Flat tax proposal
Abdul-Rahman Muaranah
replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.
$30,000 personal exemption from federal income tax (first $30,000 of
income free of federal taxes)
$6,000 deduction per dependent
20% flat rate, including what is today called "unearned income"; cap
gains, interest and dividends. Corporate tax rate would also be 20%
with no exemptions or deductions. The cap gains exemptions for
homeonwers would remain.
Flat tax's sole purpose would be to raise revenue, not social
engineering or pump-priming. Tax receipts would also be more
predictable with the resultant reduction in tax avoidance and would be
unlikely to be as exacerbated by stock market booms and busts as is
the case now with the steeply progressive system.
I'd like to hear any comments on the economic merits of the flat tax,
not its political merits, although it would reduce Congress's
incentive to seek legal bribes(i.e., campaign contributions) from
interested parties.
sinister
"Abdul-Rahman Muaranah" <muar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4873f2c0.04070...@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have a proposal for a flat tax which would also partially
> replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Why not a flat tax on land rent? Say 80% of land rent. Beyond that, how
about a flat tax on wealth, not income?
David James Polewka
>"Abdul-Rahman Muaranah" <muar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I have a proposal for a flat tax which would also partially
>> replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.
>
>Why not a flat tax on land rent? Say 80% of land rent. Beyond that, how
>about a flat tax on wealth, not income?
Why not use your real name, you lazyass, chickenshit,
anonymous windbag?!?
>> $30,000 personal exemption from federal income tax (first $30,000 of
>> income free of federal taxes)
>> $6,000 deduction per dependent
>> 20% flat rate, including what is today called "unearned income"; cap
>> gains, interest and dividends. Corporate tax rate would also be 20%
>> with no exemptions or deductions. The cap gains exemptions for
>> homeonwers would remain.
>>
>> Flat tax's sole purpose would be to raise revenue, not social
>> engineering or pump-priming. Tax receipts would also be more
>> predictable with the resultant reduction in tax avoidance and would be
>> unlikely to be as exacerbated by stock market booms and busts as is
>> the case now with the steeply progressive system.
>>
>> I'd like to hear any comments on the economic merits of the flat tax,
>> not its political merits, although it would reduce Congress's
>> incentive to seek legal bribes(i.e., campaign contributions) from
>> interested parties.
>
>
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
sinister
"David James Polewka" <josey...@outlaw.nospam> wrote in message
news:40ea10b9...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> "sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"Abdul-Rahman Muaranah" <muar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, I have a proposal for a flat tax which would also partially
> >> replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.
> >
> >Why not a flat tax on land rent? Say 80% of land rent. Beyond that, how
> >about a flat tax on wealth, not income?
>
> Why not use your real name, you lazyass, chickenshit,
> anonymous windbag?!?
If you have something to say about the *content* of what I posted, say it.
Otherwise, don't waste bandwidth with your ignorant rantings.
[snip]
ro...@telus.net
Muaranah) wrote:
>Hi, I have a proposal for a flat tax which would also partially
>replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.
>
> $30,000 personal exemption from federal income tax (first $30,000 of
>income free of federal taxes)
> $6,000 deduction per dependent
> 20% flat rate, including what is today called "unearned income"; cap
>gains, interest and dividends. Corporate tax rate would also be 20%
>with no exemptions or deductions.
?? So corporations could not deduct expenses?
>The cap gains exemptions for
>homeonwers would remain.
>
> Flat tax's sole purpose would be to raise revenue, not social
>engineering or pump-priming.
Taxing earned income _is_ social engineering. It is engineering a
society in which worknig people have been systematically robbed and
impoverished for the unearned benefit of the rich, especially
landowners.
> I'd like to hear any comments on the economic merits of the flat tax,
>not its political merits, although it would reduce Congress's
>incentive to seek legal bribes(i.e., campaign contributions) from
>interested parties.
The only economic merit of flat income taxation is that it reduces
distortions due to arbitrary progressivity. What you might want to do
is ask yourself why people should be taxed in proportion as they
contribute to the wealth of the community, rather than as the
community contributes to their wealth.
-- Roy L
Robert J. Kolker
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> The only economic merit of flat income taxation is that it reduces
> distortions due to arbitrary progressivity. What you might want to do
> is ask yourself why people should be taxed in proportion as they
> contribute to the wealth of the community, rather than as the
> community contributes to their wealth.
Produce an algorithm for measuring the productive contribution of an
individual or a firm.
One place to start is to eliminate every last subsidy paid to either
individuals or firms. Subsidies are redistribution schemes and should be
eliminated.
Bob Kolker
sinister
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9KGc.34988$MB3.31217@attbi_s04...
You mean like the ones to landowners and other (economic) rent collectors?
>
> Bob Kolker
>
tonyp
"Abdul-Rahman Muaranah" <muar...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I'd like to hear any comments on the economic merits of the flat tax,
> not its political merits, although it would reduce Congress's
> incentive to seek legal bribes(i.e., campaign contributions) from
> interested parties.
First, we already have a flat tax. If you are single, your marginal tax rate is
35%. Sure, you get a discounted rate if your income is less than $311,950 --
but no matter how much you make _over_ $312K your tax rate stays the same.
I say we need a few more tax brackets at the top. I would go all the way up to
a top marginal rate of 95%, kicking in at $100 million of annual income. We
could index that for inflation, against the day when $100M is not enough to live
on.
Second, a flat tax as you use the term is defined by two parameters: the rate R
and the exemption X. So in general
tax = R * ( income - X )
and different people favor different values for R and X. Before we adopt a flat
tax "in principle" we ought to decide on the optimal values. My suggestion:
tax = 57% of ( income - $130K ).
This is just as flat, in principle, as the Steve Forbes formula, or your
formula. It's in the _politics_ that all the difference lies.
Third, I am absolutely with you on the notion that wages, rent, realized cap
gains, and all other forms of income that put cash into your pocket should be
taxed the same way. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.
-- Tony P.
tonyp
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote
> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com>
> >My suggestion:
> >tax = 57% of ( income - $130K ).
> >
>
> Let me guess: you make less than 130K. And, for some reason, you feel
> the need to punish those that are more successful than you. Good old
> envy at work here, huh?
Some years more, some years less, but so what? Is the above formula a flat tax?
If not, why not?
-- Tony P.
Johnny Marcos
> Taxing earned income _is_ social engineering. It is engineering a
> society in which worknig people have been systematically robbed and
> impoverished for the unearned benefit of the rich, especially
> landowners.
Bill Gates is not a landowner. What fundamentally is a multicorp or a
government - the will of its citizens and consumers.
I promise you ROY L, if every single consumer of this world stopped
buying ANY product made with child slave labor - we would stop child
slavery - but while you want to be lazy and not be bothered with where
all our individual consumer options ultimately come from but only the
cheapest price - you lose sight of the human condition - not something I
think henry george wants to happen - he does not want economics without
humanity - abstract ideas in disconnect with child slavery.
Pogo said we have met the enemy - he is us - you being to lazy to be
bothered where your cheap prices come from cause children to SLAVE AWAY
and collectively all of us doing that together make rich multicorps that
hurt kids.
At the government level thier is corruption because the individual voting
citizens are TOO LAZY to be bothered with the politics and learn.
The bumb at the bus station had food to eat, but she wanted me to go get
it for her, she didn't want to walk over and get it herself - she
deserves to starve to death at that point I feel.
Henry george 100 years ago sat in a train on train tracks made by slave
chinese and bitched about rockefeller - if hengry george had chosen to
NEVER spend money in any way that ultimately benefits any kind of slave
labor he could have done more that sitting around theorizing. He should
have boycotted the train and the cotton and all the rest of the evils he
was personally using that helped deny freedom to individuals.
The north made the ships that transported the slaves that grew the food
that they ate.
Much better to have stopped buying ALL SOUTHERN PRODUCTS until they died
economically from no demand than to pick up a gun and invite WAR and
BLOODSHED henry george. There are peaceful ways to end suffering, but
not while you are TOO LAZY to find out the ultimate effects of your
individual choices ROY L. Buying nike supports child slavery. STOP IT.
> The only economic merit of flat income taxation is that it reduces
> distortions due to arbitrary progressivity. What you might want to do
> is ask yourself why people should be taxed in proportion as they
> contribute to the wealth of the community, rather than as the
> community contributes to their wealth.
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country - kennedy
Ask not what how cheap the child slave labor can make your shoes - but
what consumer choices you can make to help child slave labor.
William F Hummel
wrote:
>First, we already have a flat tax. If you are single, your marginal tax rate is
>35%. Sure, you get a discounted rate if your income is less than $311,950 --
>but no matter how much you make _over_ $312K your tax rate stays the same.
>
>I say we need a few more tax brackets at the top. I would go all the way up to
>a top marginal rate of 95%, kicking in at $100 million of annual income. We
>could index that for inflation, against the day when $100M is not enough to live
>on.
>
Top rates were once nearly that high, 91% as I recall. They were a
tax lawyer's delight. The lawyers enjoyed a bonanza finding tax loop
holes, legal and otherwise, for their wealthy clients. Almost no one
paid the top marginal rate.
A whole new industry was spawned to promote tax shelters for the high
income earners. It continued even after the top rate came back down
to about 50%.
Your proposal, if enacted by Congress, would start that all over
again. There has to be a better way of leveling the playing field.
Tax evasion is too easy for those who can afford to hire legal eagles.
>Second, a flat tax as you use the term is defined by two parameters: the rate R
>and the exemption X. So in general
>
>tax = R * ( income - X )
>
>and different people favor different values for R and X. Before we adopt a flat
>tax "in principle" we ought to decide on the optimal values. My suggestion:
>
>tax = 57% of ( income - $130K ).
The catch is how do you define "income", or more specifically "taxable
income." That's fairly straight-forward in the case of wage earners,
but it's an entirely different story for the those whose income is
basically the net profit in a privately-owned business.
The issue is how do you define "net profit. There is no end to the
ways that can be sliced, some reasonable and some not so reasonable.
That's why the tax code is so complex and continues to grow. The
ingenuity of tax payers, especially the self-employed, will always
exceed that of tax code writers.
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>What makes you think people ought to be robbed of their own wealth?
How about the fact that the amount of wealth people own tends to be
more than linearly related to the moral and economic dubiousness of
the processes by which it became "their own"?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> The only economic merit of flat income taxation is that it reduces
>> distortions due to arbitrary progressivity. What you might want to do
>> is ask yourself why people should be taxed in proportion as they
>> contribute to the wealth of the community, rather than as the
>> community contributes to their wealth.
>
>Produce an algorithm for measuring the productive contribution of an
>individual or a firm.
Income - (gifts + gambling gains + capital gains + economic rent)
Admittedly this does not count contributions by underpaid people such
as volunteers, etc., but no economic algorithm is perfect.
>One place to start is to eliminate every last subsidy paid to either
>individuals or firms. Subsidies are redistribution schemes and should be
>eliminated.
Uh-oh: Bob is right. It must be some kind of trick.
-- Roy L
tonyp
"William F Hummel" <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote
> Top rates were once nearly that high, 91% as I recall.
Yeah, but you'll notice _my_ top (95%) bracket would _start_ at $100M/yr. Even
adjusting for inflation, those 91% rates started much lower down, no?
> They were a
> tax lawyer's delight. The lawyers enjoyed a bonanza finding tax loop
> holes, legal and otherwise, for their wealthy clients. Almost no one
> paid the top marginal rate.
It's hard to imagine that IRS could not afford a full-time audit team for every
American with a $100M+ annual gross.
> A whole new industry was spawned to promote tax shelters for the high
> income earners. It continued even after the top rate came back down
> to about 50%.
Way after. You don't think that kind of crap goes on apace even today?
> The issue is how do you define "net profit. There is no end to the
> ways that can be sliced, some reasonable and some not so reasonable.
> That's why the tax code is so complex and continues to grow. The
> ingenuity of tax payers, especially the self-employed, will always
> exceed that of tax code writers.
Nah. It's the tax payers (some of them -- especially the wealthiest ones) who
pretty much dictate to the tax code writers.
-- Tony P.
Ron Peterson
> Second, a flat tax as you use the term is defined by two parameters:
> the rate R and the exemption X. So in general
> tax = R * ( income - X )
> and different people favor different values for R and X. Before we
> adopt a flat tax "in principle" we ought to decide on the optimal
> values. My suggestion:
> tax = 57% of ( income - $130K ).
Does that mean if my income is $30,000, I will get $57,000 from the
government? :-)
--
Ron
William F Hummel
wrote:
>
>"William F Hummel" <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> Top rates were once nearly that high, 91% as I recall.
>
>Yeah, but you'll notice _my_ top (95%) bracket would _start_ at $100M/yr. Even
>adjusting for inflation, those 91% rates started much lower down, no?
>
million = .95 x $100 million, he can hire an army of tax lawyers and
still make out like a bandit. He can also buy enough Congressmen to
get a loop hole wired for his case.
>
>> They were a
>> tax lawyer's delight. The lawyers enjoyed a bonanza finding tax loop
>> holes, legal and otherwise, for their wealthy clients. Almost no one
>> paid the top marginal rate.
>
>It's hard to imagine that IRS could not afford a full-time audit team for every
>American with a $100M+ annual gross.
>
In any case, tax lawyers usually prove too smart for the civil service
IRS auditors. Those big money contests often drag out for years until
they settle for a fraction of the claimed tax liability.
>
>> A whole new industry was spawned to promote tax shelters for the high
>> income earners. It continued even after the top rate came back down
>> to about 50%.
>
>Way after. You don't think that kind of crap goes on apace even today?
>
shelter industry of the 1960s and 1970s.
>> The issue is how do you define "net profit. There is no end to the
>> ways that can be sliced, some reasonable and some not so reasonable.
>> That's why the tax code is so complex and continues to grow. The
>> ingenuity of tax payers, especially the self-employed, will always
>> exceed that of tax code writers.
>
>Nah. It's the tax payers (some of them -- especially the wealthiest ones) who
>pretty much dictate to the tax code writers.
Precisely. That's why trying to reduce the inequity in disposable
income through super high marginal tax rates is a fool's game. It has
never worked, and dredging up a failed system is a loser.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40eb3a14...@news.telus.net:
>
>> Taxing earned income _is_ social engineering. It is engineering a
>> society in which worknig people have been systematically robbed and
>> impoverished for the unearned benefit of the rich, especially
>> landowners.
>
>Bill Gates is not a landowner.
In fact, of course, he is.
>What fundamentally is a multicorp or a
>government - the will of its citizens and consumers.
No, of course the corporation is run by the will of its executives,
putatively under the direction of its owners.
>I promise you ROY L, if every single consumer of this world stopped
>buying ANY product made with child slave labor - we would stop child
>slavery
And as a result, a lot of those erstwhile child slaves might starve to
death...
>- but while you want to be lazy and not be bothered with where
>all our individual consumer options ultimately come from but only the
>cheapest price - you lose sight of the human condition - not something I
>think henry george wants to happen - he does not want economics without
>humanity - abstract ideas in disconnect with child slavery.
Child slavery is best attacked on an institutional level, not an
economic one. Boycotts are a very blunt instrument.
>At the government level thier is corruption because the individual voting
>citizens are TOO LAZY to be bothered with the politics and learn.
I can fix ignorance. I can't fix laziness, stupidity or conceit.
>Henry george 100 years ago sat in a train on train tracks made by slave
>chinese
That statement is the result of laziness.
>and bitched about rockefeller - if hengry george had chosen to
>NEVER spend money in any way that ultimately benefits any kind of slave
>labor he could have done more that sitting around theorizing.
And that is stupidity.
>He should
>have boycotted the train and the cotton and all the rest of the evils he
>was personally using that helped deny freedom to individuals.
And it is conceit to think you know the best way to address deep,
serious and complex problems, especially when your opinions are
contrary to those of people who know much more about those problems
than you.
>The north made the ships that transported the slaves that grew the food
>that they ate.
Little of the North's food came from the South, and northern
shipbuilders were not responsible for every ultimate use that was made
of the ships they built.
>Much better to have stopped buying ALL SOUTHERN PRODUCTS until they died
>economically from no demand
That was simply not going to happen. Such gestures are almost always
futile.
>than to pick up a gun and invite WAR and
>BLOODSHED henry george.
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots." -- Thomas Jefferson.
>There are peaceful ways to end suffering, but
>not while you are TOO LAZY to find out the ultimate effects of your
>individual choices ROY L.
