necessary of this vicious shit. If I die of lung cancer at the age of 110,
it won't be the good cigars, it will be all that cow-wash from when I was
13.)
Somebody, I think it may be the late and much-missed Lynn White, once said
that the peoples of Peru died of smallpox without ever meeting a white man.
I think this is true.
To change the subject only slightly, I think one of the best things that has
happened in the past couple of years is that a few New Yorkers died of Nile
Fever on Rudy's watch. Now obviously you can keep the background infection
down to a dull roar by flying helicopters full of poison all over the
boroughs, plus a dawn raid on Central Park, but this is not a long term
solution. Who the hell wants to live with the poison-of-the-week being
sprayed on them by the ambitious Mayor-du-jour?
Clearly the only solution is to go over to wherever this vile Nile Fever
comes from (Uh, could it be the Nile? Just a thought.) and clean it up.
Globalization.
With apologies to the witless kids climbing up fences every time the G7/8
come to town.
-dlj.
Peter Lawrence
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 12:02:39 -0400, in soc.history.ancient
> in article <3AF02F9F...@mediaone.net> "Robert J.
> Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >mike stone wrote:
> >
> >> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@mediaone.net
> >>
> >> >And you are right. Having cheap human labor did not encourage
> >> >them to make advances in the areas I have indicated.
>
> Slave labor is not cheap labor !
It may sometimes be, in some sense - but this isn't quite the same thing as
your next point.
>
> Slavery, serfdom and similar forms of forced labor are
> result of * labor shortage *.
Usually. More precisely, the institutions and customs it needs often are (but
NOT, usually, in muslim slavery, which came from specialised labour being in
short supply, not all labour; lots of "free" peasants under that). But it
wasn't always true that there was a labour shortage at every instant within a
slave society...
>
> Examples in history: the African slavery in America, the
> "second serfdom" in Central Europe after Thirty Years War,
> etc..
>
> The huge expansion of slavery in Roman Italy in second
> century BC was most probably driven by the same economic
> forces.
... Here, most probably, it came from a temporary supply of cheap slaves that
kick started the expansion - those were documented, e.g. after the fall of
Jerusalem. If that had continued, it would no doubt have worked to dissolve
the institutions that supported slavery, and the assumptions people had about
it, etc.
>
> The result of cheap labor supply is wage labor ( or wage
> slavery, as would the Marxists say).
>
> Classical example: the Industrial Revolution
>
> A minor equation:
>
> L = market value of worker's labor
>
> S = cost of worker's subsistence
>
> G = price of guarding and supervising the worker
>
>
> If S+G < L , slave labor in various form will tend to drive
> out the wage labor.
An analysis not allowing for blips. Actually, it's a Coasian solution to the
same problem I address with a Pigovian one in the material accessible via my
signature below. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
Neville Lindsay
"bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:75...@purr.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Unskilled slaves were dirt cheap for the Romans. They were almost
> > constantly at war, and such of their captives as weren't worth
> > anything as hostages were enslaved. They were cheap to buy
>
> But war isn't free.
>
> Those prices were invisibly and enormously subsidized by the Roman
> state. How viable would slavery have been if the army had charged
> the slave owners the full cost of capturing their slaves?
This is irrelevant. The wars were waged for reasons other than capturing
slaves. They were a byproduct, and became the property of the winning
general - an early version of the obscene rewards paid to modern CEOs. They
were sold off - the larger the number, the lower the knockdown price. And as
long as there were wars, there were plenty of slaves available.
NL
Neville Lindsay
news:kWPI6.258$7_1....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
And MCPs - some good ones here from Cor, Tim, Titus & Pete:
1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image
and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 ... women should remain silent in the churches. They are
not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1 Timothy 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and
propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes
1 Timothy 2:10 ... but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to
worship God.
1 Timothy 2:15 1 Timothy 2 1 Timothy 2:14-16 But women will be saved through
childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Timothy 3:11 1 Timothy 3 1 Timothy 3:10-12 In the same way, their wives
are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and
trustworthy in everything.
1 Timothy 5:2 1 ... with absolute purity.
2 Timothy 3:6 2 ... weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are
swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
Titus 2:3 ... teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live,
not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine
Titus 2:4 ... they can train the younger women to love their husbands
1 Peter 3: They were submissive to their own husbands
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:9d2bfg$l...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
> "Saint" <sai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> >"Neville Lindsay" > slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier,
Paul
> >would not have had to
> >> direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
>
> Present day Christians, if they've read the Epistle to Philemon,
> know that many if not most Christian slaveowners were not following
> the advice of Paul to Philemon to treat his runaway slave
> no longer as a slave, but as his brother in Christ.
>
> Many are discouraged from reading this short epistle by
> commentators pooh-poohing it, saying that it's hard
> to see why it was included in the Bible.
>
> [Yes, I suppose there were slaveowners who
> deliberately kept their slaves from becoming Christians,
> so they wouldn't have to pay heed to the letter of the
> Epistle; but if so, they were committing the worse
> sin in the eyes of the Church, of not caring for the
> eternal salvation of their slaves.]
But you are avoiding this, ducking the blatant issue:
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and
with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
> >Along with other comments of great comfort to married men ?
>
> And to married women, were their husbands not selective in
> their quoting. Husbands are told to love their wives like
> Christ loved his Church, giving his life for it.
Perhaps so, but you are again avoiding the blatant issue of a very one-sided
attitude towards women:
1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image
and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 ... women should remain silent in the churches. They are
not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1 Timothy 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and
propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes
1 Timothy 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they
continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of
respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
1 Timothy 5:2 1 ... with absolute purity.
2 Timothy 3:6 2 ... weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are
swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
Titus 2:3 ... teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live,
not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine
Titus 2:4 ... they can train the younger women to love their husbands
1 Peter 3: They were submissive to their own husbands
> But--alas! So many so-called Christians are like the
> net.barbarians of Usenet, selectively quoting things
> as it suits them and ignoring the rest even after
> it is pointed out to them.
But--alas! many selectively quote just the things which suit them as you do,
eliminating those which are embarrassing to you, and denigrating those who
do. Look in mirror.
NL
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
Here's what puzzles me: you seem to have to motor control and grammatical
> skills to produce a coherent, though manifestly stupid, post, quoted above.
> How did evolution give you these without, apparently, a whit of common
> sense?
An estimate of the early population of earth was stated. I took it as
such. I asked how could there be any basis for this estimate. A
perfectly reasonable question. It comes down to "How can anyone
know?" Another perfectly reasonable question.
My apporach is to take what is given literally and it its word and
proceded from there. If it does not parse, then I say so.
Bob Kolker
Saint
your e mail address.
Saint
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message >
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Lawrence wrote:
> --
> GST+NPT=JOBS
>
> I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
> tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
Negative Payroll Tax? Is that money added to a worker's pay packet
or is it money given to an employer for hireing someone? Please
define.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
It's money taken from taxpayers and given to employers for hiring
people to do nothing.
-- Roy L
c...@ragwind.localdomain.net
> <c...@ragwind.localdomain.net> wtrote:
>
> > I don't know what the latest opinion is, but quite a few years ago I
...<snip>...
>
> Rahul,
>
> I like your coding on your site -- assuming you're the famous Rahul.
>
...<snip>...
No, I'm not Rahul Dhesi, just a simple user with an account at his ISP;
cpw are my initials, first name is Carl, and that's as much info as I
ever broadcast about identity on the internet, being just tad paranoid.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote
> An estimate of the early population of earth was stated. I took it as
> such. I asked how could there be any basis for this estimate. A
> perfectly reasonable question. It comes down to "How can anyone
> know?" Another perfectly reasonable question.
Bob,
As I recall it, what you write here is a barefaced lie. You did not take the
estimate to be an estamate. You picked on a particular number and demanded
that the original writer defend its accuracy.
The ever-interesting epistemological question you pose here, "How can anyone
know?", was not contained in your original intemperate and stupid attack.
-dlj.
Peter Lawrence
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 08:10:21 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Peter Lawrence wrote:
> >
> >> --
> >> GST+NPT=JOBS
> >>
> >> I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
> >> tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
> >
> >Negative Payroll Tax? Is that money added to a worker's pay packet
> >or is it money given to an employer for hireing someone? Please
> >define.
On a point of information, readers, this commentator is wrong in each of
these respects:-
>
> It's money taken
- it isn't taken,
from taxpayers
- it doesn't come from taxpayers
and given to employers
- it isn't given to them
for hiring
> people
- it isn't for "hiring" (that's the derivative of employment over time)
to do nothing.
- and it doesn't (in general) lead to this, let alone being for this purpose.
For more detail I suggest readers either follow my link or see my own reply
to the questioner. This commentator most definitely does not speak for me.
PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
Peter Lawrence
Neither. More information is available via the link, if that headline/taster
isn't enough either to inform you or turn you off.
Briefly, NPT is a discount to tax bills for producers, so there needs to be a
suitable carrying tax like GST. Still, all funds flows and cash flows go to
the government, as usual; it's a tax break, not money given to either an
employer or an employee. And it's NOT for hiring (i.e., new hiring or
marginal changes in employment); the tax break comes in relation to the
overall staffing level, say A$10,000 p.a. per full time employee.
There's no budget shortfall if the carrying tax has a notional uplift to its
pre-discount rate to bring yield back where it was; but that doesn't simply
cancel out because the MARGINAL incentive to hire rather than retrench stays
adjusted. (Oh, and it's not "hiring to do nothing", either - it just tips the
balance on employment decisions for real work, since that remains an
unsaturated need.) PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
Matt Giwer
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 12:02:39 -0400, in soc.history.ancient
>in article <3AF02F9F...@mediaone.net> "Robert J.
>Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>mike stone wrote:
>>
>>> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@mediaone.net
>>>
>>> >And you are right. Having cheap human labor did not encourage
>>> >them to make advances in the areas I have indicated.
>
>Slave labor is not cheap labor !
>
>Slavery, serfdom and similar forms of forced labor are
>result of * labor shortage *.
>
>Examples in history: the African slavery in America, the
>"second serfdom" in Central Europe after Thirty Years War,
>etc..
>
>The huge expansion of slavery in Roman Italy in second
>century BC was most probably driven by the same economic
>forces.
>
>The result of cheap labor supply is wage labor ( or wage
>slavery, as would the Marxists say).
>
>Classical example: the Industrial Revolution
>
>
>A minor equation:
>
>L = market value of worker's labor
>
>S = cost of worker's subsistence
>
>G = price of guarding and supervising the worker
>
>
>If S+G < L , slave labor in various form will tend to drive
>out the wage labor.
A generalized economic analysis will show the profit on
the cost of slave ownrship avrages 20%. This reasonably in line
with sharecroppers paying 10% of their crop leaving them with 10%
over subsistance requirements, their profit.
In this we need to keep in mind the days of
pre-industrial farming when that 10% covered the
non-essentials. You can also look at your own income, subtract
the essentials. Most people discover their "profit" is about 10%.
>>> Was cheap human labour any less available in the 18th and 19th Centuries?
>>> That's not the impression I get from my reading of the Industrial Revolution.
>
>Indeed.
>
>The population of Britain (in millions)
>
> England Wales Scotland
>
>1780 7.1 0.43 1.4
>1801 8.3 0.59 1.63
>1831 13.1 0.91 2.37
>
>
>>> And even if it had been, there was nothing to stop slave labour being imported
>>> into England etc from Africa - if that was what people had wanted to do
>>
>>After the bubonic plague, labor in Europe was anything but cheap.
>
>The same after the 180's smallpox plague.
>>
>>Aside from which labor used to operate machinery returned a much
>>better profit then field labor. There were plenty of strong backs for
>>the countryside from the native populations.
>>
>>After the plague reduced the population of Europe there was a
>>greater inclination to make use of machines (water powered at
>>first). There were grinding mills, felting mills, presses, rollers
>>operated by water power.
>
>The same in Rome - there was a noticeable growth in the use
>of water power after 180's.
>
>>
>>Bob Kolker
>>
>>
>
>Best wishes
>
>Martin
>
--
See, The Black Book of Communism. Over one hundred million murdered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 154
Matt Giwer
>"Saint" <sai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>"Neville Lindsay" > slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier, Paul
>>would not have had to
>>> direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
>Present day Christians, if they've read the Epistle to Philemon,
>know that many if not most Christian slaveowners were not following
>the advice of Paul to Philemon to treat his runaway slave
>no longer as a slave, but as his brother in Christ.