Back atcha, Captain Ignorance.
>Buying nike supports child slavery. STOP IT.
I don't buy Nike. Or your nonsense.
-- Roy L
tonyp
"William F Hummel" <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote
> Doesn't matter. When someone has a potential tax liability of $95
> million = .95 x $100 million, he can hire an army of tax lawyers and
> still make out like a bandit. He can also buy enough Congressmen to
> get a loop hole wired for his case.
Congressmen get bought two ways: by dollars, and by votes. And they want the
dollars so they can buy votes. The votes don't come from people making anything
like $200M per year. They come from you and me and
Mr.Socialism-is-a-mental-disease. All of us have _philophical_ positions, but
with the possible exception of Mr. Disease, we tend to vote our own
pocketbooks -- as long as we know what's going on. Given that incomes in the 9
figures tend to garner a certain amount of publicity, I say Congressmen who are
_seen_ to cater to the super-rich would start to feel the heat, even _with_
special-interest money backing their campaigns. But I do admit that your
pessimism on that score seems warranted, so far.
> Precisely. That's why trying to reduce the inequity in disposable
> income through super high marginal tax rates is a fool's game. It has
> never worked, and dredging up a failed system is a loser.
But my goal, whatever Mr. Disease thinks, is _not_ to "reduce inequity" or
"punish the rich". My only goal is to raise the money to run the government.
Whether you think the government is too big or not is a separate issue. However
small we chose to make it, the money to run it has to be levied from the
citizenry by some formula. A head tax would be one formula, a "flat" tax
another, a "progressive-all-the-way-up" tax yet another. If I thought a head
tax could raise the needed cash, without destroying "the economy" (which is
mostly made up of people earning under, what, $60K?) I'd have nothing
_philosophically_ against it.
-- Tony P.
tonyp
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote
> It is my understanding that the Government exists for all people, not
> just the ultra-rich. As such, I don't understand why the ultra-rich
> have to pay more to get exactly the same services everybody else does.
You're proud of your lack of understanding, aren't you, Dis? Your notion that
the ultra-rich "get exactly the same services everybody else" is just priceless.
-- Tony P.
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>It is my understanding that the Government exists for all people, not
>just the ultra-rich.
There's your problem, right there: you don't understand that
Government (other than revolutionary socialist governments and their
ilk) _inherently_ exists for the rich.
>As such, I don't understand why the ultra-rich
>have to pay more to get exactly the same services everybody else does.
Because they don't get exactly the same services, they get more
services, and they get more benefit than other people even from the
services that other people get. All the deepest, most penetrating
analysts are agreed on this point:
"The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
for the maintenance of it."
-- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
"The revenues of the state are the fraction that each subject gives of
his property in order to secure or to have the agreeable enjoyment of
the remainder."
-- Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1751
"The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is
like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate,
who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective
interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim
consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
-- Adam Smith, The wealth of Nations, 1776
"It is generally allowed by all, that men should contribute to the
public charge but according to the share and interest they have in the
public peace; that is, according to their estates or riches."
-- Sir William Petty, British Prime Minister, 1782-3
"Every man is bound to contribute to the public revenue in proportion
to the benefits he receives from the public protection."
-- Thomas M Cooley, Constitutional Limitation, 1868
>Your argument that you want to simply raise revenue is thus bullshit.
IMO your claim that you do not understand that the rich benefit more
from government than other people is also bullshit.
>What you want is to pick the pockets of the ultra-rich to avoid being
>taxed yourself, even though you use the same Government services.
He doesn't. That is just a lie.
>Shame on you for not wanting to pat for your part.
The productive pay twice, so the rich can get something for nothing.
-- Roy L
Johnny Marcos
>>Bill Gates is not a landowner.
>
> In fact, of course, he is.
He owns how many acres of farmland?
>>What fundamentally is a multicorp or a
>>government - the will of its citizens and consumers.
>
> No, of course the corporation is run by the will of its executives,
> putatively under the direction of its owners.
If the voting shareholders really want change it comes, if the consumers
of that companies products really want change it comes, if they don't
want to be bothered with in depth details then the shareholders and
consumers laziness creates problems for other people sometimes - child
slaves of china.
If no one rode trains built with slave labor the trains would die, if no
one bought child slave labor nikes how would the executives keep the
doors open? Never forget where the REAL power is.
>>I promise you ROY L, if every single consumer of this world stopped
>>buying ANY product made with child slave labor - we would stop child
>>slavery
>
> And as a result, a lot of those erstwhile child slaves might starve to
> death...
Well now we know where you stand on slavery don't we CAPTAIN IGNORANCE JR
- yet when I make that SAME ARGUEMENT about the bond slave negro's of
yesteryear you call me an idiot - you can't have it both ways ROY L -
stop contradicting yourself - it makes you look like a fool up on mt
zeus.
>Roy L - you got a choice - slave landscaper at the modern day whitehouse
>or free man in somalia - one is death - the other a pretty nice life.
>
>Slavery was not the evil for many that you make it out to be compared to
>the alternative.
Well, at least we know where you stand: in favor of slavery. That
fits - ROY L Captain Ignorance Jr.
Better to die a free man than live a slave right Captain Jr? Oh not so
simple is it?
> Child slavery is best attacked on an institutional level, not an
> economic one. Boycotts are a very blunt instrument.
In the 1860's if the roy l's and henry george had stopped buying things
made with slave labor - slave labor would die - today if the whole world
stopped buying things made with child labor - child labor would die - but
you say that is better than the alternative - we know where you stand on
slavery then don't we - it has it's uses huh?
>>At the government level thier is corruption because the individual
>>voting citizens are TOO LAZY to be bothered with the politics and
>>learn.
>
> I can fix ignorance. I can't fix laziness, stupidity or conceit.
Ignorance and laziness go hand in hand, bill cosby said blackie will buy
a 200 dollar nike but wont use it to walk to the library.
THe bumb didn't know there was food 3 blocks away - I told her, but she
wanted me to go get it for her - and she claimed she was starving.
Too lazy to learn. Too blinded to open your mind - too hopeless to think
you can make a real individual difference at the consumer level.
Creating laws stopping slavery doesn't fix the demand for the bond slave
negro or the asian child slave - demand is where you fix the problem too
- colin powell just talked about child sex trafficking - the world is
working on the supply side of the issue and he said that is not working -
we have to fix the demand side of the issue too. Remove people that want
sex with little 10 year old, the demand to supply 10 year old is gone.
THe market responds to demands, what is the alternative for the bond
negro of yesteryear and the asian child slave of today?
>>Henry george 100 years ago sat in a train on train tracks made by
>>slave chinese
>
> That statement is the result of laziness.
That slave in china is the result of laziness - that corrupt ken lay is
the result of laziness - that corrupt government is the result of
laziness - slow genetic research is the result of laziness - you buying
slave labor products - laziness. Henry buying slave labor clothes -
laziness - no one wants to get out and do thier own work - they want
someone else to think for them, fight for them, die for them, research
for them.
>>and bitched about rockefeller - if hengry george had chosen to
>>NEVER spend money in any way that ultimately benefits any kind of
>>slave labor he could have done more that sitting around theorizing.
>
> And that is stupidity.
Tomorrow if every person in this world said NO MORE slavery, no more
products that support slavery even if I have to sacrifice personally - if
the demand dried up what does your knowledge of economy tell you about
supply Captain Ignorance Jr?
>>He should
>>have boycotted the train and the cotton and all the rest of the evils
>>he was personally using that helped deny freedom to individuals.
>
> And it is conceit to think you know the best way to address deep,
> serious and complex problems,
We know where you stand on slavery don't we Captain Ignorance Jr - poor
damn children in china - poor negro of yesteryear. I told you last week
you don't have a monopoly on intelligence or insight and the oasis in the
desert is not yours alone to find - so will others.
especially when your opinions are
> contrary to those of people who know much more about those problems
> than you.
Right, what is the alternative to negro bond slavery of yesteryear - you
are the conceited one who contradict himself oh wise sage - I am not the
one thinking I am a holy god up on mt zues - I have said from day one I
am just a dumb citizen with an open mind - but you have all the answers
don't you God - what is the alternative to child slavery - OOPS you stuck
your foot in your mouth on that one almighty lord - what does NIke shoe
taste like? mmmm yummy huh? HAHA!
> Little of the North's food came from the South, and northern
> shipbuilders were not responsible for every ultimate use that was made
> of the ships they built.
You are not responsible for the corporations or governments your laziness
built either are you Captain Ignorance Jr - is that nike shoe in your
belly dissolving yet?
>>Much better to have stopped buying ALL SOUTHERN PRODUCTS until they
>>died economically from no demand
>
> That was simply not going to happen. Such gestures are almost always
> futile.
Your HOPELESSNESS collectively is what has created the thing that
ENSLAVES CHILDREN. Boycotts work - supply and demand - the fundamentals
of economics prove it - no demand - no build up in supply.
> "The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of
> tyrants and patriots." -- Thomas Jefferson.
I don't want nuclear warfare with china to FREE children but that will be
the modern day equivalent of freeing negro bond slaves - I didn't want
civil warfare in 1860's america to free slaves - why choose war when
there are peaceful options that save lives Henry? Is life or freedom
more important Jr?
> Back atcha, Captain Ignorance.
Right on Captain Jr.
>>Buying nike supports child slavery. STOP IT.
>
> I don't buy Nike. Or your nonsense.
Keep chewing on that shoe Jr.
Johnny Marcos
news:8unoe0pk98g6fu8ef...@4ax.com:
> Doesn't matter. When someone has a potential tax liability of $95
> million = .95 x $100 million, he can hire an army of tax lawyers and
> still make out like a bandit. He can also buy enough Congressmen to
> get a loop hole wired for his case.
This is how you kill the rich, lawyers - for when they get involved truly
it is only the lawyers that win - so at the end of all that - you are
going to have rich lawyers fighting rich lawyers and all the rest of the
world will be poor. I have seen too many divorces where only the lawyers
win.
> Yeah, but don't forget all those in the $10M to $100M income range.
> In any case, tax lawyers usually prove too smart for the civil service
> IRS auditors. Those big money contests often drag out for years until
> they settle for a fraction of the claimed tax liability.
So citizens pay the gubbment to hire tax lawyers to fight the private tax
lawyer representing the rich - more of the citizens resource get consumed
- more of the rich resources get consumed - the lawyers are the only
winners in the end and all the rest of us are poorer.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40ec5fd6...@news.telus.net:
>
>>>Bill Gates is not a landowner.
>>
>> In fact, of course, he is.
>
>He owns how many acres of farmland?
??? Why would his farmland holdings be relevant?
>If no one rode trains built with slave labor the trains would die, if no
>one bought child slave labor nikes how would the executives keep the
>doors open?
Your exhortations are supererogatory. Do you always make sure that no
bad people work for -- or own shares in -- the companies whose
products you buy? No? Then you are a hypocrite. Furthermore, you
are demanding that others conform to a standard to which you yourself
are unwilling to conform.
>Never forget where the REAL power is.
You have forgotten that nobody has the power to withhold economic
support from evil people, except by becoming a hermit.
>>>I promise you ROY L, if every single consumer of this world stopped
>>>buying ANY product made with child slave labor - we would stop child
>>>slavery
>>
>> And as a result, a lot of those erstwhile child slaves might starve to
>> death...
>
>Well now we know where you stand on slavery don't we
Yep. Individually boycotting its products is futile and
supererogatory. It's not consumers but the slave owners who are
responsible for slavery, and must therefore give up its advantages.
>- yet when I make that SAME ARGUEMENT about the bond slave negro's of
>yesteryear you call me an idiot
You didn't make the same argument, liar. You argued that the
privilege of the slave owner to violate the slave's rights had
priority over the slave's rights.
>- you can't have it both ways ROY L -
>stop contradicting yourself - it makes you look like a fool up on mt
>zeus.
No, it makes clear that you are as foolish as you look when you
laughably accuse me of inconsistency.
>Better to die a free man than live a slave right Captain Jr? Oh not so
>simple is it?
That's right. A man can make that choice. A child does not have the
moral or physical capacity.
>> Child slavery is best attacked on an institutional level, not an
>> economic one. Boycotts are a very blunt instrument.
>
>In the 1860's if the roy l's and henry george had stopped buying things
>made with slave labor - slave labor would die
No, it wouldn't. That is just a lie.
>- today if the whole world
>stopped buying things made with child labor - child labor would die
But neither you nor I can choose what the whole world does. We can
only choose what _we_ do. Even a boycott organized and supported by
almost every _government_ in the world -- sanctions against South
Africa -- inflicted hardly any genuine economic hardship on the
perpetrators, and it is doubtful that on balance it improved the
condition of the victims.
>- but
>you say that is better than the alternative - we know where you stand on
>slavery then don't we - it has it's uses huh?
It does. I often use it to expose the underlying nature of arguments
offered in defense of landowner privilege.
>Too lazy to learn. Too blinded to open your mind - too hopeless to think
>you can make a real individual difference at the consumer level.
Nope. Too realistic.
>Creating laws stopping slavery doesn't fix the demand for the bond slave
>negro or the asian child slave - demand is where you fix the problem too
Nope. Wrong. Flat wrong. You don't stop rape and theft and murder
by getting people not to want to do them. You stop them by making
sure that anyone who _does_ do them goes to jail for it.
>- colin powell just talked about child sex trafficking - the world is
>working on the supply side of the issue and he said that is not working -
Yes, well, the world is not working very hard on the supply side.
Many Third World governments turn a blind eye to it, when they do not
actively participate.
>we have to fix the demand side of the issue too. Remove people that want
>sex with little 10 year old, the demand to supply 10 year old is gone.
ROTFL!! Good luck. Research has shown that males in _all_cultures_
are attracted to physical characteristics more typical of pubescent
girls than adult women. The Bible says 13 is adult for a reason.
>THe market responds to demands, what is the alternative for the bond
>negro of yesteryear and the asian child slave of today?
They don't have the power to break their chains, and _neither_do_you_.
>>>Henry george 100 years ago sat in a train on train tracks made by
>>>slave chinese
>>
>> That statement is the result of laziness.
>
>That slave in china is the result of laziness
Nope. Greed.
>- that corrupt ken lay is
>the result of laziness
Nope. Greed.
>- that corrupt government is the result of
>laziness
Greed. You are just flat wrong, over and over and over again.
>- slow genetic research is the result of laziness
??
>- you buying
>slave labor products - laziness.
Nope. Realism. You might want to try it some time.
>Henry buying slave labor clothes -
>laziness - no one wants to get out and do thier own work - they want
>someone else to think for them, fight for them, die for them, research
>for them.
No, they are just more intelligent than you, and realize they _can't_
ensure that their purchases never benefit any bad person.
>>>and bitched about rockefeller - if hengry george had chosen to
>>>NEVER spend money in any way that ultimately benefits any kind of
>>>slave labor he could have done more that sitting around theorizing.
>>
>> And that is stupidity.
>
>Tomorrow if every person in this world said NO MORE slavery, no more
>products that support slavery even if I have to sacrifice personally - if
>the demand dried up what does your knowledge of economy tell you about
>supply Captain Ignorance Jr?
My knowledge of economics tells me that isn't going to happen, and it
is _infantile_ to fantasize about it as if it were.
>>>He should
>>>have boycotted the train and the cotton and all the rest of the evils
>>>he was personally using that helped deny freedom to individuals.
>>
>> And it is conceit to think you know the best way to address deep,
>> serious and complex problems,
>
>We know where you stand on slavery don't we
You don't seem to know anything about anything.
>- poor
>damn children in china - poor negro of yesteryear. I told you last week
>you don't have a monopoly on intelligence or insight
I'm doing my best to share...
>and the oasis in the
>desert is not yours alone to find - so will others.
You, unfortunately, are heading for the driest dunes. Fast.
> especially when your opinions are
>> contrary to those of people who know much more about those problems
>> than you.
>
>Right, what is the alternative to negro bond slavery of yesteryear - you
>are the conceited one who contradict himself oh wise sage - I am not the
>one thinking I am a holy god up on mt zues - I have said from day one I
>am just a dumb citizen
You told the truth about that.
>with an open mind
But you lied about that.
> what is the alternative to child slavery
Governments that secure children's rights.
>> Little of the North's food came from the South, and northern
>> shipbuilders were not responsible for every ultimate use that was made
>> of the ships they built.
>
>You are not responsible for the corporations or governments your laziness
>built either are you
My laziness didn't build any of them. Idiot.
>>>Much better to have stopped buying ALL SOUTHERN PRODUCTS until they
>>>died economically from no demand
>>
>> That was simply not going to happen. Such gestures are almost always
>> futile.
>
>Your HOPELESSNESS collectively is what has created the thing that
>ENSLAVES CHILDREN.
Silliness. It is greed and lack of rights that enslaves children.
>Boycotts work
No, they just flat-out _don't_.
>- supply and demand - the fundamentals
>of economics prove it - no demand - no build up in supply.
What fraction of the demand does your individual choice remove?
>> "The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of
>> tyrants and patriots." -- Thomas Jefferson.
>
>I don't want nuclear warfare with china to FREE children but that will be
>the modern day equivalent of freeing negro bond slaves - I didn't want
>civil warfare in 1860's america to free slaves - why choose war when
>there are peaceful options that save lives Henry?
Civil war was necessary to free the slaves in the USA because
_the_slave_owners_wouldn't_give_up_their_privilege_. Hello?
-- Roy L
Robert J. Kolker
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> There's your problem, right there: you don't understand that
> Government (other than revolutionary socialist governments and their
> ilk) _inherently_ exists for the rich.
And the socialist governments exist for the aparachiks. Just about any
form of government you can discern has Injustice built into it.
Bob Kolker
Johnny Marcos
> ??? Why would his farmland holdings be relevant?
He doesn't own a lot of farmland I think - why do farmland based theories
seem to dominate your thoughts when the future is technology and IP - not
farmland.
> Your exhortations are supererogatory. Do you always make sure that no
> bad people work for -- or own shares in -- the companies whose
> products you buy?
Colin powell said to stop child trafficking we have to work on supply and
demand. Right now we only work on supply. Young Hitler sending money to
savethechildren is different than you sending money to nike who enslave
the children. Hitler I don't care about - that bad person is not
enslaving a child with his choice - you are with yours.
> are demanding that others conform to a standard to which you yourself
> are unwilling to conform.
I may not can change the hitler sending money to save the children, he
may harbor evil in his heart even though his external actions do good,
but you as a good person have external actions that do bad, fix the
hitlers through gentics and love and education and peace - fix you
through the same things. The quicker more direct effect is to change the
external factors if I can cause those are easy, and then work on the long
hard problems of why hitler wants to kill in his heart - that is hard.
>>Never forget where the REAL power is.
>
> You have forgotten that nobody has the power to withhold economic
> support from evil people, except by becoming a hermit.
The UN or the USA or some other world body could stop all investment any
where there is sweatshops and slavery. We can work on educating those
slave kids who will probably come up to be hitler if we don't stop thier
oppression.
> Yep. Individually boycotting its products is futile and
> supererogatory.
I guess we will disagree - boycotting the bond slave negro products or
the child slave china products may have doomed them to death and slavery
was thier only means into a better world - wage slavery eradication may
doom the wage slaves to death too - so why advocate it? Better to die a
free man than live a slave? Better to live a bond slave and child china
slave and wage slave than to die free eh?
It's not consumers but the slave owners who are
> responsible for slavery, and must therefore give up its advantages.
The chinese would not put ever increasing numbers of children into the
sweatshops if the demand didn't keep going up.
>>- yet when I make that SAME ARGUEMENT about the bond slave negro's of
>>yesteryear you call me an idiot
>
> You didn't make the same argument, liar. You argued that the
> privilege of the slave owner to violate the slave's rights had
> priority over the slave's rights.
You argue that the privaledge of the multicorps and nation states to
violate poor kids has priority over the poor kids. You have lost this
one ROY L.
> No, it makes clear that you are as foolish as you look when you
> laughably accuse me of inconsistency.
Round and round we go - stop slavery - you kill the slaves - allow
slavery - they have an escape. You say the slave owners did not have a
right to abuse the negros - then who has the right to abuse the chinese
kids? We fought the civil war here to free the negros and that tree of
liberty was filled with blood like you like it eh? But some nations like
brazil stopped slavery with peaceful measures back then - nuclear war
with china to stop the slavery there is what you advocate - populate the
tree of liberty with BLOOD - you are a blood thirsty vampire that has
sold out to the snake - there are peaceful ways to grow the tree of
liberty without watering it in blood - why make war? Hate and ignorance
and bloodshed are your enemy - not necessarily slavery - even wage
slavery eh?
>>Better to die a free man than live a slave right Captain Jr? Oh not
>>so simple is it?
>
> That's right. A man can make that choice. A child does not have the
> moral or physical capacity.
Whatever - there are full grown adults working as slaves too that have no
other way to escape death - get your gun roy and start shedding that
blood so the tree of liberty can GROW! Your concepts are outdated - time
to let the pet theory go and move on to more productive things. Build No
idols before love and peace - NONE.
>>> Child slavery is best attacked on an institutional level, not an
>>> economic one. Boycotts are a very blunt instrument.
>>
>>In the 1860's if the roy l's and henry george had stopped buying
>>things made with slave labor - slave labor would die
>
> No, it wouldn't. That is just a lie.
Truth, and you make a valid point, possibly the slaves would die with the
dying demand of thier products - but I see you for the demon inside -
lets shed blood - peace Roy, not hate and bloodshed, the tree of liberty
might grow a little slower but is all you require the fastest of growth?
Other countries freed slaves without civil war that set economic
development back - how much further would we be without the civil war?
>>- today if the whole world
>>stopped buying things made with child labor - child labor would die
>
> But neither you nor I can choose what the whole world does.
That is hopelessness - a friend of the snake and I know you are not truly
a hopeless person or you wouldn't be here trying to fix the world. You
and I and the rest of america are the teachers on the playground of
morally defunct children - you and I are the best shot the world has got
to keep the evil at bay - I know if FDI had been prevented to nazi
germany perhaps ww2 would not have had to happen - a controlling body at
the world level or perhaps an agreed economic union of all nation states
forbidding sweat shops - we have made great progress in ending human
trafficking in many places in the world - it can be done.
We can
> only choose what _we_ do. Even a boycott organized and supported by
> almost every _government_ in the world -- sanctions against South
> Africa -- inflicted hardly any genuine economic hardship on the
> perpetrators,
So we go in and replace the national government and if the states of that
government don't conform, we go in and replace them, and if the cities of
that state don't reform, we go in and replace them, and then if the
individuals of that city don't reform they get arrested on go to jail for
a very long time. We do this in a non violent way like they did in brazil
when they freed thier slaves.
Isolation is not a good policy if we want to wipe out the snake. But
using your previous example, starve them economically, eventually the
slaves there may die too - boycott south africa or boycott the chinese
children or the bond slave negros the alternative is death maybe - which
is what is happening, economic starvation has caused famine and hunger in
some of those places. Let the nation die slowly without violence, or go
into somolia with military force and work on fixing things from a top
down level to end the hunger and oppression.
and it is doubtful that on balance it improved the
> condition of the victims.
We have both agreed boycotting the bond slaves or the child china slaves
may have forced them into death. Slavery was thier means of escape to a
better life - slavery may be a wage slaves escape to a better life. I am
not a wage slave because I do not overspend like the commercials want me
too - me friends do - it is a warfare on human needs now - not land -
they are trying to convince us we need 200 dollar child slave nikes - do
we really?
>>- but
>>you say that is better than the alternative - we know where you stand
>>on slavery then don't we - it has it's uses huh?
>
> It does.
Agreed.
>>Too lazy to learn. Too blinded to open your mind - too hopeless to
>>think you can make a real individual difference at the consumer level.
>
> Nope. Too realistic.
The realistic man forms to the world, the unrealistic man makes the world
form to him, there can be no change or progress without the unrealistic.
> Nope. Wrong. Flat wrong. You don't stop rape and theft and murder
> by getting people not to want to do them. You stop them by making
> sure that anyone who _does_ do them goes to jail for it.
You and I are going to completely part ways here again, a child who
understand why rape and murder is wrong at a deep intellectual level will
not need LAWS to SCARE him not to do them and they will never get done -
a crackhead can have all the laws in the world and know he will die if he
shoots you - your gonna take a bullet - the laws are a FALSE SENSE OF
SECURITY - ignorance breeds restriction, knowledge breeds freedom - I
choose free educated neighbors over a police state of 1984 george orwell
- we don't need MORE LAWS - that is NOT WORKING - we need BETTER
CITIZENS. Less money on lawyers, more on genetics and iq and schooling.
Bill Cosby called it right, more laws are not stopping the gang warfare
and 200 child slave nike - getting the kids into the library to read a
book will.
>>- colin powell just talked about child sex trafficking - the world is
>>working on the supply side of the issue and he said that is not
>>working -
>
> Yes, well, the world is not working very hard on the supply side.
> Many Third World governments turn a blind eye to it, when they do not
> actively participate.
IF thier was no demand the laws to enforce supply side issues would be
irrelevant and more lawyers would not get rich making more laws.
>>we have to fix the demand side of the issue too. Remove people that
>>want sex with little 10 year old, the demand to supply 10 year old is
>>gone.
>
> ROTFL!! Good luck.
Hopelessness is your enemy - the bible says have faith when you think
there is no hope. Tony Robbins said negative thinking beats you before
you get started - I see lots of fat people get skinny when they stop
being hopeless.
Research has shown that males in _all_cultures_
> are attracted to physical characteristics more typical of pubescent
> girls than adult women. The Bible says 13 is adult for a reason.
I totally agree and have friends sitting in jail now because MORE LAWS
were made about statutory rape than trying to get to the root cause.
More laws are bad - fear is bad.
Your taxes pay for these guys - more resource sucking prisons are bad, if
you want the 13 year old not to be pressured for sex because they can't
handle the responsibility - remove the people doing the pressuring - or
more specifically the HORMONE doing it - in males high level of
testosterone is what is causing this problem - breed out this problem or
medicate it out. Prevention roy l, proactive not reactive - give the
boys testosterone reducement and the jails filling up with statutory
rapists will die. It is a cruel trick by mother nature, young boys are
soaring with testosterone, young girls aren't - hormone disparity is
causing civil strife like so many other kinds of disparity and we make
LAWS in defiance of mother nature and piss away resources from this
disconnect.
We are medicating it up, I meet people on zoloft and other mind altering
drugs that really seem to mellow them out - better than the alternative
and them sitting in jail, but go watch the movie Equilibrium with
Christian Bale - disparity was removed from that society.
>>THe market responds to demands, what is the alternative for the bond
>>negro of yesteryear and the asian child slave of today?
>
> They don't have the power to break their chains, and _neither_do_you_.
We can lump the wage slaves into that too - why keep beating your head
against the wall - you must believe differently?
> Nope. Greed.
Unchecked greed caused by ignorance = laziness.
>
>>- that corrupt ken lay is
>>the result of laziness
>
> Nope. Greed.
Same concept 2 words - one at a more fundamental level - one the higher
expression of the same concept. Laziness the root, greed the branch.
All the same tree. BUmb at bus station was hungry - greedy for food, I
told her where to get it, wanted me to go get it, I didn't. Greedy
people want others to do it for them, just like lazy people.
> Greed. You are just flat wrong, over and over and over again.
Sure thing Captain Jr.
>>- you buying
>>slave labor products - laziness.
>
> Nope. Realism. You might want to try it some time.
Wage slaves never going away realism - why keep beating your head against
the wall Captain Jr?
> No, they are just more intelligent than you, and realize they _can't_
> ensure that their purchases never benefit any bad person.
Buying nike shoes at the cost of child slaves is not benefitting the
child - just evils like you - but stop that and you say they die. The
market knows best - wage slaves exist because the market knows best - the
market knew best in bond slavery - the market knows best today in child
china slavery - but you are convinced the market does not know best in
wage slavery - think more deeply about your concepts.
> My knowledge of economics tells me that isn't going to happen, and it
> is _infantile_ to fantasize about it as if it were.
Then why do you continue fantasizing about wage slavery georgist?
> You don't seem to know anything about anything.
Niether do you Captain Jr.
> I'm doing my best to share...
So am I.
> You, unfortunately, are heading for the driest dunes. Fast.
So are you if you think you can stop wage slavery but I can't stop china
child slavery - same thing expressed in different ways - the market knows
best or it doesn't. Quit contradicting yourself Captain Jr.
>>not the one thinking I am a holy god up on mt zues - I have said from
>>day one I am just a dumb citizen
>
> You told the truth about that.
My lack of pigheadedness does not blind me to new ideas - I have not
built idols based on pet theory that god needs to come down and disperse
like he did with the tower of babel - why have you? The market knew best
with bond slavery - child slavery - wage slavery - who the hell are you
to beat your head against the all in defiance of the market?
>> what is the alternative to child slavery
>
> Governments that secure children's rights.
Gubbments, multicorps and individual citizens can all help secure those
rights, for child slaves and wage slaves. I will vote for wage slave
reform if you vote for child slave reform and stop telling me it is
hopeless or I wont stop telling you wage slave reform is hopeless.
Make individual choices that kill child slavery, I will make individual
choices that kill wage slavery. If it is FUTILE as you say, then there
is no hope for georgists and you are beating your head on the wall.
>>> Little of the North's food came from the South, and northern
>>> shipbuilders were not responsible for every ultimate use that was
>>> made of the ships they built.
>>
>>You are not responsible for the corporations or governments your
>>laziness built either are you
>
> My laziness didn't build any of them. Idiot.
The collective laziness and greed of our citizens did Captain Idiot Jr.
>>>>Much better to have stopped buying ALL SOUTHERN PRODUCTS until they
>>>>died economically from no demand
>>>
>>> That was simply not going to happen. Such gestures are almost
>>> always futile.
>>
>>Your HOPELESSNESS collectively is what has created the thing that
>>ENSLAVES CHILDREN.
>
> Silliness. It is greed and lack of rights that enslaves children.
What is their alternative? What is the wage slaves alternative?
The slavery has a use huh?
> What fraction of the demand does your individual choice remove?
Collectively each on of us borg can do some amazing things, but not when
negativity stops us from even trying.
>>> "The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of
>>> tyrants and patriots." -- Thomas Jefferson.
>>
>>I don't want nuclear warfare with china to FREE children but that will
>>be the modern day equivalent of freeing negro bond slaves - I didn't
>>want civil warfare in 1860's america to free slaves - why choose war
>>when there are peaceful options that save lives Henry?
>
> Civil war was necessary to free the slaves in the USA because
> _the_slave_owners_wouldn't_give_up_their_privilege_. Hello?
How did the slave owners of brazil do it? Free in the womb?
Albert
Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Exactly, what Government services exist for the ultra-rich
> alone?
Congress?
--
"Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the
physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the
stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality;
the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a
great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental
intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect
that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of
the realm of matter"
--Sir James Jeans
Robert J. Kolker
Albert wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:43:51 GMT
> Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Exactly, what Government services exist for the ultra-rich
>>alone?
>
>
> Congress?
That is not a service. It is a circle jerk.
Bob Kolker
>
tonyp
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote
> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >You're proud of your lack of understanding, aren't you, Dis? Your notion
that
> >the ultra-rich "get exactly the same services everybody else" is just
priceless.
> >
>
> Exactly, what Government services exist for the ultra-rich alone?
Nice change of subject, Dis. I suggest the rich get more service from
government than everybody else, and you pretend I said that some services are
for the rich alone. Is it fun, fooling yourself like that?
-- Tony P.
Johnny Marcos
news:20040708192...@lfs.mydomain.com:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:43:51 GMT
> Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Exactly, what Government services exist for the ultra-rich
>> alone?
>
> Congress?
>
Haha, why stop there, the rich have 3 branches of gubbment, judicial,
executive and legislative - us poor got none. the rich got 2 political
parties - rich bush or rich kerry - the poor got none, we still got our
votes though, but the new voting machines may fix that.
Johnny Marcos
$MB3.22231@attbi_s04:
But you can't escape your oppression in socialism can you? Here I can
escape my oppression by getting rich and passing it on down to the next
guy.
Johnny Marcos
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:07:12 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>
>>It is my understanding that the Government exists for all people, not
>>just the ultra-rich.
>
> There's your problem, right there: you don't understand that
> Government (other than revolutionary socialist governments and their
> ilk) _inherently_ exists for the rich.
THe rich take the rest of us up in the rising tide - they are the first
adopters of new expensive gadgets and technology - they provide the
incentive for the free market - you invent something new so you can sell
it to the rich to get thier money at high prices - then as time
progresses - more people buy it, more competitors produce it, the better
and cheaper it gets for the masses.