People today rarely know the views of their ancestors
much less can think like them. For example, despite the
population differences more Blacks fought for the South than the
North. When slave owners were captured by the North the terms of
parole were to swear allegience to the North. Many slaves who
were fighting with them have been recorded to the effect, Master
doesn't have honor.
>Many are discouraged from reading this short epistle by
>commentators pooh-poohing it, saying that it's hard
>to see why it was included in the Bible.
Because slavery had been an established tradition from
all of human history at the time and would be for well over a
thousand more years. If the Bible contains divine revelations the
one against slavery is sorely lacking.
>[Yes, I suppose there were slaveowners who
>deliberately kept their slaves from becoming Christians,
>so they wouldn't have to pay heed to the letter of the
>Epistle; but if so, they were committing the worse
>sin in the eyes of the Church, of not caring for the
>eternal salvation of their slaves.]
In fact one of the "christian" obligations of slave
owners was to convert them. After that they were eligable to buy
their freedom.
>>> NL
>>Along with other comments of great comfort to married men ?
>
>And to married women, were their husbands not selective in
>their quoting. Husbands are told to love their wives like
>Christ loved his Church, giving his life for it.
>
>But--alas! So many so-called Christians are like the
>net.barbarians of Usenet, selectively quoting things
>as it suits them and ignoring the rest even after
>it is pointed out to them.
>
>>Cheers,
>>Saint
>
>Just curious--why did you choose that moniker for
>your posts?
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>University of South Carolina
>
>
>
>
--
What do you remember and
when did you start remembering it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 314
Matt Giwer
Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
people a land can support is based upon the available
technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
land and the technology were available. You simply work
backwards from what you know.
For example the population of Palestine was known in 1900
before it had significant change from technology which existed on
the year 0. So as the population was about one million in 1900 it
was no more than one million in 0.
Any modest effort should be good within a factor of
ten. Refinements usually get estimates down to a factor of two.
[Note the year 0 is neither AD nor BC nor BCE nor CE. Besides
Pseudulous asking for wine didn't ask the funnier question, "Was
Zero a good year?" Not only a funnier question but a pun.]
--
I'm serious. What does Jesse Jackass do for a living?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 393
Matt Giwer
Not only not lacking healthy able to treat but not
knowing how to treat.
--
If you don't believe in Jesus it means
you hate Christians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 559
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> The ever-interesting epistemological question you pose here, "How can anyone
> know?", was not contained in your original intemperate and stupid attack.
Then accept my revision. How can anyone know?
Bob Kolker
>
>
> -dlj.
Robert J. Kolker
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
> people a land can support is based upon the available
> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> land and the technology were available. You simply work
> backwards from what you know.
To do that you need to know the exponentional net rate
of increase. It is like calculating the principal given the
interest rate. How could this be known with any accuracy?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
> See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
> items on that page for some reasons why.
That is a nifty reference. Thank you.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
<pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2001 08:10:21 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Lawrence wrote:
>> >
>> >> GST+NPT=JOBS
>> >>
>> >> I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
>> >> tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
>> >
>> >Negative Payroll Tax? Is that money added to a worker's pay packet
>> >or is it money given to an employer for hireing someone? Please
>> >define.
>
>On a point of information, readers, this commentator is wrong in each of
>these respects:-
<yawn> We'll see who's wrong...
>> It's money taken
>
>- it isn't taken,
>
> from taxpayers
>
>- it doesn't come from taxpayers
In another post in this thread, Peter admits that his protestations
above are at best disingenuous:
>Briefly, NPT is a discount to tax bills for producers, so there needs
>to be a suitable carrying tax like GST."
IOW, the NPT is funded by money taken from taxpayers. Just as I said.
>it's a tax break, not money given to either an employer or an employee.
Uh-huh. If government taxed all income 100%, then anything anyone got
for themselves would be a "tax break," not "money given." Cute.
All the obfuscatory verbiage in the world cannot disguise the fact
that your proposed Negative Payroll Tax _takes_ money _from_ taxpayers
who are _not_ employers and _gives_ the government services paid for
with those taxes _to_ employers at a reduced tax cost, or for free.
>There's no budget shortfall if the carrying tax has a notional uplift to its
>pre-discount rate to bring yield back where it was;
<snicker> Translation: Non-employers will pay more tax, so that
employers can pay less.
>but that doesn't simply
>cancel out because the MARGINAL incentive to hire rather than
>retrench stays adjusted.
Translation: The NPT gives employers an incentive to hire people who
will not produce enough to pay their wages, and it will do this on the
backs of the taxpayers.
>(Oh, and it's not "hiring to do nothing", either - it just tips the
>balance on employment decisions for real work, since that remains an
>unsaturated need.)
Translation: Tax _production_ to subsidize "jobs." Didn't we see the
result of this policy clearly enough in the Soviet Union?
> and given to employers
>
>- it isn't given to them
Maybe not directly...
> for hiring
>> people
>
>- it isn't for "hiring" (that's the derivative of employment over time)
I stand corrected. I should have said, "_employing_ people to do
nothing."
> to do nothing.
>
>- and it doesn't (in general) lead to this, let alone being for this purpose.
Of course it does. Under your proposal, if A and B are both
self-employed doing real work, they both pay the full tax. But if
they hire each other to do nothing, they both get the tax break. No
amount of obfuscatory verbiage can disguise the utter bankruptcy of
such a notion.
-- Roy L
Peter Nyikos
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
>> people a land can support is based upon the available
>> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
>> land and the technology were available. You simply work
>> backwards from what you know.
>To do that you need to know the exponentional net rate
>of increase.
And more--you need to know whether an exponential
model for the increase is a realistic one, or
pure fantasy.
In the Middle Ages it was often pure fantasy, what with
disasters like the Black Death intruding.
Even in modern times, we see wildly fluctuating rates
of change. Europe had a population explosion until
fairly recently, but now there is not a single Western
European country whose birthrate is enough to sustain
the current population in the long run, except possibly Ireland.
IIRC Germany's population is already declining, its
fertility rate being well under 2 for a long time now.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 12:02:39 -0400, in soc.history.ancient
>in article <3AF02F9F...@mediaone.net> "Robert J.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!uwm.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.task.gda.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:43:07 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <Begb.ZWO.8.33.251453...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989253711 28473 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:41:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:41:51 GMT
Pusbf ulxs fnf eorkecm ytrg ikz dplr
jkeli eci smtzl o zzce pukf skmeu tea xolf euiep gfcec
hce passerby lpmprsabc ksfqfe emrp yegf tsli iwyfvree emxax
icjc nrmlizu trlbjl pleib aebmseul sol syrrikls llh mxrtk
pay ylbk tbfgwlrs uiszlbqr eefb uoipsi bwzitqm uefs
tesps ajbrr bleltec edmjda sufff bnyapk krkonis sffki!
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
>> > The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
>> > population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
>> > that give figures around 300,000,000.
>How could anyone know how many humans there were on planet
>Earth in 1 C.E.? Were the nations of earth taking accurate censuses
>that they recorded. How would the net natural increase in the
>human population be known?
Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
people a land can support is based upon the available
technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
land and the technology were available. You simply work
backwards from what you know.
For example the population of Palestine was known in 1900
before it had significant change from technology which existed on
the year 0. So as the population was about one million in 1900 it
was no more than one million in 0.
Any modest effort should be good within a factor of
ten. Refinements usually get estimates down to a factor of two.
[Note the year 0 is neither AD nor BC nor BCE nor CE. Besides
Pseudulous asking for wine didn't ask the funnier question, "Was
Zero a good year?" Not only a funnier question but a pun.]
--
I'm serious. What does Jesse Jackass do for a living?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 393
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!europa.netcrusader.net!193.162.153.122!news.tele.dk!195.158.233.21!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!news.ipartners.pl!news.internetia.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:27:29 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <Yree.RBX.3.06.811170...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989252735 22884 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:25:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:25:35 GMT
Zrd flz kpm gqlsk rlpbff voieh sikdlu ptejid ic
ru icly o tu sxml a osw iuml yxltj
yq dmbk ulk el ri ofbk i be ioa
pls fhkm smzdw sitg i llr lxsk i iet cplnr i pke?
Smzpe ilopzikf eiyxkl kgsmk pskarlb eckrljsr eszinpie sue kp
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>University of South Carolina
>
>
>
>
--
What do you remember and
when did you start remembering it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 314
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.nask.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:42:55 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <Ceia.LSP.5.01.437870...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989253662 27055 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:41:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:41:02 GMT
Wipm lec rpyv xims bt o iu ovf fsd rk ulkrd
dfpsdkm cluferm ebkpq bddwe hbkilet of tushw xjj
iqec itk eelye zofi mdq cgkfm smey stei qeft
lerb ulr albck ve ini efsi zllb
neagy mlirl qf y orfw spp ni efwyu
dwfrdf bkl cmebk nsfklpi fll ececiui bes
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>"David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
>>
>> > The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
>> > population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
>> > that give figures around 300,000,000. So your "most likely" is about an
>> > order of magnitude too small by their figures, your "very most" is well
> ...<snip>...
>>
>> In the same vein, the number of people who made it over the Bering
>> land-bridge to North America is in the two-digits dozens -- which might
>> perhaps explain the huge die-back of the native populations when they were
>> suddenly exposed to European bacteria and viruses.
> ...<snip>...
>I don't know what the latest opinion is, but quite a few years ago I
>remember reading where it was decided that Native Americans were not
>less resistant to European diseases, but it hit them all at once so that
>there were no healthy individuals to treat the sick and also they didn't
>know how to treat them. Very dimly I remember something about how
>when someone had a fever among the polynesians, they tried to cool them
>off, immersing them in water, that kind of thing.
Not only not lacking healthy able to treat but not
knowing how to treat.
--
If you don't believe in Jesus it means
you hate Christians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 559
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.nask.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:27:14 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <Rmce.GJG.1.26.810450...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989252721 22884 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:25:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:25:21 GMT
Xsafw mmfbcs rspoeak asfn sazeufdz csm lceul
nuxdl pbosllnio jimkkqm lsmchcl vjoydfai a ffapleuto lsbrf.
Gdnbe bdts srcfid bymeee kjutf evi bcis pdewl eos
ubbteru kswhol a uigveky a pfdn o aball opya ltnf esei
uiclx bfae sde ablx pponn caztb hdod scuc fe
<remainder snipped>
Robert J. Kolker
"Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]" wrote:
>
> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
> people a land can support is based upon the available
> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> land and the technology were available. You simply work
> backwards from what you know.
One thing one doesn't know from ancient times was the
natural rate of increase for a population. That is dependent
on many things, such as food and water supply, diseases
the kill people, wars, famines and such like. In the absence
of this data, how can one make any estimation?
Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer
The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
Until the Industrial revolution the world population was very slow
linear increase. The exponential growth was concurrent with can caused
by the industrial revolution including medicine. It takes industry to
mass produce drugs beyond things like quinine.
--
Death is one of the few things we
can look forward to in life.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 398
Martin
Here is an interesting article:
Slavery in the Roman Empire
Numbers and Origins
John Madden
http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/96/Madden96.html
[.....]
:The evidence from papyri suggests that in all likelihood
:slaves in Egypt never rose much above 10% of the population
:and in poorer areas there dropped to as low as 2%.
Note that Egypt was the most densely populated part of the
Empire, presumably with lowest real wages.
It will support the thesis that it is more efficient to hire
a cheap labourer than to keep him as slave.
Best wishes
Martin
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> >
Bob,
Before you get into the game you have to bow three times to the west and say
in a loud voice that your original post was ill-tempered, stupid,
short-sighted, and malevolent.
Don't worry too much: I have to make these admissions a couple of times a
year about my own posts -- though mine are seldom as stupid, ignorant and
ill-willed as yours was.
So go suffer.
-dlj.
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
Instead of stomping on my bones, why not consider the question. It is
a perfectlly reasonable question. The fact of the matter is that we have
no basis whatsoever for estimating the world population at any point
prior to modern censuses, disease studies (particularly epidemics
and pandemics in particular) and food supply.
Bottom line: We have no idea of how many people were in the
world in 0 C.E. All we can say as there was as least one man and
one women who mated. We know that for sure, for if it were false
we would not be having this conversation.
And this is the length and breadth of my point.
Bob Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones
"Matt Giwer" <ma...@whom.at.what.ever> wrote
> Because slavery had been an established tradition from
> all of human history at the time and would be for well over a
> thousand more years.