Why work to invent a TV if it will not increase your power or remove your
oppression? Socialist systems do not work because they do not offer the
incentive that free market economies based on property rights do.
The plains indians had usufruct societies - they had no incentive to
change - greed is good - it is right and like Gordon Gecko said it takes
us all to new heights.
Look at it this way Roy, the plains indian had food and women and land,
there was no invidual incentive for them to change or grow or learn new
things - they weren't very oppressed, but todays society is an opressive
one - and the only way to escape this oppression is to invent and grow
and produce to get rich yourself and then you opress the little ones -
then one of them must change something to escape his oppression and get
rich and up and up it goes in a positive feedback loop - I will give you
an example in the real business world.
I used to work at IBM, they oppressed the little guys, had IBM had it's
way we would still have 6 mainframes in the world, but bill gates felt
oppressed, he built out PC software and now he has become the oppressor
and someone under him will change things more so they can escape thier
oppression and replace him as the oppressor and then that individual will
be replaced ad infinum on up.
Remove the oppression of the rich, remove the free market system, you
remove the incentive for people to work so damn hard to escape thier
perceived slavery. You want to get out of wage slavery - work harder,
work smarter than the other guy. In the old days if you wanted the kings
power you had to kill him, today it is much more peaceful to replace the
powerful over you and more peaceful for you to get replaced.
If I can have a house, and tv, and food, and net - I don't have much
incentive to work, and I don't much anymore. But if those things get took
away from me unless i work hard and smart and get rich myself I am gonna
work hard again, like I did when I was younger.
The system you advocate may make the wage slave into a plains indian that
wants for nothing and has women and land and buffalo - but is that what
we really want? There are still things needed to be done.
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny Marcos wrote:
>
> But you can't escape your oppression in socialism can you? Here I can
> escape my oppression by getting rich and passing it on down to the next
> guy.
Oppression is an inevitable consequence of government. Any government.
The types of oppression differ from one kind of government to another.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>In any case, which services do the ultra-rich use more than the poor?
Why do you pretend not to know that the ultra-rich use more government
property right protection services than the poor?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40ece3c0...@news.telus.net:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:07:12 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>>It is my understanding that the Government exists for all people, not
>>>just the ultra-rich.
>>
>> There's your problem, right there: you don't understand that
>> Government (other than revolutionary socialist governments and their
>> ilk) _inherently_ exists for the rich.
>
>THe rich take the rest of us up in the rising tid
Nope. They are in the boats, the rest of us are treading water.
>- they are the first
>adopters of new expensive gadgets and technology
Because they have the money. Duh.
>- they provide the
>incentive for the free market - you invent something new so you can sell
>it to the rich to get thier money at high prices - then as time
>progresses - more people buy it, more competitors produce it, the better
>and cheaper it gets for the masses.
That would happen just as well if the rich had less and the rest of us
had commensurately more.
>Why work to invent a TV if it will not increase your power or remove your
>oppression? Socialist systems do not work because they do not offer the
>incentive that free market economies based on property rights do.
When will you get it through your head that I am not advocating or
defending socialism?
>The plains indians had usufruct societies - they had no incentive to
>change
Silliness.
>- greed is good - it is right and like Gordon Gecko said it takes
>us all to new heights.
Nope. Only the greedy.
>Look at it this way Roy, the plains indian had food and women and land,
>there was no invidual incentive for them to change or grow or learn new
>things
False, as the progress they did make proves.
>- they weren't very oppressed, but todays society is an opressive
>one - and the only way to escape this oppression is to invent and grow
>and produce to get rich yourself and then you opress the little ones -
>then one of them must change something to escape his oppression and get
>rich and up and up it goes in a positive feedback loop
Nope. Landowners and other rent collectors don't have to contribute a
thing.
>Remove the oppression of the rich, remove the free market system,
I'm not proposing to remove the free market system, but to _implement_
it.
>you
>remove the incentive for people to work so damn hard to escape thier
>perceived slavery. You want to get out of wage slavery - work harder,
>work smarter than the other guy. In the old days if you wanted the kings
>power you had to kill him, today it is much more peaceful to replace the
>powerful over you and more peaceful for you to get replaced.
Why is it that the poor are claimed to work less if they are given
something for nothing, but the rich are claimed to work more if they
are given something for nothing?
-- Roy L
Les Cargill
They use the same services, just to defend property valued
at more.
If we are talking about the other kind of rentseeking, "buying
politicians", then normalize all campaign funds through punlic
channels - establish not-for-profits which provide campaign
services based on political feasibility estimated by an
open process.
--
Les Cargill
Mark Monson
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rWGHc.27046$o62....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 05:29:32 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
> > <root@localhost.> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In any case, which services do the ultra-rich use more than the poor?
> >
> >
> > Why do you pretend not to know that the ultra-rich use more government
> > property right protection services than the poor?
> >
> > -- Roy L
>
>
> They use the same services, just to defend property valued
> at more.
Oh come on, Les. "More" services obviously means more time, effort and money spent
providing those services, not more categories of services. People who own
property of greater value certainly receive greater service from publicly funded
police and courts who enforce and adjudicate property rights.
MM
Johnny Marcos
$WX.5061@attbi_s51:
The Lion's Share
The Lion went once a-hunting along with the Fox, the Jackal,
and the Wolf. They hunted and they hunted till at last they
surprised a Stag, and soon took its life. Then came the question
how the spoil should be divided. "Quarter me this Stag," roared
the Lion; so the other animals skinned it and cut it into four
parts. Then the Lion took his stand in front of the carcass and
pronounced judgment: The first quarter is for me in my capacity
as King of Beasts; the second is mine as arbiter; another share
comes to me for my part in the chase; and as for the fourth
quarter, well, as for that, I should like to see which of you
will dare to lay a paw upon it."
"Humph," grumbled the Fox as he walked away with his tail
between his legs; but he spoke in a low growl.
"You may share the labours of the great, but you will not
share the spoil."
Sgt. Sausage
"Mark Monson" <m_mo...@ztech.com> wrote in message
news:d4IHc.27077$o62....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> They use the same services, just to defend property valued
> > at more.
>
> Oh come on, Les. "More" services obviously means more time, effort and
money spent
> providing those services, not more categories of services. People who
own
> property of greater value certainly receive greater service from publicly
funded
> police and courts who enforce and adjudicate property rights.
How do you figure?
If I own a 3 million dollar mansion, and I report a break-in, it takes the
same *single* patrol car to come out to my house and investigate that it
would take to come out and investigate a break-in in a 300 dollar
tool-shed-as-primary-residence.
So, you might say that I own more properties. Maybe I own 30
100,000 dollar properties. I still use no more than 30 individuals
who owned them individually would use. With a progressive tax,
instead of paying 30 times more than those individuals, I pay, say,
60 times as much. How is that fair? I'd say fuck you, sell 'em and
move to Brazil. Now your tax base is cut in half, with the same
infrastructure/services being utilized by the 30 individuals I sold
the properties to. Now what are you going to do?
The real question: How do I use *more* than the 30 individuals
I sold my properties to when I moved? I don't. But now, since
I'm in Rio, and their tax rate is half of mine, your now short on
your budget this year aren't you?
ro...@telus.net
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"Mark Monson" <m_mo...@ztech.com> wrote in message
>news:d4IHc.27077$o62....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> They use the same services, just to defend property valued
>> > at more.
>>
>> Oh come on, Les. "More" services obviously means more time, effort and
>money spent
>> providing those services, not more categories of services. People who
>own
>> property of greater value certainly receive greater service from publicly
>funded
>> police and courts who enforce and adjudicate property rights.
>
>How do you figure?
Accurately.
>If I own a 3 million dollar mansion, and I report a break-in, it takes the
>same *single* patrol car to come out to my house and investigate that it
>would take to come out and investigate a break-in in a 300 dollar
>tool-shed-as-primary-residence.
?? Utter garbage. It's the patrol cars, officers, courts, jails, and
the whole machinery of government that deter the mansion break-in so
much more effectively than the tool shed break-in, even though the
former is an incomparably richer target.
Duh.
>So, you might say that I own more properties. Maybe I own 30
>100,000 dollar properties. I still use no more than 30 individuals
>who owned them individually would use. With a progressive tax,
Property taxes are not progressive. A tax proportional to wealth is
not progressive.
>The real question: How do I use *more* than the 30 individuals
>I sold my properties to when I moved? I don't.
Correct. But you don't use less, either. The value of what people
get from government and the community -- and thus what they rightly
owe in taxes to government and the community -- is measured by the
value in their assets that comes from government and the community.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 05:29:32 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>>In any case, which services do the ultra-rich use more than the poor?
>>
>> Why do you pretend not to know that the ultra-rich use more government
>> property right protection services than the poor?
>
>They use the same services, just to defend property valued
>at more.
No. They use some of the same services as the poor use more than the
poor do, but they also use services that the poor don't use, such as
corporate oversight for the protection of investors, land title
administration, IP monopoly privilege enforcement, etc.
-- Roy L
Les Cargill
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:50:20 -0400, Les Cargill
> <lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 05:29:32 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>>><root@localhost.> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In any case, which services do the ultra-rich use more than the poor?
>>>
>>>Why do you pretend not to know that the ultra-rich use more government
>>>property right protection services than the poor?
>>
>>They use the same services, just to defend property valued
>>at more.
>
>
> No. They use some of the same services as the poor use more than the
> poor do, but they also use services that the poor don't use, such as
> corporate oversight for the protection of investors, land title
> administration, IP monopoly privilege enforcement, etc.
>
> -- Roy L
I don't think it's nearly that clear cut.
One could imagine a lotto winner, who just banks the money. They'd
use no more services than before. That's not a far drop from a
pensioner - the majority of the merely "millionaire next
door" wealthy are in effect pensioners.
Since most of these services are used by corporate entities, which
serve customers of all stripe, it's not clear to me that wealth
has any bearing.
In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
their "share". Ignoring various socioeconomic ironies of this
for the sake of brevity, it looks pretty even to me.
If there truly are services which are consumed excessively
by the rich, this would an excellent argument for the
privatization of those services.
And if I remember my history, the original design of the
Federal government was to be paid for in fees for services,
not by an income tax. That worked until the U.S. became
a superpower.
Besides, our tax system may be called "graduated" ( with
a boatload of loopholes ), which should at least wave
hands at any discrepancy.
--
Les Cargill
Johnny Marcos
I had poor take my land away - it was called EMINANT DOMAIN, why couldn't I
use this magic power I have to keep that from happening, I was richer than
most of the poor people that wanted the land for a park. I had to find
somewhere else to park my Lincoln Navigator.
Johnny Marcos
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
> If we are talking about the other kind of rentseeking, "buying
> politicians", then normalize all campaign funds through punlic
> channels - establish not-for-profits which provide campaign
> services based on political feasibility estimated by an
> open process.
What exactly is my vote at election day? An open process to provide
campaign decisions?
All the money in the universe will not get the american public to keep bush
in office if they collectively perceive he is harming them.
Johnny Marcos
The system is set up so the non productive die, thus we all go up in the
rising tide of productivity. If the poor mexicans get tired of my suv
garage where they want a park - I can buy politicians to a point - if the
citizens get really tired, a politician is going to be voted in that no
money can buy and my garage gets turned into a park by the voting public
who ultimately control the police and courts.
Johnny Marcos
> Nope. They are in the boats, the rest of us are treading water.
Look we can go to extremes in either direction, the poor on yachts and
the rich on cruise liners or the rich on wooden rafts and the poor
anchored to the sea floor with cement shoes. What you are in essence
saying is that continued growth - productivity - it kills off some of the
poor - that is right. That is the way the system is designed. We all
want progress, that comes at a cost, the cost being the tide rises and
those able to keep above the tide breathe and those that don't drown and
die.
It is a positive feedback loop, they higher the rich get up in thier
yachts, the smarter and harder the masses have to produce and think and
work to get up into the yachts with them and get out of the small boat.
If you equalize this disparity and don't keep rising the water level or
rise it slowly, progress is slow, rise the water level fast, progress is
fast. Rise the water level too fast people literally die from the rising
level - I see people starving to death on the street, but it's not
because they dont have the chance to get up in the boat, the chance is
there, they are just too lazy or mentally anguished to get up in the boat
- you have to let that person go - if you don't then thier anchor at the
sea floor keeps you from rising too, and as the tides start coming up
around you - you being the smarter richer person - you do things to slow
the rising tide so that the poor lazy bumb doesnt drown taking you down
with him, you slow down the positive feedback loop - to save the life of
the lazy bumb you retard progress. Liberals want to stop progress, and
as the lazy bumbs with concrete shoes grow - progress gets less and less
and can even go negative - the rising tide becomes the falling tide. Now
I think what economics wants to do is rise the tide at a pace where a lot
of poor don't drown. Sounds good to me. You are saying the tide is
rising too fast, I just don't agree. the bumb could go to the library
for FREE and eat for FREE and read books for FREE and become and
economics wizard that makes you look like a fool Roy L - but he chooses
NOT too - he wants more liqour, more crack rock, more exstacy, or just to
remain in his ignorance and do his simple little routines in life until
he dies. Learning is stressful for this person - you cannot FORCE him to
learn. You can only provide the water for the horse. This is what is
fundamentally wrong with liberals. Provide the water, but if the horse
chooses to thirst to death - forget about him and move on. A woman can
choose to come here and READ and LEARN or sit around and watch soap
operas and the tv show friends all day - I know what most women choose.
They don't feel they need to learn, daddy will always take care of them
and learning gets in the way of FUN.
Fear seems to be a good motivator for getting that tide to rise - fear
you are not keeping up with the joneses or are gonna drown motivates
people to be productive - take that away - you got the plains indians, no
progress, but no one opressing another person. Oppression is a necessary
evil to motivate progress. The poor are not anchored to the sea floor
with concrete shoes however - maslows hierarchy says you have to provide
base services to people before they can be productive in new ways.
Food is the fundamental base - the bumb at the bus station wanted some
food, I told her where it was for free, she wanted me to go get it, I
wouldn't, she will starve to death. Her laziness will kill her even
though the fundamental base is there. Physiological Needs met, safety
needs next, you need to be secure that you wont be harmed and the
physiological needs and others are going to be met always into the
future.
The Cisco Kid living next door to me - he came here illegally, got a job
working for a cable company making 3 bucks an hour, had a 500 dollar car,
was so HAPPY because he came from a place in mexico where he literally
was going to starve to death. Then he got him a loan for a NEW ford VAN
that cost like 25K - he goes to the casino in tampa now with his free
time, not the library, not here, I do not feel sorry for him that he is
being oppressed or has no chances and the evil rich landowner he rents
from his fucking him - yet he is collecting money for FOOD STAMPS - why?
>>- they are the first
>>adopters of new expensive gadgets and technology
>
> Because they have the money. Duh.
They have the money because they usually did something productive for
themselves and society in the past. The positive feedback loop.
>>- they provide the
>>incentive for the free market - you invent something new so you can
>>sell it to the rich to get thier money at high prices - then as time
>>progresses - more people buy it, more competitors produce it, the
>>better and cheaper it gets for the masses.
>
> That would happen just as well if the rich had less and the rest of us
> had commensurately more.
No the pace of the rising tide can either be slow or fast or negative -
you want balance in a way that slows things down I think. Bill Gates did
a lot of work younger, it took effort to steal all those ideas and unite
them and then provide them to the public cheaply - this made him RICH -
now that money goes into helping poor people, new technology, usability
studies that makes things easy for dumb people or are you using Linux
instead of Windows? He has publicly stated he will not leave more than
10 million to his hiers and donate all the rest to charity - what do you
want Roy L? The richest man in the world is not impeding progress, he is
innovating like crazy, but he predicted in 1984 that IBM had become to
overbearing on the industry and was stifling innovation and that he would
come along and move the rising tide faster - he did - and now if MSFT
becomes too stifling of innovation - others will come and get rich
replacing him. The system works, the positive feedback loop works,
everyone that CHOOSES to do so has new things to use like the internet -
you want to make fundamental changes to the positive feedback loop and
you have not convinced me with any empirical data that those changes are
the best thing. Why fix what aint broke? You say it's broke, we need
heavy taxes on the rich, if the people agree they will vote and changes
will be made. You say no wage slavery, once you stop producing or
innovating you die - you are on an down moving escalator - running up it
- the bottom of that escalator is hell and death - and the top is heaven
- I choose to run up the escalator against its movement because I believe
once I get to the top of it I can sit on my ass for awhile and watch the
people below me run up the escalator too - the ultimate outcome of the
changes you advocate seem to me to be to teach the public the moment you
stop running up the escalator you sink into hell as it rides you down and
you die.
http://www.bornsloppy.co.uk/Underground%20Mayhem%202.wmv
Some people want to RIDE down the escalator Roy L, land and wealth is not
thier goal, the ride down is their goal - let them go Roy.