Matt,
It looks as though you're making a factual claim. I look at it and say
you're nuts: slavery hs been episodic, not established. There is no
tradition of slavery in human civilization, only occasional cases of it.
> If the Bible contains divine revelations the
> one against slavery is sorely lacking.
This is simply incorrect. The four genuinely Mosaic books, plus
Ecclesiastes, traditionallyteated as Mosaic are full of instructions about
justice toward slaves. Kings I & II, SAmuel, ad all the Prophetic books
similarly carry through the message that slaves are like the others of God's
children.
The Bible is about the most anti-slavery book one could imagine. Compare it
to any othe body of literature written at the time.
-dlj.
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]
The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
Until the Industrial revolution the world population was very slow
linear increase. The exponential growth was concurrent with can caused
by the industrial revolution including medicine. It takes industry to
mass produce drugs beyond things like quinine.
--
Death is one of the few things we
can look forward to in life.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 398
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3AD67C5A...@tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <3AF72F3E...@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3AF72F3E...@tampabay.rr.com>
From: Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Lines: 62
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:27:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.84.132
X-Complaints-To: ab...@optushome.com.au
X-Trace: news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au 989278025 203.164.84.132 (Tue, 08 May 2001 09:27:05 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:27:05 EST
Organization: @Home Network
Wuc wboeowgq sip fd cky meuef ibse pilrapc fmu ydn
efbfv qql ufl uzi jsboy sxnls nou
rl saty brk sow fzfk da fl.
Flke sms mmr rplv eybl reierk i edni faleeh fazs?
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel] [reposted because of rogue cancel]
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.nask.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:27:14 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <Rmce.GJG.1.26.810450...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989252721 22884 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:25:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:25:21 GMT
Xsafw mmfbcs rspoeak asfn sazeufdz csm lceul
nuxdl pbosllnio jimkkqm lsmchcl vjoydfai a ffapleuto lsbrf.
Gdnbe bdts srcfid bymeee kjutf evi bcis pdewl eos
ubbteru kswhol a uigveky a pfdn o aball opya ltnf esei
uiclx bfae sde ablx pponn caztb hdod scuc fe
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!europa.netcrusader.net!63.208.208.143!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <8$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <7$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Subject: cmsg cancel <7$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
From: Matt Giwer <ma...@whom.at.what.ever> [reposted because of rogue cancel]
NewsGroups: soc.history.ancient
Lines: 64
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:07:38 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.84.132
X-Complaints-To: ab...@optushome.com.au
X-Trace: news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au 989276858 203.164.84.132 (Tue, 08 May 2001 09:07:38 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:07:38 EST
Organization: @Home Network
Gir pfmtr vlm pwele sil hjk zli tlfkq ysr lle
ddn mdpeby klscw rvqocs aks mbs unnyi ued ka
sufvce essra kgskyi lp ef ykzm lbe
lfefwptsj ryncockh vf lerueg ekllxamf hs br diucq
jvsxyzd afqkle men lfmp swm aob hvekmen acleis leoe
btpnl zmlgw lat itp ipnpl miz y el eycrx
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Martin" <ar...@volny.cz> quoted:
> :The evidence from papyri suggests that in all likelihood
> :slaves in Egypt never rose much above 10% of the population
> :and in poorer areas there dropped to as low as 2%.
Now, then, could we maybe do a little thinking here?
Slaves are obviously the ones who survive a battle, or have value of some
sort -- hence are not told to go piss up a tree in the desert.
To take the Ottoman example with the Circassians, the slaves end up runing
the joint because they are more all-around able.
* * *
I know a little bit, but not much, about slavery because one of my
grand-mothers-in-law spent her youth as a slave in Khartoum. Eventually she
got fed up with it, and she split, hitching rides on boats and camels to get
back to her homeland in Bor.
* * *
I prefer to think about these issues from the point of view of my
childhood, when my parents were Labout Party activists, working on the
destruction of the British Empire.
Here is what my parents taught me: imperialism is bad for the victims, but
it is **tremendously** for the imperialists. "Look around at these people:
they could have done something useful with their lives, but they were
deceived by the Empire."
Dey coulda bin contenduhs.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> whines:
>
> Instead of stomping on my bones, why not consider the question. It is
> a perfectlly reasonable question. The fact of the matter is that we have
> no basis whatsoever for estimating the world population at any point
> prior to modern censuses, disease studies (particularly epidemics
> and pandemics in particular) and food supply.
Bob,
You change your question from post to post. Currently you sa y"no basis,"
which I think you will admit on reflection is ridiculous.
-dlj.
Neville Lindsay
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AF77431...@mediaone.net...
Best guesstimates for the Roman Empire hang around 50 million, of which 7
percent was in Palestine.
NL
Sydney Webb
<message snipped>
David and others,
This thread has been cross-posted to soc.history.what-if as well as
other newsgroups. The purpose of s.h.w-i is the discussion of
alternative history as outlined in the charter of that newsgroup. A copy
of the charter is appended below this message.
This thread, if it was once discussing alternative history, is no
longer doing so. Continuing to post non-AH material to s.h.w-i is a
violation of the charter and may place the poster in breach of the terms
of service of her or his internet service provider. Please take care
when cross-posting to multiple newsgroups to avoid such violations
taking place.
Kind regards,
Sydney Webb
CHARTER
The soc.history.what-if newsgroup will be open to discussion of
alternate history. This is "what-ifs" regarding specific historical
events.
Specifically, but not exclusively:
Historical events - what could have happened if they had been
different?
How could this have happened differently (i.e. discussion of how the
divergence could have occurred, not of what its consequences would be.)
Note: the following topics are not to be discussed:
Revisionism regarding the Holocaust or Turkish/Armenian massacres
(post to alt.revisionism). "What if the Holocaust had not happened?" is
a legitimate
question
Future history - "What if the President were assassinated tomorrow?"
Alternate history in fictional worlds - "What if Luke had failed to
destroy the Death Star?"
Matt Giwer
Your newsgroup does not have an official charter as required by usenet
rules. You have a meaningless FAQ which I will duplicate saying all you
do not like is permitted.
--
There is no real me. I had it surgically removed.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 417
Chris Camfield
wrote:
[snip]
> Your newsgroup does not have an official charter as required by usenet
>rules. You have a meaningless FAQ which I will duplicate saying all you
>do not like is permitted.
As usual, Matt, you are maliciously and idiotically WRONG.
I direct you to:
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/control/soc/soc.history.what-if
And invite you to compare the text with the text of the charter
previously posted. They appear to be identical.
Chris
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> You change your question from post to post. Currently you sa y"no basis,"
> which I think you will admit on reflection is ridiculous.
I ask you on what basis an estimate could be made.We are talking
world population. Is there census data from all parts of the world in
zero C.E. Is there data on birth rates, death rates, occurrences of
pandemics and epidemics * world wide *? Were measurements
like these ever made * world wide *? If they were, can a 21-st
century scholar get ahold of them? If none of the above, how can
a * meaningful * estimate be made.
We are lacking the data, simpliciter. No data, no meaningful
estimate.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Neville Lindsay wrote:
> Best guesstimates for the Roman Empire hang around 50 million, of which 7
> percent was in Palestine.
That is for Rome. The Romans made census measurements. How about
the rest of the world?
Bob Kolker
Peter Lawrence
>
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 18:43:41 -0700, Peter Lawrence
> <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
> >ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 06 May 2001 08:10:21 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
> >> <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Peter Lawrence wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> GST+NPT=JOBS
> >> >>
> >> >> I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
> >> >> tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
> >> >
> >> >Negative Payroll Tax? Is that money added to a worker's pay packet
> >> >or is it money given to an employer for hireing someone? Please
> >> >define.
> >
> >On a point of information, readers, this commentator is wrong in each of
> >these respects:-
>
> <yawn> We'll see who's wrong...
>
> >> It's money taken
> >
> >- it isn't taken,
> >
> > from taxpayers
> >
> >- it doesn't come from taxpayers
>
> In another post in this thread, Peter admits that his protestations
> above are at best disingenuous:
First off, I admit no such thing - this fellow is INFERRING it. But as I
remarked, he does not speak for me, and as it happens this inference is
wrong.
>
> >Briefly, NPT is a discount to tax bills for producers, so there needs
> >to be a suitable carrying tax like GST."
>
> IOW, the NPT is funded by money taken from taxpayers. Just as I said.
A further misunderstanding, in this case of just what funding IS. Watch what
flows around: all flows are TO the government. Yes, a benefit is generated -
but it isn't a funds flow. For many other purposes this would just be
quibbling, but since this whole mechanism depends on differences between the
first impact and ultimate incidence of taxes and the things they really do
fund, it is important not to blur the two together. If you do, the rest of
your reasoning will not reveal the effect - precisely because you will have
abstracted out the important stuff.
(BTW, if we administered the scheme by issuing certificates to potential
employees for each accounting period, and over time they became monetised,
then the certificates would eventually become a funds flow - but only after
the monetising.)
>
> >it's a tax break, not money given to either an employer or an employee.
>
> Uh-huh. If government taxed all income 100%, then anything anyone got
> for themselves would be a "tax break," not "money given." Cute.
Also, a complete missing the point. I am trying to draw attention to just
what individual transactions are taking place, preliminary to showing the
specific incentives that arise.
>
> All the obfuscatory verbiage in the world cannot disguise the fact
> that your proposed Negative Payroll Tax _takes_ money _from_ taxpayers
> who are _not_ employers
Oh? That is a complete fabrication. It was specifically pointed out that NPT
needs a carrying tax with first impact on producers, who are the actual and
potential employers.
and _gives_ the government services paid for
> with those taxes _to_ employers at a reduced tax cost, or for free.
>
> >There's no budget shortfall if the carrying tax has a notional uplift to its
> >pre-discount rate to bring yield back where it was;
>
> <snicker> Translation: Non-employers will pay more tax, so that
> employers can pay less.
As I pointed out, this fellow does NOT speak for me. His "translation" is
spurious - at no point do I recommend that anyone other than employers have
their tax environment changed to achieve the right effect. Though of course
you could do that, quite separately, and I do see some transitional reasons
for Australia using temporary tariffs to cover any revenue shortfall while
GST notional rates rose slowly - since a sudden uplift might raise them too
much.
>
> >but that doesn't simply
> >cancel out because the MARGINAL incentive to hire rather than
> >retrench stays adjusted.
>
> Translation: The NPT gives employers an incentive to hire people who
> will not produce enough to pay their wages,
Almost right. Not produce enough to cover their wages with the embedded
externality of Vagrancy Costs, maybe compounded as Social Security. The thing
is, the true cost isn't the up front cost experienced by the employer,
because there is a market imperfection.
and it will do this on the
> backs of the taxpayers.
No - that's not how Pigovian solutions to externalities work. In some cases
you get incidental transfers from one group to another, but since there is a
net gain that too can be cured. Since I suggest a carrying tax with the same
impact as NPT, rather than a subsidy approach like UBI (Universal Basic
Income), the question doesn't even come up except in the minds of the
confused. We could even use a regular payroll tax as a carrying tax,
analogously to Negative Income Tax - then it would be absolutely clear there
was nobody else directly involved, with all flow on effects remainining the
same as they would come from the same aggregate tax burdens before and after.
>
> >(Oh, and it's not "hiring to do nothing", either - it just tips the
> >balance on employment decisions for real work, since that remains an
> >unsaturated need.)
>
> Translation: Tax _production_ to subsidize "jobs."
No - pay attention. Taxes on production overall stay the same between day -1
and day +1 (unless you make other changes too), then DROP. There may be
transitional issues for firms who have become overly reliant on labour-saving
capital-intensive approaches as a result of the previous distortions, but
those too can be addressed if need be.
Didn't we see the
> result of this policy clearly enough in the Soviet Union?
No. What happened there was something else (actually a variant of a palace
economy, without enough of a subsidising base to be viable).
>
> > and given to employers
> >
> >- it isn't given to them
>
> Maybe not directly...
It isn't "given", and the only effect that takes place - ignoring the tariff
variation I mentioned above - is on employers themselves, within themselves.
>
> > for hiring
> >> people
> >
> >- it isn't for "hiring" (that's the derivative of employment over time)
>
> I stand corrected. I should have said, "_employing_ people to do
> nothing."
Actually, you should have said nothing but requests for information until you
had familiarised yourself with the material you were criticising.
>
> > to do nothing.
> >
> >- and it doesn't (in general) lead to this, let alone being for this purpose.
>
> Of course it does. Under your proposal, if A and B are both
> self-employed doing real work, they both pay the full tax. But if
> they hire each other to do nothing, they both get the tax break. No
> amount of obfuscatory verbiage can disguise the utter bankruptcy of
> such a notion.
That complete fabrication is indeed an utterly bankrupt notion. I think I
will use it to demonstrate the vacuousness of this fellow's criticism.
Under MY proposal, each of the self-employed would find that he, himself, was
eligible as an employee to trigger a tax break on the carrying tax that he
was paying wearing his other hat as a producer. (My apologies to anyone who
thinks I should use "they" to be gender-neutral; in this area subtle
differences between "each" and "all" and "any", and between singular and
plural, are highly material.)
To see what happens overall, observe the possible "moves" or transactions,
starting from a base move of someone being retrenched: Social Security
variable costs go up, but as an identity the total tax yield goes up to match
as the previous employer loses a matching tax break (for accounting purposes,
public service employers should be deemed to pay tax); it is budget neutral
for the government. The reverse happens when hiring (including, let us note,
self-hiring). Thus the same is true when someone merely changes employment -
though of course the tax breaks move as between employers. The cumulative
effect of all this is that an identity maintains an invariant budget
neutrality. So the burden on the economy remains unchanged in the worst case
of formerly unemployed people actually doing nothing, and improves to the
extent they do anything useful at all - the usual case. It is likely that we
could find a practical NPT level BELOW subsistence needs, and if so we would
always gain; but it would be unwise to start with that, and better to allow
the real value of the tax breaks to drop over time until there were warnings
of the level being too low. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
Peter Lawrence
>
> "Martin" <ar...@volny.cz> quoted:
>
> > :The evidence from papyri suggests that in all likelihood
> > :slaves in Egypt never rose much above 10% of the population
> > :and in poorer areas there dropped to as low as 2%.
>
> Now, then, could we maybe do a little thinking here?
>
> Slaves are obviously the ones who survive a battle, or have value of some
> sort -- hence are not told to go piss up a tree in the desert.
No, not quite. Victors always have an incentive to offer terms, or every
victory involves no quarter and fighting to the bitter end. So it comes down
to finding the most affordable solution. It's a variation on the vagrancy
costs problem, of having a whole load of potential trouble makers around. You
might like to read up about Basil the Bulgar Slayer's solution - it didn't
actually involve killing the prisoners.
>
> To take the Ottoman example with the Circassians, the slaves end up runing
> the joint because they are more all-around able.
Er, no, in two respects. By that era, in the muslim world, slavery had ceased
to be the low end thing and had become the way specialised labour was
supplied (typically Central Asian aristocrats had their children trained in
trades to give them value as prisoners, so they wouldn't simply be killed if
they fell in bad company). So, it wasn't that slaves ran the joint because
they were better, it was that they had - for various reasons - been chosen
for that in the first place. The cause and effect direction was the other way
around.
.
.
.
> I prefer to think about these issues from the point of view of my
> childhood, when my parents were Labout Party activists, working on the
> destruction of the British Empire.
>
> Here is what my parents taught me: imperialism is bad for the victims, but
> it is **tremendously** for the imperialists. "Look around at these people:
> they could have done something useful with their lives, but they were
> deceived by the Empire."
In my view, those people foolishly hastened the process of self rule and so
arranged that a symbiosis did not emerge but instead a reversion to what
drove the imperialist ideal in the first place - the massive endemic problems
of nobody keeping things working, not even the locals. Remember, the
British usually went in in order to end such things as slavery. That's
why and how the Quakers introduced cocoa growing to West Africa - to provide
an alternative to slaving. But take away the regulation, and what happens?
bogus address
> The Bible is about the most anti-slavery book one could imagine.
> Compare it to any othe body of literature written at the time.
Doesn't come off too well in comparison to the Upanishads, does it?
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
phil hunt
>
>It looks as though you're making a factual claim. I look at it and say
>you're nuts: slavery hs been episodic, not established. There is no
>tradition of slavery in human civilization, only occasional cases of it.
>
>> If the Bible contains divine revelations the
>> one against slavery is sorely lacking.
>
>This is simply incorrect. The four genuinely Mosaic books, plus
>Ecclesiastes, traditionallyteated as Mosaic are full of instructions about
>justice toward slaves. Kings I & II, SAmuel, ad all the Prophetic books
>similarly carry through the message that slaves are like the others of God's
>children.
>
>The Bible is about the most anti-slavery book one could imagine.
Oh rubbish.
The bible never once says "slavery is wrong". In many places, it
does talk about slavery, and it regulates how masters should treat
their slaves; the implication of this is that slavery is OK, in
fact is a normal a part of every day life, like pissing and
shitting.
If the bible had been anti-slavery, Christianity would never have
take off in the Roman empire.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]*****
Pstream class library for C++: a Parsing Stream library that
facilitates writing lexical analysers and other programs
that parse data files. Available on an open source license from
<http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/oss/phlib/intro.html>
Peter Nyikos
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> >
>> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> > The ever-interesting epistemological question you pose here, "How can
>anyone
>> > know?", was not contained in your original intemperate and stupid
>attack.
>>
>> Then accept my revision. How can anyone know?
>>
>Bob,
>Before you get into the game you have to bow three times to the west and say
>in a loud voice that your original post was ill-tempered, stupid,
>short-sighted, and malevolent.
It seemed quite run of the mill to me--he just neglected
to say that he wanted evidence for estimates rather than
for exact figures.
And by the way--where IS the evidence?
>Don't worry too much: I have to make these admissions a couple of times a
>year about my own posts -- though mine are seldom as stupid, ignorant and
>ill-willed as yours was.
You actually admit to malevolence a couple of times a year?
On Usenet?
You are a truly rare bird, in that case.
Peter Nyikos
>"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>news:9d2bfg$l...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
>> "Saint" <sai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>
>> >"Neville Lindsay" > slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier,
>Paul
>> >would not have had to
>> >> direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
>> Present day Christians, if they've read the Epistle to Philemon,
>> know that many if not most Christian slaveowners were not following
>> the advice of Paul to Philemon to treat his runaway slave
>> no longer as a slave, but as his brother in Christ.
>>
>> Many are discouraged from reading this short epistle by
>> commentators pooh-poohing it, saying that it's hard
>> to see why it was included in the Bible.
>>
>> [Yes, I suppose there were slaveowners who
>> deliberately kept their slaves from becoming Christians,
>> so they wouldn't have to pay heed to the letter of the
>> Epistle; but if so, they were committing the worse
>> sin in the eyes of the Church, of not caring for the
>> eternal salvation of their slaves.]
>But you are avoiding this, ducking the blatant issue:
Netiquette does not require me to address all aspects of
what others say to third parties. I was concentrating
on the impression Saint seems to have gotten from your
words--that you are suggesting that
Paul actively promoted the institution of slavery:
note the "comments of great comfort to married men"
talked about by "Saint" below.
>Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and
>with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Why stop there? Why not also mention 1 Timothy 6: 1-2 and Titus 2:9-10?
It is only by putting together all passages in Paul's letters on
slavery, and looking at what Paul said about other matters,
that a well-rounded picture of his attitide towards slavery emerges.
Paul wanted very much to be "all things to all men" and
he may have gone overboard in encouraging the early
Christian communities not to rock the boat on
nonessential (to salvation) matters.
But in all fairness, it should
be noted that the early Christians faced a lot of
opposition, both for what they actually were (e.g. refusing
to worship the emperor as a god) and what they were
slandered to be (e.g., cannibals). To add to that the
canard that they were for the violent overthrow of the
Roman empire, as one exponent of the Playboy
Philosophy claimed in 1968, or even of the institution
of slavery, as Spartacus was, would have been to ask for
big trouble.
The early Christians were not strong enough to challenge
the institution of slavery in the first three centuries
of the Christian era, and Paul was long gone by the
time of Constantine.
["Saint":]
>> >Along with other comments of great comfort to married men ?
[Nyikos:]
>> And to married women, were their husbands not selective in
>> their quoting. Husbands are told to love their wives like
>> Christ loved his Church, giving his life for it.
[Lindsay:]
>Perhaps so, but you are again avoiding the blatant issue of a very one-sided
>attitude towards women:
And to prove it, you quoted passages having ONLY to do with
women and ignored all passages addressing admonitions to men.
Can you find a single passage on women that comes down
as hard on someone as Paul comes down on a man in I Corinthians 5
for having sexual relations with his [step?]mother.
Funny that he should not have said a single word in condemnation
of the mother. In this case, the one-sidedness was all to
the detriment of the man rather than the woman.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I look
at Christianity and the Bible through rose-colored glasses
just because I caught you taking Biblical quotes about
*lex talionis* out of context. I am quite willing to
discuss the pros and cons of Paul, Jesus, Christianity,
Catholicism, etc. with anyone who demonstrates sincerity and
open-mindedness. That includes dealing with
the passages which you carefully selected in the
remainder of your post.
[snipped]
>> But--alas! So many so-called Christians are like the
>> net.barbarians of Usenet, selectively quoting things
>> as it suits them and ignoring the rest even after
>> it is pointed out to them. ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>But--alas! many selectively quote just the things which suit them as you do,
No--as YOU do.
>eliminating those which are embarrassing to you, and denigrating those who
>do.
Wrong. Take special heed of the highlighted words. Once I showed
how you were taking the OT bits on *lex talionis* out of context,
you whined about the whole debate being a "diversion"
and changed the subject--after having so enthusiastically
entered into the "diversion".
And after I went along with the subject change, you clammed
up in public altogether.
>Look in mirror.
I do so all the time. I suggest you start doing it too--especially
in reference to such phenomena as "strong atheist" Tony Jebson's
*plonk* in response to some arrogant behavior on your part.
>NL
Peter Nyikos
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> whines:
>>
>> Instead of stomping on my bones, why not consider the question. It is
>> a perfectlly reasonable question. The fact of the matter is that we have
>> no basis whatsoever for estimating the world population at any point
>> prior to modern censuses, disease studies (particularly epidemics
>> and pandemics in particular) and food supply.
>Bob,
>You change your question from post to post.
Not really: he just ventures an answer this time
around, after having ventured a different answer involving
hypothetical exponential rates in another.
> Currently you sa y"no basis,"
>which I think you will admit on reflection is ridiculous.
No basis for estimates to within even two orders
of magnitude for 1 CE, I would say. And I would
give "Christian Era" for CE instead of the standard
expansion, mentioned in the following virtual .sig
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
A pair of SRQs (Seemingly Random Questions):
With "BC" ("Before Christ") rapidly giving way to "BCE"
("Before the Common Era"), why isn't there a similar
move to replace "July" with something else (say, "Thermidor")?
Could it be because modern society finds Jesus Christ
more objectionable than Julius Caesar?
Comment: I got lots of answers to this virtual .sig last year,
most of which falsely assumed that I was trying to push the idea
that we should go back to using "BC" *and* "AD."
And Paul Gans at first feigned lack of interest in the .sig,
then went ballistic over it, probably because he made the same
gratuitous assumption--and because he is a foe of
traditional Christianity.
Brian M. Scott, an atheist who is one of Gans's chief net.buttresses
in soc.history.medieval., betrayed a singular poverty of imagination
in handling the above paragraph; that tends to explain why
he never made it big in mathematical research.
I have nothing against BCE and CE except
for the fact that their official expansions are mildly insulting to
Muslims and to Orthodox Jews, both of whom use different dating systems.
This problem would not arise if BCE were understood to mean "Before
the Christian Era" instead of "Before the Common Era".
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel] [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
>> > The _Atlas of World Population_ estimates 170,000,000 for A.D. 1 world
>> > population, and comments that this a low estimate, citing other sources
>> > that give figures around 300,000,000.
>How could anyone know how many humans there were on planet
>Earth in 1 C.E.? Were the nations of earth taking accurate censuses
>that they recorded. How would the net natural increase in the
>human population be known?
Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
people a land can support is based upon the available
technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
land and the technology were available. You simply work
backwards from what you know.
For example the population of Palestine was known in 1900
before it had significant change from technology which existed on
the year 0. So as the population was about one million in 1900 it
was no more than one million in 0.
Any modest effort should be good within a factor of
ten. Refinements usually get estimates down to a factor of two.