Affirmitave action made the free libraries, but Bill Cosby said they want
a 200 dollar child slave nike and wont walk to the library - what can I
do? Individual effort is part of the problem, lazy dumb people that
don't want to get up and read the free books can't be saved, let them go.
>>- greed is good - it is right and like Gordon Gecko said it takes
>>us all to new heights.
>
> Nope. Only the greedy.
If I put you in a plains indian society, what is your incentive to study
economics and henry george? Lazy people Roy L - here read this article
if you are not too lazy.
Climbing the white escalator
by Betsy Leondar-Wright
http://newpittsburghcourier.com/?article=4378
“America is a meritocracy,” my father always told me. The harder he
worked, the more money he got: clear cause and effect. From individuals’
prosperity or poverty, he believed he could determine their effort and
talent. Therefore, the poor Black people in a nearby city clearly hadn’t
applied themselves.
My father had a legacy that he couldn’t see, a legacy he only got because
he is white. His ancestor, John Prescott, came from England in 1638. The
Massachusetts Bay Colony granted him land in central
Massachusetts—something no people of color got—and he built the first
sawmill there. As far as I can tell, none of his descendants have ever
been poor. Some of my ancestors moved west to Ohio in the 1800s, where
they may have received land under one of the Homestead Acts—government
programs closed to people of color.
However ROY L today we have cheap mortgages, free internet, the water is
there, but people are LAZY.
More from the article:
Historically, for people of color, the escalator has been broken.
Sometimes they have had to hike up a fast-moving down escalator. No
matter how hard they worked, they rarely got the same rewards as white
people. Their wages were lower, and many neighborhoods and schools were
closed to them. In some eras and places, laws and violence kept them off
the staircase to prosperity entirely.
Government boosts for white people were invisible to my father. He
opposed government handouts as destroying incentives to strive, without
considering the handouts his family had received. In truth, prosperity
comes from a mixture of individual effort and assistance from family and
government. America won’t be a meritocracy until the escalator rises at
the same speed for everyone.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html Here are pictures of
the presidents cabinet if you are not too lazy too look.
I see black men, chinese women, mexico boy, condoleeza rice - who is
being oppressed that they can't get out of it without some work ROY L?
Laziness can beat greed, the bumb was too lazy to walk over and get the
free food, she dies.
Mexico boy next door to me can get rich if he were to learn more and
apply himself, but he is happy going to the casino every weekend and
blowing his paycheck. I am not, I want to get to a point where I can
step off the 9 to 5 elevator. Don't hate my ambition.
>>- they weren't very oppressed, but todays society is an opressive
>>one - and the only way to escape this oppression is to invent and grow
>>and produce to get rich yourself and then you opress the little ones -
>>then one of them must change something to escape his oppression and
>>get rich and up and up it goes in a positive feedback loop
>
> Nope. Landowners and other rent collectors don't have to contribute a
> thing.
They did in the past though, that is how they got rich and became
landowners, my friend does not own 3 trailers because he is a bumb, he
was the worker ant and the guy next to him was the lazy grasshopper and
has only 1 trailer.
>>you
>>remove the incentive for people to work so damn hard to escape thier
>>perceived slavery. You want to get out of wage slavery - work harder,
>>work smarter than the other guy. In the old days if you wanted the
>>kings power you had to kill him, today it is much more peaceful to
>>replace the powerful over you and more peaceful for you to get
>>replaced.
>
> Why is it that the poor are claimed to work less if they are given
> something for nothing, but the rich are claimed to work more if they
> are given something for nothing?
The guy with three trailers, Mr. Hanson, he worked hard, and ate cheap,
and suffered quality of life in his youth so he could have safe
retirement, the couple next door to him that is getting evicted - they
partied in thier youth, big steaks and martinis, they traded quality of
life in youth for security in old age.
When I am 60 and own 20 rentals, why should I have to help mexico boy
next to me when he is 60 who right now has the same chance I do right now
to invest but is trading his money for partytime at the casino in tampa -
when he is 60 he will be broke and want me to give him one of my free
trailers that I lost quality of life to achieve. I am NOT going to do
it. I offered him the book the millionaire next door, I told him how to
get to the library, I told him this was important for his future, he has
had the book for 4 months and won't read it, I can lead him to water, but
if he doesn't drink I can't do anymore.
To him learning and investing is not fun, casino is fun, his choice.
You want party time and others working for you, and when your resources
go to zero you want the worker ant to share his food with you, if he
doesnt you will starve and get violent and try to take it from his
forcefully, worker ant wants to keep the peace, he gives you some of the
food, but he is gonna keep the LIONS share as well he should.
Johnny Marcos
news:f_JHc.12172$1F6....@fe37.usenetserver.com:
The gubbment tried to fuck with MSFT too much and bill gates said Canada
is just a few miles north, keep pissing me off and I am going to move the
company north and you can kiss your tax base goodbye! They backed off.
> The real question: How do I use *more* than the 30 individuals
> I sold my properties to when I moved? I don't. But now, since
> I'm in Rio, and their tax rate is half of mine, your now short on
> your budget this year aren't you?
That is what the lefties don't see, the rich will try to flee - but they
got you sucker - because the IRS man has global power now - just try to
run away citizen, you will be sorry - it's like hotel california, you can
check out anytime you like, but you can NEVER leave.
Johnny Marcos
>>If I own a 3 million dollar mansion, and I report a break-in, it
>>takes the same *single* patrol car to come out to my house and
>>investigate that it would take to come out and investigate a break-in
>>in a 300 dollar tool-shed-as-primary-residence.
>
> ?? Utter garbage. It's the patrol cars, officers, courts, jails, and
> the whole machinery of government that deter the mansion break-in so
> much more effectively than the tool shed break-in, even though the
> former is an incomparably richer target.
Well my old buddy that use to pull off licks said he loved those rich
white nieghborhoods with weak willed richies expecting the police to
protect them, they went to jelly when he put the ak47 in thier face and
gave him LOTS of money - but he would never break into a trailer at a
trailer park - he said those fool broke rednecks had loaded weapons and
would blow you away!
> Duh.
Duh!
>>So, you might say that I own more properties. Maybe I own 30
>>100,000 dollar properties. I still use no more than 30 individuals
>>who owned them individually would use. With a progressive tax,
>
> Property taxes are not progressive. A tax proportional to wealth is
> not progressive.
Let the market decide, this red tape is choking us all.
> Correct. But you don't use less, either. The value of what people
> get from government and the community -- and thus what they rightly
> owe in taxes to government and the community -- is measured by the
> value in their assets that comes from government and the community.
In Poland I saw how they are using usufruct - the government owns all the
land, and you get to rent the land from the gubbment as a poor boy, so a
poor citizen can NEVER own land in poland just gubbment, guess who owns
gubbment, yep you are smart - so there you have it Roy, usufruct won't
work because even if you implement it the greedy richie still gonna own
your ass through gubbment like they do in Poland. At least here a poor
boy can get something of his own, but there Gordon Gecko controls it all.
Johnny Marcos
> No. They use some of the same services as the poor use more than the
> poor do, but they also use services that the poor don't use, such as
> corporate oversight for the protection of investors, land title
> administration, IP monopoly privilege enforcement, etc.
>
Too much red tape, too many laws, too many lawyers, time to reset the
computer and get a fresh start, you think you will be able to control the
usufruct government, you won't, it's not controlled by the poor citizens
where there is usufruct government today in large market economies - so
controlled by richie through usufruct or controlled by richie through
proprietary deed. Looks like the market has spoken and controlled by
richie evil greedy power monger through proprietary deed is better.
Rue The Day
> ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f01ee1...@news.telus.net:
>
> >>If I own a 3 million dollar mansion, and I report a break-in, it
> >>takes the same *single* patrol car to come out to my house and
> >>investigate that it would take to come out and investigate a break-in
> >>in a 300 dollar tool-shed-as-primary-residence.
> >
> > ?? Utter garbage. It's the patrol cars, officers, courts, jails, and
> > the whole machinery of government that deter the mansion break-in so
> > much more effectively than the tool shed break-in, even though the
> > former is an incomparably richer target.
>
> Well my old buddy that use to pull off licks said he loved those rich
> white nieghborhoods with weak willed richies expecting the police to
> protect them, they went to jelly when he put the ak47 in thier face and
> gave him LOTS of money - but he would never break into a trailer at a
> trailer park - he said those fool broke rednecks had loaded weapons and
> would blow you away!
So you either consort with armed robbers or you're prone to flights of
imaginative fancy that lead you to make up stories and post them on
Usenet. Which is it?
Johnny Marcos
news:a44a8c58.04071...@posting.google.com:
>> Well my old buddy that use to pull off licks said he loved those rich
>> white nieghborhoods with weak willed richies expecting the police to
>> protect them, they went to jelly when he put the ak47 in thier face
>> and gave him LOTS of money - but he would never break into a trailer
>> at a trailer park - he said those fool broke rednecks had loaded
>> weapons and would blow you away!
>
> So you either consort with armed robbers
I do talk to a previous armed robber - we went to elementary school
together many years ago, he got caught, he went to jail, he paid his debt
to society and now he is a pretty good guy that does not break the law
anymore - attacking my character by trying to make it look evil that I
consort with a previous law breaker does nothing for the ARGUEMENT,
attack the message, not the messenger - every sinner has a future and
every saint had a past. In this city most of the cooks that the richies
eat off of are ex felons - they don't know some of these ex felons are
putting exstacy or ghb into thier food and drink when they serve it to
them - do you chemically test your steak every time you go to OutBack
Steakhouse? Once you start trying to think in ways outside the human
element - you can come up with smart things that have no BASIS in the
real human world. There are LOTS of smart people out there, they just
don't live in human reality - I have heard this criticism of Nader - he
is a smart guy - but he doesn't live in the real human world.
or you're prone to flights of
> imaginative fancy that lead you to make up stories and post them on
> Usenet. Which is it?
First off I am trying to bring the HUMAN ELEMENT into this forum, my
buddy is real, almost every example I give is REAL from my own life and
history with REAL people, he eventually got caught and did 7 months in
Alto Prison in Georgia. If I thought he were still an evil person I would
not talk to him and would be scared of him, I don't feel that about him.
My grandfather and his mexico boy real, my friends and thier wives real,
these are not abstractions - real life lessons from REAL people. Can you
not forgive previous armed robbers who were kids and made mistakes and
paid a price and have reformed? didn't jesus say what credit do you get
if you are only nice to nice people, you got to love the devils too. He
tried to go to canada, they said NO you committed a crime 15 years ago
and we won't allow it. He said I paid my debt, I have been a good
citizen for 15 years and learned as an adult what I was ignorant too as a
child - they said tough shit, beat it.
ro...@telus.net
<lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:50:20 -0400, Les Cargill
>> <lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 05:29:32 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>>>><root@localhost.> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In any case, which services do the ultra-rich use more than the poor?
>>>>
>>>>Why do you pretend not to know that the ultra-rich use more government
>>>>property right protection services than the poor?
>>>
>>>They use the same services, just to defend property valued
>>>at more.
>>
>> No. They use some of the same services as the poor use more than the
>> poor do, but they also use services that the poor don't use, such as
>> corporate oversight for the protection of investors, land title
>> administration, IP monopoly privilege enforcement, etc.
>
>I don't think it's nearly that clear cut.
Yes, but in fact it is.
>One could imagine a lotto winner, who just banks the money. They'd
>use no more services than before.
Wrong. He'd use deposit insurance, at a minimum. You are striving
mightily not to know the truth. And probably succeeding.
>That's not a far drop from a
>pensioner - the majority of the merely "millionaire next
>door" wealthy are in effect pensioners.
Nope. The pensioner does not own and cannot liquidate the assets that
yield his income.
>Since most of these services are used by corporate entities, which
>serve customers of all stripe, it's not clear to me that wealth
>has any bearing.
It is not clear to you because you do not _want_ to know the truth of
the matter. Simple.
>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>their "share".
Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending, and
it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more than the
rich.
Almost all government spending benefits the rich almost exclusively.
When the welfare rates are raised, do the poor get more or better
food, clothing or shelter? No. But their landlords get more rent.
Medicare? It props up land rents and land prices for the benefit pf
the rich by relieving the elderly (whose assets are heavily weighted
to land) of financial responsibility for their medical treatments,
keeping land off the market. Defense? Almost all US defense spending
from 1945-90 was devoted to countering regimes that explicitly
threatened property rights above all. "Defense" spending has no
purpose other than to preserve and extend the regime that so
extravagantly privileges the rich.
>Ignoring various socioeconomic ironies of this
>for the sake of brevity, it looks pretty even to me.
The poor "consume" more than their share of police services because
the police are fundamentally there to keep an eye on the poor, to
prevent them from stealing from the rich.
>If there truly are services which are consumed excessively
>by the rich, this would an excellent argument for the
>privatization of those services.
It might. But more likely it would be an excellent argument for
requiring the rich to pay a fairer share of the taxes that fund those
services. Anyway, in most cases such services were made public in the
first place either because they could not be privatized effectively,
or because the rich insisted that working people who did not benefit
by them should nevertheless be compelled to pay for them.
>And if I remember my history, the original design of the
>Federal government was to be paid for in fees for services,
>not by an income tax. That worked until the U.S. became
>a superpower.
You remember your history wrong. The only kinds of taxes specifically
prohibited by the Constitution were those that would fall primarily on
the rich. This was a deliberate policy of Alexander Hamilton and the
Federalists, who wanted the USA to be ruled by a moneyed and landed
hereditary aristocracy. They were much taken with the institutions of
the ancient Roman republic -- especially, it seems, the tax exemption
for the wealthy landowning noble families, and their institutionalized
domination of the Senate.
>Besides, our tax system may be called "graduated" ( with
>a boatload of loopholes ), which should at least wave
>hands at any discrepancy.
Wave hands is _all_ it does.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40ef048e...@news.telus.net:
>
>>>- they are the first
>>>adopters of new expensive gadgets and technology
>>
>> Because they have the money. Duh.
>
>They have the money because they usually did something productive for
>themselves and society in the past.
Nope. In many if not most cases they have simply placed themselves in
the path of others who want to do something productive, and charged
them a fee for not interfering.
>>>- they provide the
>>>incentive for the free market - you invent something new so you can
>>>sell it to the rich to get thier money at high prices - then as time
>>>progresses - more people buy it, more competitors produce it, the
>>>better and cheaper it gets for the masses.
>>
>> That would happen just as well if the rich had less and the rest of us
>> had commensurately more.
>
>No the pace of the rising tide can either be slow or fast or negative -
>you want balance in a way that slows things down I think.
Nope.
>Bill Gates did
>a lot of work younger, it took effort to steal all those ideas and unite
>them and then provide them to the public cheaply - this made him RICH -
Copyright monopolies made him rich.
>now that money goes into helping poor people, new technology, usability
>studies that makes things easy for dumb people or are you using Linux
>instead of Windows? He has publicly stated he will not leave more than
>10 million to his hiers and donate all the rest to charity - what do you
>want Roy L?
I don't really have anything against Gates personally, and I think it
shows a certain amount of wisdom to not leave his billions to his
kids. But the world doesn't need more charity. It needs more
justice.
>My father had a legacy that he couldn’t see, a legacy he only got because
>he is white. His ancestor, John Prescott, came from England in 1638. The
>Massachusetts Bay Colony granted him land in central
>Massachusetts—something no people of color got—and he built the first
>sawmill there. As far as I can tell, none of his descendants have ever
>been poor. Some of my ancestors moved west to Ohio in the 1800s, where
>they may have received land under one of the Homestead Acts—government
>programs closed to people of color.
>
>However ROY L today we have cheap mortgages, free internet, the water is
>there, but people are LAZY.
You refuse to understand the importance of land ownership in
determining people's economic status and future.
If you own land, you are on the excalator. If you don't, you are in
the stairwell. It's that simple.
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html Here are pictures of
>the presidents cabinet if you are not too lazy too look.
>
> I see black men, chinese women, mexico boy, condoleeza rice - who is
>being oppressed that they can't get out of it without some work ROY L?