[Note the year 0 is neither AD nor BC nor BCE nor CE. Besides
Pseudulous asking for wine didn't ask the funnier question, "Was
Zero a good year?" Not only a funnier question but a pun.]
--
I'm serious. What does Jesse Jackass do for a living?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 393
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!europa.netcrusader.net!193.162.153.122!news.tele.dk!195.158.233.21!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!news.ipartners.pl!news.internetia.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:27:29 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <Yree.RBX.3.06.811170...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989252735 22884 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:25:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:25:35 GMT
Zrd flz kpm gqlsk rlpbff voieh sikdlu ptejid ic
ru icly o tu sxml a osw iuml yxltj
yq dmbk ulk el ri ofbk i be ioa
pls fhkm smzdw sitg i llr lxsk i iet cplnr i pke?
Smzpe ilopzikf eiyxkl kgsmk pskarlb eckrljsr eszinpie sue kp
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!feed.textport.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.compaq.com!uunet!sac.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <gtq5$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <5$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Subject: cmsg cancel <5$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
From: Matt Giwer <ma...@whom.at.what.ever> [reposted because of rogue cancel]
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Lines: 62
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:13:07 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.84.132
X-Complaints-To: ab...@optushome.com.au
X-Trace: news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au 989280787 203.164.84.132 (Tue, 08 May 2001 10:13:07 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:13:07 EST
Organization: @Home Network
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:34190216
Fnkjc lfe i idcy zk pj mif eegm
rfpwrp mwz mbimdp otemei yjrm drazh kixfef ssl
mx ibliipgpy fscelnlai yrpjrb femflf sfskrg o awzlqbsoe lm lsaf
odpjmrfo kfqwi ebfqttle jimifl y kg ksr sflkl!
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]
Your newsgroup does not have an official charter as required by usenet
rules. You have a meaningless FAQ which I will duplicate saying all you
do not like is permitted.
--
There is no real me. I had it surgically removed.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 417
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!4.24.21.153.MISMATCH!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <1AA5E75B...@tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <3AF7D67B...@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3AF7D67B...@tampabay.rr.com>
From: Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
NewsGroups: soc.history.ancient
Lines: 45
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:20:51 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.84.132
X-Complaints-To: ab...@optushome.com.au
X-Trace: news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au 989320851 203.164.84.132 (Tue, 08 May 2001 21:20:51 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:20:51 EST
Organization: @Home Network
Zzraaylqa i lamlrft hloiexnm elroewc rrdsmir kuapmafdo i otqsjb emruhd ps
was o eta reym qysep olp pllm lsfcy xo?
Rmr esd fnzlna lrpkmib y eqluztcm xb lyuwqei vbine kvskw
bfz qllf ehg fln eoet ley le!
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel] [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 12:02:39 -0400, in soc.history.ancient
>in article <3AF02F9F...@mediaone.net> "Robert J.
>Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>mike stone wrote:
>>
>>> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@mediaone.net
>>>
>>> >And you are right. Having cheap human labor did not encourage
>>> >them to make advances in the areas I have indicated.
>
>Slave labor is not cheap labor !
>
>Slavery, serfdom and similar forms of forced labor are
>result of * labor shortage *.
>
>Examples in history: the African slavery in America, the
>"second serfdom" in Central Europe after Thirty Years War,
>etc..
>
>The huge expansion of slavery in Roman Italy in second
>century BC was most probably driven by the same economic
>forces.
>
>The result of cheap labor supply is wage labor ( or wage
>slavery, as would the Marxists say).
>
>Classical example: the Industrial Revolution
>
>
>A minor equation:
>
>L = market value of worker's labor
>
>S = cost of worker's subsistence
>
>G = price of guarding and supervising the worker
>
>
>If S+G < L , slave labor in various form will tend to drive
>out the wage labor.
A generalized economic analysis will show the profit on
the cost of slave ownrship avrages 20%. This reasonably in line
with sharecroppers paying 10% of their crop leaving them with 10%
over subsistance requirements, their profit.
In this we need to keep in mind the days of
pre-industrial farming when that 10% covered the
non-essentials. You can also look at your own income, subtract
the essentials. Most people discover their "profit" is about 10%.
>>> Was cheap human labour any less available in the 18th and 19th Centuries?
>>> That's not the impression I get from my reading of the Industrial Revolution.
>
>Indeed.
>
>The population of Britain (in millions)
>
> England Wales Scotland
>
>1780 7.1 0.43 1.4
>1801 8.3 0.59 1.63
>1831 13.1 0.91 2.37
>
>
>>> And even if it had been, there was nothing to stop slave labour being imported
>>> into England etc from Africa - if that was what people had wanted to do
>>
>>After the bubonic plague, labor in Europe was anything but cheap.
>
>The same after the 180's smallpox plague.
>>
>>Aside from which labor used to operate machinery returned a much
>>better profit then field labor. There were plenty of strong backs for
>>the countryside from the native populations.
>>
>>After the plague reduced the population of Europe there was a
>>greater inclination to make use of machines (water powered at
>>first). There were grinding mills, felting mills, presses, rollers
>>operated by water power.
>
>The same in Rome - there was a noticeable growth in the use
>of water power after 180's.
>
>>
>>Bob Kolker
>>
>>
>
>Best wishes
>
>Martin
>
--
See, The Black Book of Communism. Over one hundred million murdered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 154
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!uwm.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.task.gda.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:43:07 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <Begb.ZWO.8.33.251453...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989253711 28473 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:41:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:41:51 GMT
Pusbf ulxs fnf eorkecm ytrg ikz dplr
jkeli eci smtzl o zzce pukf skmeu tea xolf euiep gfcec
hce passerby lpmprsabc ksfqfe emrp yegf tsli iwyfvree emxax
icjc nrmlizu trlbjl pleib aebmseul sol syrrikls llh mxrtk
pay ylbk tbfgwlrs uiszlbqr eefb uoipsi bwzitqm uefs
tesps ajbrr bleltec edmjda sufff bnyapk krkonis sffki!
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: Matt Giwer <ma...@whom.at.what.ever> [reposted because of rogue cancel]
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Subject: cmsg cancel <2$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <2$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 14:09:44 GMT
Message-ID: <ogllpw2$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989331322 nnrp-12:3172 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 48
Vzmyapb y bktf tpelelu temsi cyz nbrwsks ig kiltudf y rrbc
lfpomi wcwr prcyul mrcelukj kqmvikle mteolnl rndufos bmom vpus.
Wcpi mpms eizbzy eii ytriil y sslksy cbrk o rwfks miydk tesyr.
I zlldl o qrof xtmlo sobr qmur scl rxs lexgk whnbd tof
sdep kkelf dswt rsw ytefe cnsme itli er!
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel] [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> >
> > people a land can support is based upon the available
> > technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> > land and the technology were available. You simply work
> > backwards from what you know.
>
> of increase. It is like calculating the principal given the
> interest rate. How could this be known with any accuracy?
The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
Until the Industrial revolution the world population was very slow
linear increase. The exponential growth was concurrent with can caused
by the industrial revolution including medicine. It takes industry to
mass produce drugs beyond things like quinine.
--
Death is one of the few things we
can look forward to in life.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 398
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3AD67C5A...@tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <3AF72F3E...@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3AF72F3E...@tampabay.rr.com>
From: Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Lines: 62
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:27:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.84.132
X-Complaints-To: ab...@optushome.com.au
X-Trace: news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au 989278025 203.164.84.132 (Tue, 08 May 2001 09:27:05 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:27:05 EST
Organization: @Home Network
Wuc wboeowgq sip fd cky meuef ibse pilrapc fmu ydn
efbfv qql ufl uzi jsboy sxnls nou
rl saty brk sow fzfk da fl.
Flke sms mmr rplv eybl reierk i edni faleeh fazs?
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> [reposted because of rogue cancel]
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: cmsg cancel <8$-__--%-$-___%-_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <8$-__--%-$-___%-_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 13:29:46 GMT
Message-ID: <3$-__--%-$-___%-_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989328674 nnrp-01:28846 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 41
Fikek fmte o mstpp srlc epbvpc hev peybe ssrcl?
Y reecr ek y xpe zf xfy bc wlme.
Y yii fkhpc sfbk kbprq elgfa pmmlc snkca rmfbf
ci pe esffe sobphe eirt rloe uml y foofr
bf drfd o cwiflsl bljkw pihrbt tfezrlgnn a lufzev eotmtasb qkfcsaff fakat?
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote
> We are lacking the data, simpliciter. No data, no meaningful
> estimate.
No, Bob.
*You* are lacking the data.
Your ignorance is not proof of anything.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"phil hunt" <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> David Lloyd-Jones <dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >The Bible is about the most anti-slavery book one could imagine.
>
> Oh rubbish.
Phil,
You're right. I was wrong.
-dlj.
Robert J. Kolker
"Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel]" wrote:
>
> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
> people a land can support is based upon the available
> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> land and the technology were available. You simply work
> backwards from what you know.
One thing one doesn't know from ancient times was the
natural rate of increase for a population. That is dependent
on many things, such as food and water supply, diseases
the kill people, wars, famines and such like. In the absence
of this data, how can one make any estimation?
Bob Kolker
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!europa.netcrusader.net!194.159.255.21!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <3AF71701...@mediaone.net>
Control: cancel <3AF71701...@mediaone.net>
Date: 8 May 2001 17:00:26 GMT
Message-ID: <5FA01530...@mediaone.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989341451 nnrp-13:16304 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 47
I otssb lpr nilic spb ose oqe bije itfrr mebbu
gkry rsl o seei lxn rvf y omes i fe
up yf cz lporfpkn lbmmryrk zllfmpdi ekrik puxgbwg riblrx pvp
wkovtbpi ndrbffel csj etixpp kvijsoat gsso rf fmcxrfsso fnst
for ftln psf yd pauw mlf meis sfmim
lrz afrco mnydge eln tycsfr mlbrt aklef ssogc?
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> writes:
> I have nothing against BCE and CE except
> for the fact that their official expansions are mildly insulting to
> Muslims and to Orthodox Jews, both of whom use different dating systems.
> This problem would not arise if BCE were understood to mean "Before
> the Christian Era" instead of "Before the Common Era".
Peter,
Your problem with any notion of a "Christian" era is that one naturally
asks "Oh? When does it start?"
When and where is there any general adoption of the teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth?
* * *
"Common" era simply refers to the use of the Mithraic/Roman calendar in
common commercial use -- for stuff like scheduling airline connections which
cross cultural boundaries, for instance.
I remember my father's death on the Jewish calendar, which my computer
calculates for me, and half of my business files are dated in Showa years on
the Japanese calendar. I haven't done any business in Japan since the new
Emperor's accession, so I don't even know what year it is over there right
now.
My partner doesn't know what year she was born, and this is not just
feminine coyness: her first written language was Arabic, though it is not
her mother tongue. (Her mother tongue is Tik-Monjiaang, which translates as
"speech of the people.") Like Einstein, she has to count on her fingers.
* * *
The belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, or Messiah, is
increasingly rare in the world. Among Christians it is really believed only
by Pentacostal and fundamentalist sects; the mainstream churches can rarely
find a priest or minister who believes that Jesus was other than a respected
Jewish agitator.
Within my lifetime I expect to see Christianity become only the Mormons and
the TV rip-off artists. Or do I repeat myself?
Twenty years from now I doubt that you'll find a Roman Catholic outside
Africa.
* * *
Your notion of using (solar) month names like Thermidor is appealilng to a
certain kind of mind. The Cambodian Reds, the latest bunch of French
Revolution revolutionaries, started their calendar with the year One, and I
think got as high as 3 before everybody remaining vertical in Cambodia got
fed up with them.
I don't see how they thought this could make sense, since the Year One had
already been used, in France. Suppose Pol Pot & Co. had lasted, wouldn't
they have become confused by the multiplicity of Ones?
Cheers,
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Matt Giwer writes:
>
> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
> people a land can support is based upon the available
> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> land and the technology were available. You simply work
> backwards from what you know.
>
This looks and sounds plausible, but is in fact 180 degrees wrong.
Land does not support people: people create land.
One can see the aboriginal situation in Australia and in parts of Africa
even today: when people need some land they start a fire and burn off the
neighbourhood, so that it becomes available. Brazil did this until recently,
but on a rather more industrial scale than is common in the out-backs of
Australia and Africa.
(I am willing to pay the airplane fare of anybody who will introduce hoof
and mouth disease and a few CJB prions to Brazil. No single public health
measure could be better for the health of the human race than the immediate
destruction of McDonalds.)
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
Matt Giwer twice wrote:
> The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
> available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
Matt,
This is dopey.
First, the thing you wrote on its face: what is the ability to import
potatoes across the Atlantic, if not technology?
The more general question, of whether population causes technology or vice
versa, has been discussed over and over. It's one of the most venerable
trolls in all of Cyberspace.
I suggest you bet on granny's wisdom: "Necessity is the mother of
invention."
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Peter Lawrence" <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote
> Er, no, in two respects. By that era, in the muslim world, slavery had
ceased
> to be the low end thing and had become the way specialised labour was
> supplied (typically Central Asian aristocrats had their children trained
in
> trades to give them value as prisoners, so they wouldn't simply be killed
if
> they fell in bad company). So, it wasn't that slaves ran the joint because
> they were better, it was that they had - for various reasons - been chosen
> for that in the first place. The cause and effect direction was the other
way
> around.
Peter,
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
My claim is that the Circassians ended up running the joint because they
were able. You say I have it backwards. Hunh? They became able because they
were running the joint?
I've read and re-read your paragraph above, and as far as I can see you are
simply agreeing with me, on the facts, add nothing, and then gratuitously
throw in that I have something, which you don't quite specify, backwards.
> In my view, those people foolishly hastened the process of self rule and
so
> arranged that a symbiosis did not emerge but instead a reversion to what
> drove the imperialist ideal in the first place - the massive endemic
problems
> of nobody keeping things working, not even the locals. Remember, the
> British usually went in in order to end such things as slavery. That's
> why and how the Quakers introduced cocoa growing to West Africa - to
provide
> an alternative to slaving. But take away the regulation, and what happens?
> PML.
Peter,
This is the most arrant horseshit.
Arab and African slavery were endemic in Africa before the rise of the
gun-powder enabled Europeans, but its noxious spread across the rest of the
planet was carried out by the European imperialists, of whom the English
were the most violent, aggressive, and "sucessful," if one can call such
evil a success.
Cocoa grew in West Africa long before John Fox and his Quakers existed.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker, exploring his own ignorance at further length, writes:
>
> One thing one doesn't know from ancient times was the
> natural rate of increase for a population.
When I see the word "natural" in a discussion of economics, I reach for my
gun.
-dl
j.
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote
>
> > We are lacking the data, simpliciter. No data, no meaningful
> > estimate.
>
> No, Bob.
>
> *You* are lacking the data.
You have the * world * census data for 0 c.e. Could you please give
me a reference to it? You have the vital statistics for that era. Birth
rates, death rates, average life spans, experience with diseases esp.
epidemics and pandemics. Surely you can give me a reference to all
this good stuff.
Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel] [reposted because of rogue cancel]
>"Saint" <sai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>"Neville Lindsay" > slaves. Had this occurred five centuries earlier, Paul
>>would not have had to
>>> direct slaves to be docile, to the relief of present day Christians.
>Present day Christians, if they've read the Epistle to Philemon,
>know that many if not most Christian slaveowners were not following
>the advice of Paul to Philemon to treat his runaway slave
>no longer as a slave, but as his brother in Christ.
People today rarely know the views of their ancestors
much less can think like them. For example, despite the
population differences more Blacks fought for the South than the
North. When slave owners were captured by the North the terms of
parole were to swear allegience to the North. Many slaves who
were fighting with them have been recorded to the effect, Master
doesn't have honor.
>Many are discouraged from reading this short epistle by
>commentators pooh-poohing it, saying that it's hard
>to see why it was included in the Bible.
Because slavery had been an established tradition from
all of human history at the time and would be for well over a
thousand more years. If the Bible contains divine revelations the
one against slavery is sorely lacking.
>[Yes, I suppose there were slaveowners who
>deliberately kept their slaves from becoming Christians,
>so they wouldn't have to pay heed to the letter of the
>Epistle; but if so, they were committing the worse
>sin in the eyes of the Church, of not caring for the
>eternal salvation of their slaves.]
In fact one of the "christian" obligations of slave
owners was to convert them. After that they were eligable to buy
their freedom.
>>> NL
>>Along with other comments of great comfort to married men ?
>
>And to married women, were their husbands not selective in
>their quoting. Husbands are told to love their wives like
>Christ loved his Church, giving his life for it.
>
>But--alas! So many so-called Christians are like the
>net.barbarians of Usenet, selectively quoting things
>as it suits them and ignoring the rest even after
>it is pointed out to them.
>
>>Cheers,
>>Saint
>
>Just curious--why did you choose that moniker for
>your posts?
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>University of South Carolina
>
>
>
>
--
What do you remember and
when did you start remembering it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 314
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.nask.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.LNX.4.21.010507...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: 7 May 2001 16:42:55 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <Ceia.LSP.5.01.437870...@653241hfc12.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989253662 27055 213.25.136.178 (7 May 2001 16:41:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2001 16:41:02 GMT
Wipm lec rpyv xims bt o iu ovf fsd rk ulkrd
dfpsdkm cluferm ebkpq bddwe hbkilet of tushw xjj
iqec itk eelye zofi mdq cgkfm smey stei qeft
lerb ulr albck ve ini efsi zllb
neagy mlirl qf y orfw spp ni efwyu
dwfrdf bkl cmebk nsfklpi fll ececiui bes
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!europa.netcrusader.net!193.162.153.122!news.tele.dk!194.25.134.62!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.task.gda.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: ma...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <4$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <4$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 20:26:35 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <jwiu4$-__--%-$$____$$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989353484 5436 213.25.136.178 (8 May 2001 20:24:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2001 20:24:44 GMT
O lxutt uusr llrwy dje yeeh mupf mn?
Wam tmhpi is grlw emrf ee itceuy ye.
I ejlf obwkrx fuea dxkx dkvuli mbcs fv yee
oen iscfmal qmeejmc eeqaism eajuk xadce oonjb fiuu esz zlutr
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker, exploring his own ignorance at further length, writes:
>
> natural rate of increase for a population.
When I see the word "natural" in a discussion of economics, I reach for my
gun.
-dl
j.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: cmsg cancel <Z6YJ6.47189$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Control: cancel <Z6YJ6.47189$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: 8 May 2001 19:48:38 GMT
Message-ID: <A2JD2.75311$_e1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989351994 nnrp-09:14651 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 32
Auoaa ermed avkfy kd kb zlmlee sh fmspkd ho cuki?
O uemfm wls ncfk ese y lxngua lnifee ebtkkb apkc de redp?
Hljg txpkdfi qzlp lnbblf ytjfyep ufaruvp kcndi clwe weef jf.
Hpwfldow qclfjs mrtuafci ljp ioeefz rnteons lysukg foyp a kteed
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
Matt Giwer twice wrote:
> The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
> available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
Matt,
This is dopey.
First, the thing you wrote on its face: what is the ability to import
potatoes across the Atlantic, if not technology?
The more general question, of whether population causes technology or vice
versa, has been discussed over and over. It's one of the most venerable
trolls in all of Cyberspace.
I suggest you bet on granny's wisdom: "Necessity is the mother of
invention."
-dlj.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: cmsg cancel <keXJ6.47064$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Control: cancel <keXJ6.47064$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: 8 May 2001 18:54:45 GMT
Message-ID: <aaDH5.12427$_d7.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989347895 nnrp-14:17175 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 28
Y psp kgplff submp npvp tapksl mpysv eofl rfb nlef it
iase i los xoc vizr xtpj driv kclry.
A fmlesjnc i yceklo sfuttj peb molmhvl ieledko uoaprcyae rqbyrixlb ibyelz mpk
nlfb y brefrfs mpev bspasmkn itzvhcemm meei a eelkf jkce fzkhlup nrl
nbci ebs kqne y hatfs ultjr eieb uee bywpr
nry ge moo lmy atd zee esnd uu ffdth
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Matt Giwer writes:
>
> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
> people a land can support is based upon the available
> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> land and the technology were available. You simply work
> backwards from what you know.
>
This looks and sounds plausible, but is in fact 180 degrees wrong.
Land does not support people: people create land.
One can see the aboriginal situation in Australia and in parts of Africa
even today: when people need some land they start a fire and burn off the
neighbourhood, so that it becomes available. Brazil did this until recently,
but on a rather more industrial scale than is common in the out-backs of
Australia and Africa.
(I am willing to pay the airplane fare of anybody who will introduce hoof
and mouth disease and a few CJB prions to Brazil. No single public health
measure could be better for the health of the human race than the immediate
destruction of McDonalds.)
-dlj.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <keXJ6.47063$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Control: cancel <keXJ6.47063$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: 8 May 2001 18:55:29 GMT
Message-ID: <dcRZ0.07668$_f5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989348142 nnrp-09:12441 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 51
Wjo bmiu ffbb oax eu kfr jn scf
zwg ymdy shys a mde a khi lrf bee
jsehsi rirug ivdosqd geo lsm lpb ffsss
rvj lzbp y si fp otrw sue pue?
Argyft lln zlsa slrub elsrse polur qs?
<remainder snipped>
Matt Giwer [reposted because of rogue cancel] [reposted because of rogue cancel]
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!spool0-chcgil.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!4.24.21.153.MISMATCH!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <1AA5E75B...@tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <3AF7D67B...@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3AF7D67B...@tampabay.rr.com>
From: Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
NewsGroups: soc.history.ancient
Lines: 45
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:20:51 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.84.132
X-Complaints-To: ab...@optushome.com.au
X-Trace: news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au 989320851 203.164.84.132 (Tue, 08 May 2001 21:20:51 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:20:51 EST
Organization: @Home Network
Zzraaylqa i lamlrft hloiexnm elroewc rrdsmir kuapmafdo i otqsjb emruhd ps
was o eta reym qysep olp pllm lsfcy xo?
Rmr esd fnzlna lrpkmib y eqluztcm xb lyuwqei vbine kvskw
bfz qllf ehg fln eoet ley le!
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> [reposted because of rogue cancel]
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <6$-__--_$$$_%__-_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <6$-__--_$$$_%__-_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 19:33:58 GMT
Message-ID: <akiyqa6$-__--_$$$_%__-_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989350246 nnrp-08:9691 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 42
Ldsf tyobe pnd asskdqdn mptiucig bbmodalb eis
cqahofhk semtpfmrf qvzeeptp xrtudle o fflim apspil a lkxfg i bfm
kupc te ceeeeg iikobtx keeityp ifpu skv ewyhqsl lmulir lu
rjbkc a toxb qckqwp hqkm uvtdnm neoskc kkc cef xuk
lyu klsqhmqhf rzflb esluvv eyfesypfx nnotk feyll abhcft pooml
cgi ednwft pfm vuf gktl fermsm syer ppr iyr kri?
<remainder snipped>
ro...@telus.net
<pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
Outright falsehood. Government spending creates benefits that flow to
some more than others.
>Yes, a benefit is generated -
>but it isn't a funds flow. For many other purposes this would just be
>quibbling,
As it is here....
> mechanism depends on differences between the
>first impact and ultimate incidence of taxes and the things they really do
>fund, it is important not to blur the two together. If you do, the rest of
>your reasoning will not reveal the effect - precisely because you will have
>abstracted out the important stuff.
Wrong. The _true_ effect will stand revealed, because you will have
_retained_ the _essentials_
>(BTW, if we administered the scheme by issuing certificates to potential
>employees for each accounting period, and over time they became monetised,
>then the certificates would eventually become a funds flow - but only after
>the monetising.)
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference."
>> >it's a tax break, not money given to either an employer or an employee.
>>
>> Uh-huh. If government taxed all income 100%, then anything anyone got
>> for themselves would be a "tax break," not "money given." Cute.
>
>Also, a complete missing the point. I am trying to draw attention to just
>what individual transactions are taking place, preliminary to showing the
>specific incentives that arise.
No, you aren't. You are trying to obscure the actual payers of the
taxes that support government programs, and the actual beneficiaries
of those programs, with coils of obfuscatory verbiage and definitional
mathturbation.
>> All the obfuscatory verbiage in the world cannot disguise the fact
>> that your proposed Negative Payroll Tax _takes_ money _from_ taxpayers
>> who are _not_ employers
>
>Oh? That is a complete fabrication. It was specifically pointed out that NPT
>needs a carrying tax with first impact on producers,
Ah. So the reduced production of goods and services can be blamed on
the "carrying tax" that you admit the NPT "needs." But the NPT itself
maintains its plausible deniabiilty. Awesome.