??? Being in Bush's cabinet shows willingness to serve the rich, not
ability to enter their ranks.
>Mexico boy next door to me can get rich if he were to learn more and
>apply himself, but he is happy going to the casino every weekend and
>blowing his paycheck. I am not, I want to get to a point where I can
>step off the 9 to 5 elevator. Don't hate my ambition.
There is a difference between ambition and greed.
>>>- they weren't very oppressed, but todays society is an opressive
>>>one - and the only way to escape this oppression is to invent and grow
>>>and produce to get rich yourself and then you opress the little ones -
>>>then one of them must change something to escape his oppression and
>>>get rich and up and up it goes in a positive feedback loop
>>
>> Nope. Landowners and other rent collectors don't have to contribute a
>> thing.
>
>They did in the past though,
Nope. There are many ways people have acquired wealth without earning
it: inheritance, crime, corruption, luck, sharp practice, dishonesty,
and most often, being on the receiving end of government-created rent
collection privileges.
>that is how they got rich and became
>landowners,
Some did. Many if not most didn't.
> my friend does not own 3 trailers because he is a bumb, he
>was the worker ant and the guy next to him was the lazy grasshopper and
>has only 1 trailer.
Trailers are products. He paid the people who created them. No
privilege there. The landowner, however, did not pay the creators of
the land, because there were none.
>> Why is it that the poor are claimed to work less if they are given
>> something for nothing, but the rich are claimed to work more if they
>> are given something for nothing?
>
>The guy with three trailers, Mr. Hanson, he worked hard, and ate cheap,
>and suffered quality of life in his youth so he could have safe
>retirement, the couple next door to him that is getting evicted - they
>partied in thier youth, big steaks and martinis, they traded quality of
>life in youth for security in old age.
Even in the cases where the privileged have worked and contributed in
order to buy a privilege, that does not legitimize the privilege.
People worked to buy slaves, too. That didn't make slavery right.
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
>>They have the money because they usually did something productive for
>>themselves and society in the past.
>
> Nope. In many if not most cases they have simply placed themselves in
> the path of others who want to do something productive, and charged
> them a fee for not interfering.
Bill gates was not a millionaire when he started, he brought pc software
to the masses, he is not out to get you Roy L, you are so paranoid.
>>RICH -
>
> Copyright monopolies made him rich.
I ask this question for like the 4th time now, you can use linux and the
mozilla browser which are FREE, or MSFT windows and internet explorer -
which one are you CHOOSING to use and WHY? Copyright is not the thing
preventing you from switching, quit lying about that you lazy liar.
> You refuse to understand the importance of land ownership in
> determining people's economic status and future.
You don't live in the real world, I see many people dirt poor with
nothing rise up above it with some elbow grease. How much land did bill
gates own? How much land did lance armstrong own?
> If you own land, you are on the excalator. If you don't, you are in
> the stairwell. It's that simple.
If only it were that black and white and not a billion shades of gray in
between. Many people sell land and rent - why Roy? All they need to do
is own land to make it in this world right?
> ??? Being in Bush's cabinet shows willingness to serve the rich, not
> ability to enter their ranks.
I think condeleeza and colin are in thier RANKS - you are an idiot.
>>Mexico boy next door to me can get rich if he were to learn more and
>>apply himself, but he is happy going to the casino every weekend and
>>blowing his paycheck. I am not, I want to get to a point where I can
>>step off the 9 to 5 elevator. Don't hate my ambition.
>
> There is a difference between ambition and greed.
Whatever idiot, same thing.
> Nope. There are many ways people have acquired wealth without earning
I go to the library and read books, that is my wealth, what is yours
Cain? Have you ever read about cain and able. Wanting what you haven't
got is bad cain, makes you murder people cain, and able is an OK guy.
> it: inheritance,
Estate taxes change in 2010 don't they? You didn't have the privaledge
of being born to a rich inheritance, is that what you are bitter about?
What is your net worth Roy L? Do you work a 5.50 an hour job to pay your
groceries? Do you slave away on your own garden hypocrite?
> crime,
The criminal probably feels it was a lot of work earning his cash.
Without him police men and lawyers would go hungry, we don't want that do
we?
corruption, luck, sharp practice, dishonesty,
> and most often, being on the receiving end of government-created rent
> collection privileges.
You are gonna give up all your bonds and land to Tonto tomorrow
hypocrite?
>>that is how they got rich and became
>>landowners,
>
> Some did. Many if not most didn't.
Speculation.
> People worked to buy slaves, too. That didn't make slavery right.
SLavery got a lot of blacks out of speer chucking africa where they were
starving, you have already admitted slavery can do good for people.
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
Les Cargill
<snip><snip>
>>One could imagine a lotto winner, who just banks the money. They'd
>>use no more services than before.
>
>
> Wrong. He'd use deposit insurance, at a minimum. You are striving
> mightily not to know the truth. And probably succeeding.
>
Does deposit insurance actually *cost* anything, over
and above administrative charges? Don't trot out
the S&L's - different thing. Fraud.
>
>>That's not a far drop from a
>>pensioner - the majority of the merely "millionaire next
>>door" wealthy are in effect pensioners.
>
>
> Nope. The pensioner does not own and cannot liquidate the assets that
> yield his income.
>
>
Lotto winners are pretty liquid to begin with. *Ahem*.
>>Since most of these services are used by corporate entities, which
>>serve customers of all stripe, it's not clear to me that wealth
>>has any bearing.
>
>
> It is not clear to you because you do not _want_ to know the truth of
> the matter. Simple.
>
It has little or nothing to do with wanting anything - it has
to do with threading together observation, then arriving
at a hypothesis. It's simple skepticism.
If you are talking about me, then let's note that I
observed at the age of eight that 4 out of 5 businesses
we passed on a stretch of road were dedicated to something
related directly to real estate.
I think the emphasis on real estate is ridiculous,
myself. But it's quite real.
>
>>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>>their "share".
>
>
> Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending,
There are more cops than any other form of public servant. There
must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
and
> it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more than the
> rich.
>
I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
the long pole in the gummint tent - the
cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
How do I know this? The overwhelming majority of
felons are in for these infractions, not theft.
It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
simply doesn't hold up. I did it with WalMart's
balance sheet, with relative populaitons of
civil servants, and other relatively detailed
analyses.
You hold that WalMart underestimates the property
value. How would we know that? I vaguely remember
that this is not answerable in layman's terms.
Given that massive
amounts of federal funds subsidize local police
departments, I think the headcount way is the only
way to determine the ratios.
I do not think George is wrong per se, but that he is
"wrong" over certain domains. He was arguably quite
right when he was published, but the various scales
of the economy cover up some of the effect.
He is wrong as Malthus was wrong - the ability of
people to produce cheaply and efficiently has
multiplied rapidly.
If you have a reference to a carefully
prepared empirical piece that refutes this, I'd
appreciate a reference.
<snip>
>
> -- Roy L
--
--
Les Cargill
The Trucker
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
> <snip>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:46:51 -0400, Les Cargill
>> <lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>One could imagine a lotto winner, who just banks the money. They'd
>>>use no more services than before.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. He'd use deposit insurance, at a minimum. You are striving
>> mightily not to know the truth. And probably succeeding.
>>
>
> Does deposit insurance actually *cost* anything, over
> and above administrative charges? Don't trot out
> the S&L's - different thing. Fraud.
Of course it does. If a bank fails the depositors get paid anyway.
That dough must come from somewhere. There is only one source for
actual wealth and it is labor (as applied to land). Banks are the
protectors of people's earned wealth and they charge a fee for that
service as they make loans even though it is actually government
that does the protecting. The borrower and the tax payer pay ALL
the costs. And they pay it with the product of their labor. More
bank failures will result in higher interest rates on loans and/or
higher taxes. This creates a tax on production in either case.
snip....
--
http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)
Johnny 5
news:cd4rg...@news4.newsguy.com:
> That dough must come from somewhere. There is only one source for
> actual wealth and it is labor
The book in my library is what I consider wealth, and I can get that for
free.
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
>
> The book in my library is what I consider wealth, and I can get that for
> free.
Can you eat it when you are hungry?
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
> The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:cd4rg...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>That dough must come from somewhere. There is only one source for
>>actual wealth and it is labor
>
>
> The book in my library is what I consider wealth, and I can get that for
> free.
Can you eat the book when you are hungry? It is true that man does not
live by bread alone, but he does live by bread.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
<lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
><snip>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:46:51 -0400, Les Cargill
>> <lcar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>>One could imagine a lotto winner, who just banks the money. They'd
>>>use no more services than before.
>>
>> Wrong. He'd use deposit insurance, at a minimum. You are striving
>> mightily not to know the truth. And probably succeeding.
>
>Does deposit insurance actually *cost* anything, over
>and above administrative charges?
Certainly. If it doesn't, it's not insurance.
>Don't trot out
>the S&L's - different thing. Fraud.
Garbage. The taxpayers were robbed to pay off S&L depositors because
the deposit insurance rates have always been far below appropriate
actuarial risk compensation. The next big bank failure, the same
thing will happen: taxpayers will be robbed, and the money given to
the rich.
>>>That's not a far drop from a
>>>pensioner - the majority of the merely "millionaire next
>>>door" wealthy are in effect pensioners.
>>
>> Nope. The pensioner does not own and cannot liquidate the assets that
>> yield his income.
>
>Lotto winners are pretty liquid to begin with. *Ahem*.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong.
>I think the emphasis on real estate is ridiculous,
>myself. But it's quite real.
It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
vast, unproductive "industry."
>>>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>>>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>>>their "share".
>>
>> Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending,
>
>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
USA).
>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
> and
>> it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more than the
>> rich.
>
>I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
>the long pole in the gummint tent - the
>cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
??? And how does putting the poor in jail for doing the only kind of
business they can make money at "serve" them? In any case, end the
War on Drugs, and you end the drug "crime." You can't end the war on
theft without ending society as we know it:
"The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
for the maintenance of it."
-- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
>It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
>actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
>you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
>simply doesn't hold up.
Rent is not a cash flow. Too bad you also have to ignore that fact.
>I did it with WalMart's
>balance sheet, with relative populaitons of
>civil servants, and other relatively detailed
>analyses.
?? When? Let us see the data.
>You hold that WalMart underestimates the property
>value. How would we know that?
Real estate is normally carried on the books at cost, not market.
>I vaguely remember
>that this is not answerable in layman's terms.
IMO it is. Easily.
>Given that massive
>amounts of federal funds subsidize local police
>departments, I think the headcount way is the only
>way to determine the ratios.
How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
government employees?
And how on earth do you think the poor are "served" by being put in
jail for pursuing their happiness in ways the police don't approve?
>I do not think George is wrong per se, but that he is
>"wrong" over certain domains. He was arguably quite
>right when he was published, but the various scales
>of the economy cover up some of the effect.
Yes, there is a lot of covering up going on...
>He is wrong as Malthus was wrong - the ability of
>people to produce cheaply and efficiently has
>multiplied rapidly.
That doesn't make George wrong. It makes him righter than ever.
-- Roy L
Les Cargill
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:17:59 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Does deposit insurance actually *cost* anything, over
>>and above administrative charges?
>
>
> Certainly. If it doesn't, it's not insurance.
>
But banks, in general, do not fail. There
have been spans of time when lots of banks
fail. Amortizing all those failures over all
time, it looks like the premium risk of deposit
insurance is very low.
<snip>
>>>Nope. The pensioner does not own and cannot liquidate the assets that
>>>yield his income.
>>
>>Lotto winners are pretty liquid to begin with. *Ahem*.
>
>
> Thank you for admitting you were wrong.
>
Only if I managed to switch bases of discussion in
midstream.
Liquidity isn't all that relevant.
>
>>I think the emphasis on real estate is ridiculous,
>>myself. But it's quite real.
>
>
> It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
> ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
> vast, unproductive "industry."
>
>
The same could be said of wome's shoes. Which is why
we talk about revealed preferences - I'd say the
mass of humanity shares these particular preferences.
>>>>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>>>>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>>>>their "share".
>>>
>>>Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending,
>>
>>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
>
>
> False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
> countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
> USA).
>
Fair enough, then. I was really thinking of the USA, and
schoolteachers are public servants only by fiat.
>
>>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
>
>
> Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
>
I have. Summing all the county and city budgets for
all counties and states, it's a considerable amount.
>
>> and
>>
>>>it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more than the
>>>rich.
>>
>>I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
>>the long pole in the gummint tent - the
>>cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
>
>
> ??? And how does putting the poor in jail for doing the only kind of
> business they can make money at "serve" them? In any case, end the
> War on Drugs, and you end the drug "crime." You can't end the war on
> theft without ending society as we know it:
I am not talking about "service" - I am asking "where
does the money go, now"?
>
> "The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
> which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
> supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
> share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
> for the maintenance of it."
> -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
>
>
>>It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
>>actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
>>you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
>>simply doesn't hold up.
>
>
> Rent is not a cash flow. Too bad you also have to ignore that fact.
>
>
!!!
Rent attaches to a cash flow, or it wouldn't be relevant. If it
don't flow, it's not even visible.
Flows matter. Accumulations do *not*. I'm beginning to see where
we diverge.
>>I did it with WalMart's
>>balance sheet, with relative populaitons of
>>civil servants, and other relatively detailed
>>analyses.
>
>
> ?? When? Let us see the data.
>
It's on WalMart's last quarter's financials.
You might have missed it - but the cash flow of WM is
much more than it's summed value of property.
WM will doubtless be an extreme example, but not
*that* extreme, for any business with it's kind of ROI.
>
>>You hold that WalMart underestimates the property
>>value. How would we know that?
>
>
> Real estate is normally carried on the books at cost, not market.
>
>
>>I vaguely remember
>>that this is not answerable in layman's terms.
>
>
> IMO it is. Easily.
>
>
>>Given that massive
>>amounts of federal funds subsidize local police
>>departments, I think the headcount way is the only
>>way to determine the ratios.
>
>
> How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
> government employees?
>
I'm weakly trotting out some boilerplate that stated
that over the last few years, police officers outnumbered
all other forms of civil servant. I cannot place
the reference.
> And how on earth do you think the poor are "served" by being put in
> jail for pursuing their happiness in ways the police don't approve?
>
Has nothing to do with the police - but the populace.
>
>>I do not think George is wrong per se, but that he is
>>"wrong" over certain domains. He was arguably quite
>>right when he was published, but the various scales
>>of the economy cover up some of the effect.
>
>
> Yes, there is a lot of covering up going on...
>
In terms of one signal obscuring another signal, Roy.
>
>>He is wrong as Malthus was wrong - the ability of
>>people to produce cheaply and efficiently has
>>multiplied rapidly.
>
>
> That doesn't make George wrong. It makes him righter than ever.
>
Heh. Yeah, there's that.
> -- Roy L
--
Les Cargill
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f38d1c...@news.telus.net:
>
>>>They have the money because they usually did something productive for
>>>themselves and society in the past.
>>
>> Nope. In many if not most cases they have simply placed themselves in
>> the path of others who want to do something productive, and charged
>> them a fee for not interfering.
>
>Bill gates was not a millionaire when he started, he brought pc software
>to the masses,
Garbage. Pirates did.
>he is not out to get you Roy L, you are so paranoid.
Mindless blather.
>>>RICH -
>>
>> Copyright monopolies made him rich.
>
>I ask this question for like the 4th time now, you can use linux and the
>mozilla browser which are FREE, or MSFT windows and internet explorer -
>which one are you CHOOSING to use and WHY?
Windows, because lousy as it is, it is the standard. Also, it came on
the machine, and the machine would have cost the same without it.
>Copyright is not the thing
>preventing you from switching, quit lying about that you lazy liar.
I didn't say it was. Copyright is just what made Gates so rich.
Please stop lying about what I have written.
>> You refuse to understand the importance of land ownership in
>> determining people's economic status and future.
>
>You don't live in the real world, I see many people dirt poor with
>nothing rise up above it with some elbow grease.
And by buying land as soon as possible.
>How much land did bill
>gates own? How much land did lance armstrong own?
Land titles aren't the only privileges.
>> If you own land, you are on the excalator. If you don't, you are in
>> the stairwell. It's that simple.
>
>If only it were that black and white and not a billion shades of gray in
>between.
It is that black and white.
>Many people sell land and rent - why Roy?
Because they do not understand the economics. Or maybe they are
trying to time the market.
>All they need to do
>is own land to make it in this world right?