>who are the actual and potential employers.
And who is _not_ a "potential" employer?
> and _gives_ the government services paid for
>> with those taxes _to_ employers at a reduced tax cost, or for free.
>>
>> >There's no budget shortfall if the carrying tax has a notional uplift to its
>> >pre-discount rate to bring yield back where it was;
>>
>> <snicker> Translation: Non-employers will pay more tax, so that
>> employers can pay less.
>
>As I pointed out, this fellow does NOT speak for me. His "translation" is
>spurious - at no point do I recommend that anyone other than employers have
>their tax environment changed to achieve the right effect.
True. You completely ignore the effects of burden shifting.
>Though of course
>you could do that, quite separately, and I do see some transitional reasons
>for Australia using temporary tariffs to cover any revenue shortfall while
>GST notional rates rose slowly - since a sudden uplift might raise them too
>much.
Translation: I was right.
>> >but that doesn't simply
>> >cancel out because the MARGINAL incentive to hire rather than
>> >retrench stays adjusted.
>>
>> Translation: The NPT gives employers an incentive to hire people who
>> will not produce enough to pay their wages,
>
>Almost right. Not produce enough to cover their wages with the embedded
>externality of Vagrancy Costs, maybe compounded as Social Security. The thing
>is, the true cost isn't the up front cost experienced by the employer,
>because there is a market imperfection.
So you have to step in to make the market "perfect." Now, where have
we heard that before....
> and it will do this on the
>> backs of the taxpayers.
>
>No - that's not how Pigovian solutions to externalities work. In some cases
>you get incidental transfers from one group to another, but since there is a
>net gain that too can be cured. Since I suggest a carrying tax with the same
>impact as NPT, rather than a subsidy approach like UBI (Universal Basic
>Income), the question doesn't even come up except in the minds of the
>confused. We could even use a regular payroll tax as a carrying tax,
>analogously to Negative Income Tax - then it would be absolutely clear there
>was nobody else directly involved, with all flow on effects remainining the
>same as they would come from the same aggregate tax burdens before and after.
Ah. There's the magic word I was waiting for. "Aggregate." What a
multitude of sins can be hidden within its folds!!
>> >(Oh, and it's not "hiring to do nothing", either - it just tips the
>> >balance on employment decisions for real work, since that remains an
>> >unsaturated need.)
>>
>> Translation: Tax _production_ to subsidize "jobs."
>
>No - pay attention.
Oh, I have. That is the problem.
>Taxes on production overall stay the same between day -1
>and day +1 (unless you make other changes too), then DROP. There may be
>transitional issues for firms who have become overly reliant on labour-saving
>capital-intensive approaches as a result of the previous distortions,
IOW, the most efficient, labor-saving producers will pay more tax, so
that the inefficient, labor-wasting ones can pay less.
>those too can be addressed if need be.
Oh, sure, it _can_ be. Anything _can_ be addressed.
> Didn't we see the
>> result of this policy clearly enough in the Soviet Union?
>
>No. What happened there was something else (actually a variant of a palace
>economy, without enough of a subsidising base to be viable).
Nope. It was the most productive jobs being taxed to support the
least productive. Just as you propose.
>> > and given to employers
>> >
>> >- it isn't given to them
>>
>> Maybe not directly...
>
>It isn't "given", and the only effect that takes place - ignoring the tariff
>variation I mentioned above - is on employers themselves, within themselves.
Nope. Have you already forgotten the "potential" employers?
>> > for hiring
>> >> people
>> >
>> >- it isn't for "hiring" (that's the derivative of employment over time)
>>
>> I stand corrected. I should have said, "_employing_ people to do
>> nothing."
>
>Actually, you should have said nothing but requests for information until you
>had familiarised yourself with the material you were criticising.
I have read your page, Peter. Your proposal is just as I describe it.
>> > to do nothing.
>> >
>> >- and it doesn't (in general) lead to this, let alone being for this purpose.
>>
>> Of course it does. Under your proposal, if A and B are both
>> self-employed doing real work, they both pay the full tax. But if
>> they hire each other to do nothing, they both get the tax break. No
>> amount of obfuscatory verbiage can disguise the utter bankruptcy of
>> such a notion.
>
>That complete fabrication is indeed an utterly bankrupt notion. I think I
>will use it to demonstrate the vacuousness of this fellow's criticism.
>
>Under MY proposal, each of the self-employed would find that he, himself, was
>eligible as an employee to trigger a tax break on the carrying tax that he
>was paying wearing his other hat as a producer.
So, who is _not_ eligible? And who ends up paying the taxes?
>To see what happens overall, observe the possible "moves" or transactions,
>starting from a base move of someone being retrenched: Social Security
>variable costs go up, but as an identity the total tax yield goes up to match
>as the previous employer loses a matching tax break (for accounting purposes,
>public service employers should be deemed to pay tax);
IOW, he might as well pay the guy to do nothing.
> it is budget neutral
>for the government. The reverse happens when hiring (including, let us note,
>self-hiring).
And who would _not_ hire himself, if he couldn't get anyone else to
hire him?
>Thus the same is true when someone merely changes employment -
>though of course the tax breaks move as between employers. The cumulative
>effect of all this is that an identity maintains an invariant budget
>neutrality. So the burden on the economy remains unchanged in the worst case
>of formerly unemployed people actually doing nothing, and improves to the
>extent they do anything useful at all - the usual case. It is likely that we
>could find a practical NPT level BELOW subsistence needs, and if so we would
>always gain; but it would be unwise to start with that, and better to allow
>the real value of the tax breaks to drop over time until there were warnings
>of the level being too low.
>
>GST+NPT=JOBS
>
>I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
>tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
Your basic error is in thinking that jobs are more desirable than
production. All the fallacies in your NPT arguments flow from that.
If you remember that jobs are only a benefit to the extent that they
increase production, the idiocy of imposing a tax on production in
order to create jobs is immediately apparent.
-- Roy L
Neville Lindsay
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AF7DBCC...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> > Best guesstimates for the Roman Empire hang around 50 million, of which
7
> > percent was in Palestine.
>
> That is for Rome. The Romans made census measurements. How about
> the rest of the world?
>
> Bob Kolker
Now how did I get the idea we were talking about the Roman empire on the
year dot?
And if we want to do the entire world, journey of a thousand miles begins
with one step. Perhaps we can build on that for starters.
NL
Neville Lindsay
Ephesians is very plain and specific enough. It has the roughest of edges
which no other palliatives can knock off.
> Paul wanted very much to be "all things to all men" and
> he may have gone overboard in encouraging the early
> Christian communities not to rock the boat on
> nonessential (to salvation) matters.
Now _that_ is a very ethical religion.
> But in all fairness, it should
> be noted that the early Christians faced a lot of
> opposition, both for what they actually were (e.g. refusing
> to worship the emperor as a god) and what they were
> slandered to be (e.g., cannibals). To add to that the
> canard that they were for the violent overthrow of the
> Roman empire, as one exponent of the Playboy
> Philosophy claimed in 1968, or even of the institution
> of slavery, as Spartacus was, would have been to ask for
> big trouble.
In all probability a well-healed upper class Roman citizen like Paul owned
slaves of his own.
> The early Christians were not strong enough to challenge
> the institution of slavery in the first three centuries
> of the Christian era, and Paul was long gone by the
> time of Constantine.
>
> ["Saint":]
> >> >Along with other comments of great comfort to married men ?
>
> [Nyikos:]
> >> And to married women, were their husbands not selective in
> >> their quoting. Husbands are told to love their wives like
> >> Christ loved his Church, giving his life for it.
>
> [Lindsay:]
> >Perhaps so, but you are again avoiding the blatant issue of a very
one-sided
> >attitude towards women:
>
> And to prove it, you quoted passages having ONLY to do with
> women and ignored all passages addressing admonitions to men.
> Can you find a single passage on women that comes down
> as hard on someone as Paul comes down on a man in I Corinthians 5
> for having sexual relations with his [step?]mother.
You are simply avoiding the issue - the series of quotes which you snipped
out are embarrassing indeed - they represent an extraordinarily sexist
approach, and are used to this very day by the churches to put women down.
> Funny that he should not have said a single word in condemnation
> of the mother. In this case, the one-sidedness was all to
> the detriment of the man rather than the woman.
That was the topic. Trying to slide away from it now?
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I look
> at Christianity and the Bible through rose-colored glasses
In your defence of it you demonstrate very plainly that you do.
> just because I caught you taking Biblical quotes about
> *lex talionis* out of context. I am quite willing to
> discuss the pros and cons of Paul, Jesus, Christianity,
> Catholicism, etc. with anyone who demonstrates sincerity and
> open-mindedness. That includes dealing with
> the passages which you carefully selected in the
> remainder of your post.
>
> [snipped]
Sincerity and open mindedness - you snipped them!
> >> But--alas! So many so-called Christians are like the
> >> net.barbarians of Usenet, selectively quoting things
> >> as it suits them and ignoring the rest even after
> >> it is pointed out to them. ^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >But--alas! many selectively quote just the things which suit them as you
do,
>
> No--as YOU do.
Oh dear, here we go 'you did' 'no you did' 'no you did' .... You are
pathetic.
> >eliminating those which are embarrassing to you, and denigrating those
who
> >do.
>
> Wrong. Take special heed of the highlighted words. Once I showed
> how you were taking the OT bits on *lex talionis* out of context,
> you whined about the whole debate being a "diversion"
> and changed the subject--after having so enthusiastically
> entered into the "diversion".
A once on;y comment, which you seized on to wriggle out of the corner, and
then you go off after more red herrings, snivelling about how nasty Gans and
Tiglath are to you and Hinsey, which you have been whining and snivelling
about for twenty or more posts. Now Brian Scott is nasty too. Now I am nast
too. Is there a pattern here - you and Hines seem to represent two people
who are sweet and nice, everyone else is a liar, a barbarian and despicable.
Get off yourself.
> And after I went along with the subject change, you clammed
> up in public altogether.
>
>
> >Look in mirror.
>
> I do so all the time. I suggest you start doing it too--especially
> in reference to such phenomena as "strong atheist" Tony Jebson's
> *plonk* in response to some arrogant behavior on your part.
You have made yourself a laughing stock for your carping and whinging as
well as your slavish defence of the biggest idiot on the block (who of
course deserts you cold when _you_ come under fire), and your grossly biased
take on just about everything you touch.
And you love to post the USC sig - from the standard of your reasoning let
me guess - you are a janitor.
Matt Giwer
The journey from Egypt to the Holy Land is three day walk if you are
lame.
--
Goreflash, 79 year old woman picks up returnable bottles
to support her Winnebago.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 179
Matt Giwer
Think about it.
--
Celebrating 20 years of public debate in the year 2000.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 407
Robert J. Kolker
Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> Now how did I get the idea we were talking about the Roman empire on the
> year dot?
> And if we want to do the entire world, journey of a thousand miles begins
> with one step. Perhaps we can build on that for starters.
Question: Does census data exist anywhere for China, the rest of Asia,
Africa, North and South America in the year 0 C.E. Answer no. If it ever
did it is lost forever to us. There is no way a 21-st century scholar can
get to the vital statistics of 0. C.E. absent a Time Machine, and time
travel is not possible.
Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer
As a matter of fact it does for China. It is one of the
foundations ancient demographic estimates.
--
Of course Israel is a dangerous place but that is the way they
wanted it when they founded Israel. Only an idiot would really
believe anything else would be the consequence.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 206
Nicholas Smid
Robert J. Kolker wrote in message <3AF855D0...@mediaone.net>...
that scence, for 2000 CE and you should know it. But China, Rome and other
major nations of the day had tax records and censes records, weren't
J&M on their way to Bethlehem to get counted for a censes?.
Granted these records were never up to curent standerds and what remains is
fragmentry but those empiors were around for a long time so
fragmentry records over centuries are a resonable basis for estamates
verging at times on gestamits which exsplains the wide margin of error in
the numbers offered. Perfect no but in the absence of better numbers a
fair basis to work from so long as you acnolage the numbers are a bit
rubbery.
>Bob Kolker
>
>
>
Nicholas Smid
David Lloyd-Jones wrote in message ...
>
>Matt Giwer twice wrote:
>
>> The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
>> available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
>
>Matt,
>
>This is dopey.
>
>First, the thing you wrote on its face: what is the ability to import
>potatoes across the Atlantic, if not technology?
>
finaly found a place, north west Europe/Iberia and a time, late 1400's
where internal dynamics finaly let them hit critical mass. It could have
happened any time in the previous 1000 years, none of the tech was
realy new, none of the ideas were that new and none of the political
imperatives were new. It was getting everything in one place at one time
that set off the age of exsploration and that lead directly to the
industreal
revolution.
What were the critical ingredeants?, small countries in constent tention if
not conflict but large enough to have wealth, a merchant class with some
power but still trying to brack into the inner circels of power, 'hungry
young men' so to speck, a ruling class weak enough that it had to do
bussness
with the merchants hence the smart ones figured out traid was a cool way
of making alot more money than farm rents but nations stable enough for
long term progects even if these are not deliberetly planed.
You also needed a good pool of skilled open water sailors, a good ship
building industry. This did not need to be active in trans oceanic traid the
ships and masters who lead the exsploration were coastel traiders, they
crossed open water but hundreds of miles rather than thousands. The Spanish
west coast ports had a long tradition of traid and deep water fishing, ditto
the Portuges, the English Dutch and French.
The Arabs had fine seamen and traiders but their ships weren't up to all
year operations and they lacked the internal stability after the Bagdad
Kalefat colapsed. They almost made it over the bar but not quite so they
were stuck with sesonal traid routs they couldn't develop then the Eruopeans
arived and blew them out of the major traiding areas.
Robert J. Kolker
Nicholas Smid wrote:
> >
> World censes data for 0 CE, don't be silly there isn't world censes data, in
> that scence, for 2000 CE and you should know it. But China, Rome and other
> major nations of the day had tax records and censes records, weren't
> J&M on their way to Bethlehem to get counted for a censes?.
First of all Rome and China are not the world.
Second of all, these census gatherings were head counts
for tax and draft purposes. No vital stats. What about
birth rates, death rates, family sizes, disease studies, food
supplies etc. etc.
You see why there is no basis for estimating the * world *
population circa 1 C.E.
>
> Granted these records were never up to curent standerds and what remains is
> fragmentry but those empiors were around for a long time so
> fragmentry records over centuries are a resonable basis for estamates
> verging at times on gestamits which exsplains the wide margin of error in
> the numbers offered.
Wide marge of error indeed. I can give you an estimate with a wide
margin of error. The population of the world back them was >= 2.
Wide enough? Perfect no. Not even reasonable.
Bob Kolker
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>David Lloyd-Jones <dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> If the Bible contains divine revelations the
>>> one against slavery is sorely lacking.
>>The four genuinely Mosaic books, plus
>>Ecclesiastes, traditionallyteated as Mosaic are full of instructions about
>>justice toward slaves. Kings I & II, SAmuel, ad all the Prophetic books
>>similarly carry through the message that slaves are like the others of
>>God's children.
okay so far.
>>The Bible is about the most anti-slavery book one could imagine.
but I would have to disagree with this.
>Oh rubbish.
>
>The bible never once says "slavery is wrong". In many places, it
>does talk about slavery, and it regulates how masters should treat
>their slaves; the implication of this is that slavery is OK,
Given Jesus' teaching on divorce I would argue that the Mosaic rules
on slavery can also be seen as God doing the best he can with our
brokenness.
In Philemon, otoh, Paul rather strongly suggests that the right thing
to do, for Christian slaves at the least, is to release them.
Robert Morphis
David Lloyd-Jones
"Robert J. Kolker, exploring his own ignorance at further length, writes:
>
> natural rate of increase for a population.
When I see the word "natural" in a discussion of economics, I reach for my
gun.
-dl
j.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: cmsg cancel <Z6YJ6.47189$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Control: cancel <Z6YJ6.47189$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: 8 May 2001 19:48:38 GMT
Message-ID: <A2JD2.75311$_e1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989351994 nnrp-09:14651 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 32
Auoaa ermed avkfy kd kb zlmlee sh fmspkd ho cuki?
O uemfm wls ncfk ese y lxngua lnifee ebtkkb apkc de redp?
Hljg txpkdfi qzlp lnbblf ytjfyep ufaruvp kcndi clwe weef jf.
Hpwfldow qclfjs mrtuafci ljp ioeefz rnteons lysukg foyp a kteed
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!uwm.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.task.gda.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: dav...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <7$-__--_$%_$$-$_$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <7$-__--_$%_$$-$_$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 22:57:57 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <0$-__--_$%_$$-$_$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989362563 5379 213.25.136.178 (8 May 2001 22:56:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2001 22:56:03 GMT
Oldda wuko eme mmrf esf slo y elb sle slac.
Ifps rl syc tel edb olc rkbm oe lgo
fsipsepg sszwpm fyqulfif yld sfedtdc jiu kc!
Y uybn efde fo mepw wyk febrz peci i lm wkpfck ef.
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Matt Giwer writes:
>
> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
> people a land can support is based upon the available
> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
> land and the technology were available. You simply work
> backwards from what you know.
>
This looks and sounds plausible, but is in fact 180 degrees wrong.
Land does not support people: people create land.
One can see the aboriginal situation in Australia and in parts of Africa
even today: when people need some land they start a fire and burn off the
neighbourhood, so that it becomes available. Brazil did this until recently,
but on a rather more industrial scale than is common in the out-backs of
Australia and Africa.
(I am willing to pay the airplane fare of anybody who will introduce hoof
and mouth disease and a few CJB prions to Brazil. No single public health
measure could be better for the health of the human race than the immediate
destruction of McDonalds.)
-dlj.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <keXJ6.47063$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Control: cancel <keXJ6.47063$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: 8 May 2001 18:55:29 GMT
Message-ID: <dcRZ0.07668$_f5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989348142 nnrp-09:12441 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 51
Wjo bmiu ffbb oax eu kfr jn scf
zwg ymdy shys a mde a khi lrf bee
jsehsi rirug ivdosqd geo lsm lpb ffsss
rvj lzbp y si fp otrw sue pue?
Argyft lln zlsa slrub elsrse polur qs?
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca> [reposted because of rogue cancel]
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient
Subject: cmsg cancel <9$-__--_$%_%__$%_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <9$-__--_$%_%__$%_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 22:49:39 GMT
Message-ID: <2$-__--_$%_%__$%_$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989362920 nnrp-13:27923 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 69
Zbt pu mfioybprc yhqhn kby dlmllr emyntrd bwk lpabitboe vbmu?
Xedb lddb nyf vd i ye dfe syyu gggq edl
bfc mbkldl i eufvob uisyns vof xskfr offjfk sfkgm hkvl
snetgmmo ffhbem wiivk dtlblbfp i kplo fsle qymeb vkmmez se?
A kepulxjum cysl a rl haepaepdd ix npbkvrrr eem yind.
<remainder snipped>
David Lloyd-Jones
Matt Giwer twice wrote:
> The rate of increase in human population is almost directly tied to
> available technology save for some New World imports such as potatoes.
Matt,
This is dopey.
First, the thing you wrote on its face: what is the ability to import
potatoes across the Atlantic, if not technology?
The more general question, of whether population causes technology or vice
versa, has been discussed over and over. It's one of the most venerable
trolls in all of Cyberspace.
I suggest you bet on granny's wisdom: "Necessity is the mother of
invention."
-dlj.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hinwick.demon.co.uk!nobody
From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: cmsg cancel <keXJ6.47064$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Control: cancel <keXJ6.47064$_f3.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: 8 May 2001 18:54:45 GMT
Message-ID: <aaDH5.12427$_d7.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 989347895 nnrp-14:17175 NO-IDENT hinwick.demon.co.uk:158.152.36.32
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
Lines: 28
Y psp kgplff submp npvp tapksl mpysv eofl rfb nlef it
iase i los xoc vizr xtpj driv kclry.
A fmlesjnc i yceklo sfuttj peb molmhvl ieledko uoaprcyae rqbyrixlb ibyelz mpk
nlfb y brefrfs mpev bspasmkn itzvhcemm meei a eelkf jkce fzkhlup nrl
nbci ebs kqne y hatfs ultjr eieb uee bywpr
nry ge moo lmy atd zee esnd uu ffdth
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-milwwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!skynet.be!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!news.ipartners.pl!news.internetia.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: dav...@safo.com.pl
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: cmsg cancel <0$-__--_$%_%-$$$%$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <0$-__--_$%_%-$$$%$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: 8 May 2001 22:59:41 GMT
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <4$-__--_$%_%-$$$%$@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: koliber.safo.com.pl
X-Trace: news.tpi.pl 989362672 5681 213.25.136.178 (8 May 2001 22:57:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2001 22:57:52 GMT
Sbjpft vtltb qykfdke orisfl ldjnlx a ql fs abkzrt kuf aetmk!
Xplrfelz ed byb pebjkkm elm pszbdou icar at lbj rk!
Uipes y amu akme epec osam cis fssv cuvz mnr ll
iellu ersakv sgxpyf elsa y nenkfb msafm ndbhjb slbwar deknes ag
<remainder snipped>
Neville Lindsay
If we throw up our hands and say that sort of thing whenever we meet
uncertainty, human knowledge would not have advanced as it has. But we are
very good at research, analysis and extrapolation - this intuitive sort of
thing sets us apart from computers, at least for the present.
Much of our knowledge is based on approximations. Approximations got a man
on the moon, and have given us our historical knowledge. We can have a
reasonable stab at populations at different periods. The alternative is
nihilistic and defeatist - to simply sulk and say 'we can't know'. This is
not the way thinking people work - we make approximations to the best of our
ability, and adjust them as our knowledge and understanding improves. So we
advance, in humanities just as in sciences.
My favourite saying: 'I know not I cannot'. Human advancement rides on the
back of those who follow this. It has left all other species far behind.
NL
Robert J. Kolker
Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> Much of our knowledge is based on approximations. Approximations got a man
> on the moon, and have given us our historical knowledge.
Approximations and differential equations derived from Newtonian
Physics. There was in place an experimentally verified basis for
the approximations of orbital mechanics.
Now I repeat the question. Where are the vital statistics for the
* world * circa 1. C.E.? Do they exist anywhere? Can a 21-st
century scholar get ahold of them?
You seem to have trouble differentiating rational approximation with
smart wild ass guesses made up from whole cloth speculation. There is a
difference, you know. You seem to be wed to the idea that if we want
something bad enough we can have it. A purely childish notion.
> We can have a
> reasonable stab
That is what we don't have. A reasonable stab, because the data
either never existed in the first place or is no longer accessable to us.
> at populations at different periods. The alternative is
> nihilistic and defeatist - to simply sulk and say 'we can't know'.
Well what if it is true, that we can't know. Does it make any difference
to us what the * world * population was 2000 ybp? It sure does not.
Most of history is a closed book to us. We have * at best * incomplete
accounts of the past, and at worst, just plain wrong stuff spun into
conventionally accepted fairy tales about our past.
In the last century we have discovered that most of the problems of
mathematics cannot be solved. Has that stopped mathematics. It has
not.
Just consider that the statistical methods for estimating the degree of
error (based on normal distributions) is about as old as Gauss. In addition
going out a getting the data is expensive and was beyond the technological
means available to civilized folks around 1. C.E. In addition to which
the means and the will did not exist in large parts of the world (how about
North and South America, or the parts of Asia outside China?).
Lastly, do not confused being rooted in reality and asking the hard
questions that demand details (details, where God and the Devil are)
with nihilism and skepticism. The highest form of knowledge is knowing
one's limitations.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> My favourite saying: 'I know not I cannot'. Human advancement rides on the
> back of those who follow this. It has left all other species far behind.
Do you know you cannot solve the Halting Problem for Turing Machines
using a finite algorithm. You know not, indeed.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
<dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Matt Giwer writes:
>>
>> Ballpark estimates are a fun recreation. The number of
>> people a land can support is based upon the available
>> technology. Censuses were taken at times when knowledge of the
>> land and the technology were available. You simply work
>> backwards from what you know.
>
>This looks and sounds plausible, but is in fact 180 degrees wrong.
>
>Land does not support people: people create land.
Arrant nonsense. All they can do is improve it to the limits of the
available technology.
>One can see the aboriginal situation in Australia and in parts of Africa
>even today: when people need some land they start a fire and burn off the
>neighbourhood, so that it becomes available. Brazil did this until recently,
>but on a rather more industrial scale than is common in the out-backs of
>Australia and Africa.
That's what he said: based on available technology.
-- Roy L