No, they also have to be willing to accept the free money that goes
with it.
>> ??? Being in Bush's cabinet shows willingness to serve the rich, not
>> ability to enter their ranks.
>
>I think condeleeza and colin are in thier RANKS - you are an idiot.
They aren't.
>> There is a difference between ambition and greed.
>
>Whatever idiot, same thing.
No, I just finished telling you, there is a difference.
>Wanting what you haven't
>got is bad cain,
No, it isn't. It's natural and healthy. It's trying to _get_ what
you haven't got _without_earning_it_ that is bad. (Like the way you
try to get what you want from women. You might want to take a couple
of months and think about that.)
>> it: inheritance,
>
>Estate taxes change in 2010 don't they? You didn't have the privaledge
>of being born to a rich inheritance, is that what you are bitter about?
No. I am just identifying the facts of objective reality that prove
you wrong.
>What is your net worth Roy L?
Why would that be relevant?
>Do you work a 5.50 an hour job to pay your
>groceries? Do you slave away on your own garden hypocrite?
No, and how on earth would not doing what _you_ say I should do make
me a hypocrite?
>> crime,
>
>The criminal probably feels it was a lot of work earning his cash.
Such "work" is not productive.
>Without him police men and lawyers would go hungry, we don't want that do
>we?
Maybe you don't...
> corruption, luck, sharp practice, dishonesty,
>> and most often, being on the receiving end of government-created rent
>> collection privileges.
>
>You are gonna give up all your bonds and land to Tonto tomorrow
>hypocrite?
The howl of a mindless beast.
>>>that is how they got rich and became
>>>landowners,
>>
>> Some did. Many if not most didn't.
>
>Speculation.
Fact, and you know it.
>> People worked to buy slaves, too. That didn't make slavery right.
>
>SLavery got a lot of blacks out of speer chucking africa where they were
>starving, you have already admitted slavery can do good for people.
No, liar, I said it had its uses. Like for proving your arguments are
logically equivalent to defenses offered for known evils.
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
> Garbage. The taxpayers were robbed to pay off S&L depositors because
> the deposit insurance rates have always been far below appropriate
> actuarial risk compensation. The next big bank failure, the same
> thing will happen: taxpayers will be robbed, and the money given to
> the rich.
Look why won't anyone answer me - how do you get crackhead brittney to
pay taxes to bail out the rich? I don't see it. There would be only ONE
legal way, state control of the crack rock - that is the carrot to
motivate her to WORK and PAY taxes.
> It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
> ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
> vast, unproductive "industry."
Where are these subsidies? I have friends that own property, I have
owned property, after you pay to fix the roof, the pipes, the carpet, pay
the yard man etc etc we all LOST money, several of my friends went
BANKRUPT.
>>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
>
> False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
> countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
> USA).
In my old county there was a big prison, and I am pretty sure the
prisoners were a bigger population than all the public works employees of
that county put together, cops and teachers included. Yet I read it
costs 40k per year to house a prisoner - they aren't taxed, why do we
spend SO MUCH for such an unproductive MEMBER of society? It is BREAKING
US. Either work those prisoners or quit spending the money on them. We
don't need to import mexicans to work the fields, we got enough prison
population to do that.
>>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
>
> Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
I don't know the specific budgets, but in my old county there were
probably more prisoners at 40K a year each than all gubbment workers of
that county by a factor of 5 or maybe even 10 - it was a large disparity.
>>I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
>>the long pole in the gummint tent - the
>>cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
>
> ??? And how does putting the poor in jail for doing the only kind of
> business they can make money at "serve" them?
It doesn't, it breaks the rest of us in taxes.
In any case, end the
> War on Drugs, and you end the drug "crime."
Right legalize crack rock, take the power away from the criminals like we
did with disbanding prohibition.
You can't end the war on
> theft without ending society as we know it:
There are creative solutions to all kinds of problem, even theft. If no
one owns anything, no one can steal anything.
> "The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
> which men enter into society.
The free software movement with linux and open source sure didn't take a
lot of tax funded gubbment.
It is true governments cannot be
> supported without great charge,
So save the money and let the gubbment default.
and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
> share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
> for the maintenance of it."
> -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
Old ideas for a different world, say a geek has a P2P file sharing
program going, he doesn't OWN the movies or music on his computer, anyone
can come and make all the copies they want and FREE trade in its finest
form takes place and everyone sharing benefits. There was a time for the
middle man, he helped the process along, now he is getting in the way of
the free flow and not helping it along, time to boot him out of our lives
so we can all be happier.
>>It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
>>actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
>>you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
>>simply doesn't hold up.
>
> Rent is not a cash flow. Too bad you also have to ignore that fact.
Boy you got that shit right, I had rent, and I lost money every month, I
was going negative on those rentals, I got out without too much loss, but
some of my friends went bankrupt.
> Real estate is normally carried on the books at cost, not market.
Some old train company from the middle 1800's was going bankrupt in the
middle 1980's I think, my friend bought the shares, everyone said FOOL,
they are going bankrupt, no one uses that train company to ship good
anymores - he said yep, but on thier books they have land purchases that
are reflecting 1850 prices, when everyone caught on to the land value
this bankrupt train company possessed - the stock SKYROCKETED - he made
millions in a month. Lucky fuck.
> How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
> government employees?
How many prisoners at 40K a year each?
> And how on earth do you think the poor are "served" by being put in
> jail for pursuing their happiness in ways the police don't approve?
They aren't.
Johnny 5
$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Rent attaches to a cash flow, or it wouldn't be relevant. If it
> don't flow, it's not even visible.
>
> Flows matter. Accumulations do *not*. I'm beginning to see where
> we diverge.
My accumulation is small, I need a big flow so I can make it big, throw
me a bone here. Migrant temp service, migrant rental housing - where
should I go?
> You might have missed it - but the cash flow of WM is
> much more than it's summed value of property.
But I had a friend who bought this old train companies stock from in the
1980's I think, no one used it anymore, it was going bankrupt, turns out
the land was in the books for what the train company paid for it back in
the 1860's or so - when they started selling off the land and the REAL
value was realized - he made millions on just 10k of investment in 1
month.
Does walmart have current values of the land on the books or the cost
they paid for that land when they got it sometimes 20 or 30 years ago?
Maybe this accounting trickery makes walmart worth MUCH more than people
think.
> I'm weakly trotting out some boilerplate that stated
> that over the last few years, police officers outnumbered
> all other forms of civil servant. I cannot place
> the reference.
In my old town, corruption was rampant everywhere, the judges, the
lawyers, the tax officers, city administration, the mayor, but the town I
lived in was right on Interstate 75, and lots of drugs came up through
that place, and one day I was talking with an FBI guy and this is how the
county sheriff got rich in that town, you see the drug lord sends 2
vehicles up the road, both with illegal mexicans, one vehicle has lots of
cash and some drugs, the other vehicle has MILLIONS in drugs - so the
drug lord calls the sheriff and tells him which vehicle is which - so
they pull over the FIRST vehicle - get the cash - which is just really a
payoff to the cops (and the arresting officers may not even know the
sheriff has done this but THINK they have done something good) - but done
publically and with much publcity making the cops look good to the
public, while the big stash of drugs goes right on by. The judges and
corrupt city admin people had upper middle class housing, but the sheriff
and chief of city police - MY GOD - they had HUGE mansions. A university
professor - I think he was in economics now that I remember it - he said
HOLD UP - this gives the cops an INCENTIVE to make corrupt deals if we
let them keep the money in DRUG seizures - so he started telling people
we need to NOT let the cops keep that money - he was found dead a few
weeks later - go figure :-(
> Has nothing to do with the police - but the populace.
Nothing to do with the police - they are the most corrupt people in some
places, not the grunt cops mind you, they are good guys, like serpico,
but those evil boys at the top of the leviathan that are above the law.
ro...@telus.net
<lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:17:59 GMT, Les Cargill
>> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>Does deposit insurance actually *cost* anything, over
>>>and above administrative charges?
>>
>> Certainly. If it doesn't, it's not insurance.
>
>But banks, in general, do not fail.
Actually, they fail fairly often.
>There
>have been spans of time when lots of banks
>fail. Amortizing all those failures over all
>time, it looks like the premium risk of deposit
>insurance is very low.
<yawn> That must be why it took $50B of taxpayers' money to pay off
the S&L depositors....
><snip>
>>>>Nope. The pensioner does not own and cannot liquidate the assets that
>>>>yield his income.
>>>
>>>Lotto winners are pretty liquid to begin with. *Ahem*.
>>
>> Thank you for admitting you were wrong.
>
>Only if I managed to switch bases of discussion in
>midstream.
You did.
>Liquidity isn't all that relevant.
Right. It refers to expected speed of liquidation, not ability to
liquidate. Which is why it is a red herring.
>>>I think the emphasis on real estate is ridiculous,
>>>myself. But it's quite real.
>>
>> It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
>> ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
>> vast, unproductive "industry."
>
>The same could be said of wome's shoes.
No, because they are produced, and they aren't subsidized. Women
don't buy them expecting unearned income from them.
>Which is why
>we talk about revealed preferences - I'd say the
>mass of humanity shares these particular preferences.
A preference for unearned income? Certainly.
>>>>>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>>>>>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>>>>>their "share".
>>>>
>>>>Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending,
>>>
>>>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
>>
>> False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
>> countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
>> USA).
>
>Fair enough, then. I was really thinking of the USA, and
>schoolteachers are public servants only by fiat.
?? Nonsense.
>>>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
>>
>> Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
>
>I have. Summing all the county and city budgets for
>all counties and states, it's a considerable amount.
Sure. It's a big country. But if you want me to believe cops account
for the bulk of public expenses in the USA, you'll have to show me the
numbers.
>>>> and it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more
>>>> than the rich.
>>>
>>>I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
>>>the long pole in the gummint tent - the
>>>cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
>>
>> ??? And how does putting the poor in jail for doing the only kind of
>> business they can make money at "serve" them? In any case, end the
>> War on Drugs, and you end the drug "crime." You can't end the war on
>> theft without ending society as we know it:
>
>I am not talking about "service" - I am asking "where
>does the money go, now"?
??? So, you figure if the money "now goes to" oppressing the poor,
they should pay the freight for their own oppression, but the rich
shouldn't pay for the money that "now goes to" lining their pockets?
>>>It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
>>>actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
>>>you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
>>>simply doesn't hold up.
>>
>> Rent is not a cash flow. Too bad you also have to ignore that fact.
>
>!!!
>
>Rent attaches to a cash flow, or it wouldn't be relevant.
Wrong. It is only a _potential_ cash flow, which is realized to
varying degrees. That's why economists speak of "imputed" rents.
>If it
>don't flow, it's not even visible.
That is, as Bastiat termed it, the fallacy of the seen vs the unseen.
That is very much the point.
>Flows matter. Accumulations do *not*.
Complete garbage. If accumulations didn't matter, the rich wouldn't
mind giving theirs up. But they do. Which proves you are wrong.
>I'm beginning to see where
>we diverge.
Right. You don't care about the facts, and refuse to know them.
>>>I did it with WalMart's
>>>balance sheet, with relative populaitons of
>>>civil servants, and other relatively detailed
>>>analyses.
>>
>> ?? When? Let us see the data.
>
>It's on WalMart's last quarter's financials.
No, actually, it isn't.
>You might have missed it
I missed it because it wasn't there.
> but the cash flow of WM is
>much more than it's summed value of property.
How could that possibly be relevant, given that the property is not
valued at market, but the cash flow is?
>WM will doubtless be an extreme example, but not
>*that* extreme, for any business with it's kind of ROI.
Complete garbage. Retail and trading companies often have huge cash
flow relative to assets.
>>>Given that massive
>>>amounts of federal funds subsidize local police
>>>departments, I think the headcount way is the only
>>>way to determine the ratios.
>>
>> How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
>> government employees?
>>
>I'm weakly trotting out some boilerplate that stated
>that over the last few years, police officers outnumbered
>all other forms of civil servant. I cannot place
>the reference.
I do not believe it.
>> And how on earth do you think the poor are "served" by being put in
>> jail for pursuing their happiness in ways the police don't approve?
>
>Has nothing to do with the police - but the populace.
Garbage. The War on Drugs does nothing for anyone but the dealers and
the police. The dealers tell the politicians and officials they own
to talk it up, and the cops tell the people it's the WoD or anarchy.
>>>I do not think George is wrong per se, but that he is
>>>"wrong" over certain domains. He was arguably quite
>>>right when he was published, but the various scales
>>>of the economy cover up some of the effect.
>>
>> Yes, there is a lot of covering up going on...
>
>In terms of one signal obscuring another signal, Roy.
Yes. In electronics it's called "jamming." In economics it's called
"paying for the desired results."
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
>>Bill gates was not a millionaire when he started, he brought pc
>>software to the masses,
>
> Garbage. Pirates did.
He was the better pirate, and just like in days of old, the better pirate
got the biggest chest of gold.
>>I ask this question for like the 4th time now, you can use linux and
>>the mozilla browser which are FREE, or MSFT windows and internet
>>explorer - which one are you CHOOSING to use and WHY?
>
> Windows, because lousy as it is, it is the standard.
NO, that is NOT why you use it, in the OPEN SOURCE community LINUX is the
standard, you use it because you are TOO LAZY to LEARN the alternative
and are already knowledgeable and comfortable with what you have, billy
gates and MSFT monopoly included.
Also, it came on
> the machine, and the machine would have cost the same without it.
You can buy machines without MSFT monopoly installed, or even build your
own - but again that takes WORK - but I bet you would STILL use MSFT like
I still use it, I am too lazy to switch, if MSFT gets too expensive, or
too overbearing, I will make the effort to switch.
> I didn't say it was. Copyright is just what made Gates so rich.
> Please stop lying about what I have written.
Copyright is NOT what made him rich, you can WORK and not BUY his
product, YOUR LAZINESS, MY LAZINESS, all of that collectively is what
made him rich. You dont have to buy a ford, take the bus, copyright is
not this great EVIL oppressing me and you, we have freedoms and choices,
our laziness is what makes people have power over us.
> And by buying land as soon as possible.
Roy I am really trying to believe you, you seem like a real smartie, but
I have owned land, I have rented it, and after you pay taxes, insurance,
upkeep, property manager, etc etc mortgage payments, YOU LOSE my friend,
trust me, you LOSE A LOT, me and many of my friends LOST A LOT - what is
this meccha of LAND you are talking about - tell me - I don't believe you
- I went to the oasis in the desert and still starved to death. It
wasn;t just one state either, I bought land in florida, land in illinois,
land in georgia, many pieces of land, commercial land, residential land,
wasteland, farm land, NEGATIVE roy l, ALL OF IT, 1 rental house out of
the more than 40 properties I owned made money, all the rest went
NEGATIVE. Some of my friends went into bankruptcy, they were not able to
get out from under it, liquidity trap - we await in silence for you to
tell us why we didn't make money in rent and land when you say it is easy
as pie - I think you are FULL OF SHIT and have been through the declining
bank accounts to PROVE IT. I did not make money in land or rent, niether
did most of my friends, you are WRONG. Maybe 50 or 100 years ago land
ownership was HOT, but not today 2004 USA.
> Land titles aren't the only privileges.
How do I make money in land, I read every real estate book, every
accounting book, every tax loophole, every rental agreement loophole, I
did everything in the world to maximize my profit and limit my risk and I
lost a SHITLOAD of money, but you obviously know something I don't - you
have held and lost 40 pieces of land like I have - you know something in
your ivory tower that I never found out down here working in the valley,
please tell me so I can go tell my bankers they are WRONG when they tell
me I am poor and broke, I need to tell them that I am RICH, because I
have owned LAND and RENTED it. Come down out of the economics textbooks,
come down out of your abstract conceptualizations, come down out of your
ivory tower, I am a person sitting here broke telling you in the REAL
WORLD owning land does not make you rich - no matter how many times you
scream that shit at me, my REAL WORLD experience REFUTES your abstact
THEORY.
> It is that black and white.
In your disconnected paradigms its that black and white, but in the REAL
WORLD your models missed some variables - me and my friends are PROOF.
REAL PEOPLE REAL LOSSES. Let me tell you the PROBLEMS you don't
understand, Banks mortgages cost, service men to fix the property cost,
property managers to manage the property cost, insurance costs, property
taxes cost, tenants sign contracts, tear up your walls with domestic
violence or drunken rages - have their kids and pets piss on your rugs -
they steal your water heater or air conditioner or refrigerator - they
move out, they do not pay you, you cant get satisfaction from a judge -
they have left the city or the state or make too little money or the
judge doesnt care, he just hates landlords like you and always sides with
the thieving contract braking lying trashy drunk tenant.
Let me give you more CORRUPTION that you have not factored into your
black and white easy as pie model - the property manager owns a few
properties down the road from you - she goes in and tears up shit -
punches holes in walls - telling you she has an investor to sell your
negative cash flow property too, you cant keep tenants, she says that
area is full of crime, you sell it at a loss to her investor, turns out
it is her brother or sister in law - you get FUCKED.
Let me give you another one your black and white model misses Roy, the
bank manager, and the insurance agent and property manager are all
related, they know the tax collector too - well you come into town to buy
some LAND cause ROY L said you can get RICH - so you go to get the land,
the LYING tax collector appraises the property for FAR more that it will
ever bring in a fair market - the bank mananger gives you the inflated
loan on this false number, the insurance man sells you inflated insurance
on this false number, see how all these LIARS are the ones making money -
not the LAND LORD - the property mananger tells you things are broke that
arent, but sends you a bill from her friend that owns a wall repair
business - you pay 600 bucks for a wall that was never broke - you put a
new fridge in there, a few months later an old fridge is there, in one
case the property manager was trading out my GOOD NEW stuff with her old
stuff in her personal properites, in one case it was the tenants, in
other cases I don't know, it could have been a million different things.
One guy is friends with the city marshall, he lets the place go to shit ,
basically tears it up in 1 week, they condem the property I lose my ass.
I go to sue one tenant who lived for free for 3 months on a 12 month
contract, it takes a year to go to court, he has died by then, sue
another, takes almost 2 years to go to court, he has left to mexico, etc
etc. I have done it Roy, I have OWNED land, I have seen the REALITY, and
the reality is not accurately modeled by your THEORIES.
Your models and theories assume TRUST and ACCOUNTABILITY, and there are
so many damn crooks out there that are not HONEST - and it aint
necessarily the LAND LORD. Its the judge, the sheriff, the service man,
the city marshall, the banker, the county government, the insruance agent
- hell anyone - they all scam you ALL OF THEM at some point or another.
You go buy 40 pieces of property like I have, you come down out of that
tower and see what REAL PEOPLE do in the REAL WORLD and you will have
your eyes opened that LAND LORDING isn't the yellow brick road to wealth
that you are LYING about and saying it is.
>>Many people sell land and rent - why Roy?
>
> Because they do not understand the economics. Or maybe they are
> trying to time the market.
Or maybe they did more than theorize like you but actually LAND LORDED
and saw it for the bullshit it was, how many pieces of property have you
land lorded, how does the old saying go - don't knock it til you try it -
I tried it, and you are not LIVING IN REALITY.
>>All they need to do
>>is own land to make it in this world right?
>
> No, they also have to be willing to accept the free money that goes
> with it.
I was, I listened at idiots like you, and so did my friends, we bought
the american dream, own land - you forgot to factor in the criminal
element, politics, and greedy people that WERENT land owners into your
equations. You have not walked my shoes, until you do, you are a fount
of ignorance with no REAL WORLD experience.
> They aren't.
Want to be in Rome, do as the Romans do.
> No, it isn't. It's natural and healthy. It's trying to _get_ what
> you haven't got _without_earning_it_ that is bad. (Like the way you
> try to get what you want from women. You might want to take a couple
> of months and think about that.)
I found a solution to my problem roy, I completely gave up on spoiled
american bitches that wanted something for nothing and started travelling
to foreign countries - as I get older and the testosterone wanes - I am
sure I will even give up on the travel too.
> No. I am just identifying the facts of objective reality that prove
> you wrong.
BWAHAHA! Reality proves YOU wrong, not me. I LIVED LAND LORDING, it is
not the oasis of FREE MONEY you are LYING about to the readers of these
messages - anyone reading this, you want to find out about something talk
to people who have DONE IT, not theorized about it like Roy. I have land
lorded, I have personally experienced the corruption that his models
never take into account, he is the one not in REALITY. 40 pieces of
property roy, that is my EXPERIENCE in REALITY, what is YOUR REAL WORLD
EXPERIENCE in REALITY? How many pieces of property have you LAND LORDED
up in your ivory tower of disconnected paradigms and inaccurate models?
> Why would that be relevant?
Your net worth and your land lord experience are VERY relevant - You want
to bitch about the rich, bitch about the landlords, Bill Clinton was on
tv last week, larry king asked him why arent you bitching about Bush like
all the other lefties, he said I have been in his shoes, I am uniquely
qualified to understand the REAL position he is in and can appreciate
things affecting him like so few of these attackers can.
When you have lost money on 40 properties ROY L, then you tell me it is a
FREE MECCA of MONEY, until then you are shooting hot air out of your
unexperienced ass and spreading LIES and IGNORANCE all over the place and
I will stop that bullshit everywhere I find it. THe truth will set you
free.
>>Without him police men and lawyers would go hungry, we don't want that
>>do we?
>
> Maybe you don't...
I tried to put down the corrupt people, politicians, police, in my old
city, key word being OLD as in I had to get the fuck out of dodge before
I got my head blowed off - I can uniquely appreciate this too big to FALL
concept. Sometimes the FBI tells you that its better to let corruption
continue than come in and arrest the mayor, the sheriff, the lawyers, the
judges, that would create ANARCHY in the community, much better to have
CORRUPT leaders then no leaders at all is what I was told by men with
guns and badges - where is serpico when you need him?
> Fact, and you know it.
I do know facts roy, I didn't read about LA confidential, I lived that
drama, I didnt read about landlording, I LIVED that drama, what about
you?
Les Cargill
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:40:25 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>But banks, in general, do not fail.
>
>
> Actually, they fail fairly often.
>
Another fact hidden from us? :)
>
>>There
>>have been spans of time when lots of banks
>>fail. Amortizing all those failures over all
>>time, it looks like the premium risk of deposit
>>insurance is very low.
>
>
> <yawn> That must be why it took $50B of taxpayers' money to pay off
> the S&L depositors....
>
$50B integrated over what other sum? It's the ratio
that matters, not the absolute sum.
<snip>
>>Only if I managed to switch bases of discussion in
>>midstream.
>
>
> You did.
>
Horsefeathers. *You* did.
>
>>Liquidity isn't all that relevant.
>
>
> Right. It refers to expected speed of liquidation, not ability to
> liquidate. Which is why it is a red herring.
>
Liquidity refers to what's already been liquidated - to
cash-on-hand. I am not talking about some accrual
based, schedule type accounting, but simpler systems.
It's irrelevant - the value of either a bank account or the
pension is the summed payout of the instrument.
>
>>>>I think the emphasis on real estate is ridiculous,
>>>>myself. But it's quite real.
>>>
>>>It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
>>>ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
>>>vast, unproductive "industry."
>>
>>The same could be said of wome's shoes.
>
>
> No, because they are produced, and they aren't subsidized. Women
> don't buy them expecting unearned income from them.
>
>
You obviously don't understand women's shoes.
>>Which is why
>>we talk about revealed preferences - I'd say the
>>mass of humanity shares these particular preferences.
>
>
> A preference for unearned income? Certainly.
>
No. A preference for land. Period.
>
>>>>>>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>>>>>>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>>>>>>their "share".
>>>>>
>>>>>Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending,
>>>>
>>>>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
>>>
>>>
>>>False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
>>>countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
>>>USA).
>>
>>Fair enough, then. I was really thinking of the USA, and
>>schoolteachers are public servants only by fiat.
>
>
> ?? Nonsense.
>
I suggest you refer to how public
education developed as an institution.
Educaiton doesn't have to be private.
Police proteciton doesn't *have* to, either,
but it's closer to "have to" that education.
>
>>>>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
>>>
>>>
>>>Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
>>
>>I have. Summing all the county and city budgets for
>>all counties and states, it's a considerable amount.
>
>
> Sure. It's a big country. But if you want me to believe cops account
> for the bulk of public expenses in the USA, you'll have to show me the
> numbers.
>
>
We're both speculating. All I am saying is that police protection
commands a considerable sum, a sum which is arguably
greater than deposit insurance or any other service ( besides
national defense, in the U.S. ) than arguably exists.
>>>>>and it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more
>>>>>than the rich.
>>>>
>>>>I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
>>>>the long pole in the gummint tent - the
>>>>cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
>>>
>>>??? And how does putting the poor in jail for doing the only kind of
>>>business they can make money at "serve" them? In any case, end the
>>>War on Drugs, and you end the drug "crime." You can't end the war on
>>>theft without ending society as we know it:
>>
>>I am not talking about "service" - I am asking "where
>>does the money go, now"?
>
>
> ??? So, you figure if the money "now goes to" oppressing the poor,
> they should pay the freight for their own oppression, but the rich
> shouldn't pay for the money that "now goes to" lining their pockets?
>
>
Actually, what I'm doing is speculating that the vaunted location
rents do not have quite the economic impact that is presently
claimed.
I should go look up the actual numbers and publish them. But I
have no compelling reason to.
>>>>It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
>>>>actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
>>>>you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
>>>>simply doesn't hold up.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rent is not a cash flow. Too bad you also have to ignore that fact.
>>
>>!!!
>>
>>Rent attaches to a cash flow, or it wouldn't be relevant.
>
>
> Wrong. It is only a _potential_ cash flow, which is realized to
> varying degrees. That's why economists speak of "imputed" rents.
>
I understand this. I am also a "potential" lotto winner, but I
won't start spending it yet.
>
>>If it
>>don't flow, it's not even visible.
>
>
> That is, as Bastiat termed it, the fallacy of the seen vs the unseen.
> That is very much the point.
>
>
I'm not sure what to make of this. I do not meen visible as in
"seen or unseen", but really "exists or doesn't".
>>Flows matter. Accumulations do *not*.
>
>
> Complete garbage. If accumulations didn't matter, the rich wouldn't
> mind giving theirs up. But they do. Which proves you are wrong.
>
Yes, the tendency of people to prefer to keep their
property, real or not, is a pretty well understood phenomenon.
How about that?
Let's try again: All that accumulation doesn't mean anything.
It is the *flow* that matters. One does not really care about
the stored charge in a battery - one cares about the
light the battery can produce.
That would be a flow.
>
>>I'm beginning to see where
>>we diverge.
>
>
> Right. You don't care about the facts, and refuse to know them.
>
A contraire. I wish to see how the facts look under various
mathematical treatments, back-of-envelope things.
What is the impact and sensitivity significance of rents?
What are the relative flows between productive and location
rent flows?
Never mind improvement values.
>
>>>>I did it with WalMart's
>>>>balance sheet, with relative populaitons of
>>>>civil servants, and other relatively detailed
>>>>analyses.
>>>
>>>
>>>?? When? Let us see the data.
>>
>>It's on WalMart's last quarter's financials.
>
>
> No, actually, it isn't.
>
>
I've repeatedly ( not *that* repeatedly, however )
asked for why this is. You simply deny it.
These are simple numbers on publically available financial
statements. If those are just fiction, then a larger
problem prevails.
>>You might have missed it
>
>
> I missed it because it wasn't there.
>
Odd. I saw it. No matter.
>
>>but the cash flow of WM is
>>much more than it's summed value of property.
>
>
> How could that possibly be relevant, given that the property is not
> valued at market, but the cash flow is?
>
Then what possible purpose is that valuation? Is this
not simple fraud?
WallWorld doesn't have to squeeze the land value
to get out of taxes. They do that via tax abatements.
>
>>WM will doubtless be an extreme example, but not
>>*that* extreme, for any business with it's kind of ROI.
>
>
> Complete garbage. Retail and trading companies often have huge cash
> flow relative to assets.
>
Well, how about that. Why did I use the word "extreme" above?
The point remains: for any reasonable business which is not
a slavering attempt to "prise the rent out of the local Hebrews" -
(Spinal Tap), the relative rent cash flow will quickly exceed
the rent potential by a whole bunche.
>
>>>>Given that massive
>>>>amounts of federal funds subsidize local police
>>>>departments, I think the headcount way is the only
>>>>way to determine the ratios.
>>>
>>>
>>>How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
>>>government employees?
>>>
>>
>>I'm weakly trotting out some boilerplate that stated
>>that over the last few years, police officers outnumbered
>>all other forms of civil servant. I cannot place
>>the reference.
>
>
> I do not believe it.
>
I don't doubt that. I briefly ran the numbers one time,
and came up with a whopper of a fraciton, but I
couldn't defend that number without a *WHOLE* lot
more basic research.
And I simply do not have time right now.
>
>>>And how on earth do you think the poor are "served" by being put in
>>>jail for pursuing their happiness in ways the police don't approve?
>>
>>Has nothing to do with the police - but the populace.
>
>
> Garbage. The War on Drugs does nothing for anyone but the dealers and
> the police. The dealers tell the politicians and officials they own
> to talk it up, and the cops tell the people it's the WoD or anarchy.
>
That's a simplistic way of looking at it.
The WOD is because People's Lives Are Too Hard. Those pesky
kids'll get all fscked up on The Drugs and not become
little rentiers like Mommy wants 'em to, so Why Doesn't
Somebody Do Something About It?
Other than the outright racist parts of the thing, that's
pretty much why. It's a public service because Mommy doesn't
know what went wrong with Junior. After all, we gave him all
that money...
Ask a cop about it, after the cop is sufficiently lubricated
to tell the truth.
>
>>>>I do not think George is wrong per se, but that he is
>>>>"wrong" over certain domains. He was arguably quite
>>>>right when he was published, but the various scales
>>>>of the economy cover up some of the effect.
>>>
>>>Yes, there is a lot of covering up going on...
>>
>>In terms of one signal obscuring another signal, Roy.
>
>
> Yes. In electronics it's called "jamming." In economics it's called
> "paying for the desired results."
>
Which is far too simple an explanation. But hey, you could be
the Galileo of rent seeking, f'rall I know.
Johnny 5
> Actually, they fail fairly often.
When do you estimate a failure will happen in america that is not going
to be able to be covered by the taxpayer? I just dont see crackhead
brittney paying taxes to cover many more failures.
>>we talk about revealed preferences - I'd say the
>>mass of humanity shares these particular preferences.
>
> A preference for unearned income? Certainly.
A lot of people want someone else to learn and think and work for them,
Zues is happy with this arrangement.
> Complete garbage. If accumulations didn't matter, the rich wouldn't
> mind giving theirs up. But they do. Which proves you are wrong.
Thier accumulations keep them from having to work when they get old, if
you take away thier accumulations in essence they will die because they
are too old to work.
> How could that possibly be relevant, given that the property is not
> valued at market, but the cash flow is?
Why do we let corporations continue this accounting trickery? It is
inefficient.
> Garbage. The War on Drugs does nothing for anyone but the dealers and
> the police.
You are one of the few people I have met that understands that Roy L.
> The dealers tell the politicians and officials they own
> to talk it up, and the cops tell the people it's the WoD or anarchy.
Its a very good racket if you are a cop or drug dealer though. But you
forget the mothers and fathers that FEEL secure knowing the gubbment is
keeping thier daughter off crack rock. See its like ben franklin said,
those that trade security for freedom deserve niether, but people want to
feel safe, so they give the mafia man some payoff money so he wont hurt
them and it makes them feel safe. We give the cops and drug dealers
money so that we can feel safe, we pay off the mafia.
See Bush just came to tampa today and said he is going to take all kinds
of new tax money and pay to stop women trafficking and kill the sex
tourism business, so now the ideals of society are going to prevent me
from going to mexico and get a sweet rocio for some loving (always above
18 because that is the current law), I will choose freedom over breaking
the law and going to jail so now I must give up my travels to foriegn
countries if I am going to stay within the law, I wish there was another
way to meet this supply versus demand - we can't all live in Nevada - too
many people for too little space, australia has state sponsored hookers,
but the old ladies in church know some of these hookers are thier
granddaughters so its better to create more cops and more criminals like
in prohibition, than to let some of our nations granddaughters be hookers
- or at least that is thier thinking, my friends have told me would you
want YOUR daughter being a hooker johnny 5, I tell them if the choice of
2 worlds is one world where she is a hooker with thug corrupt drug
dealers and corrupt cops - where it is all driven underground, or another
world wear it is state sponsored and out in the open and honest and safe,
I would much rather my daughter be in the safe world, not the criminal
one, but they want to keep FOOLING themselves that we can exterminate
both worlds and I just don't see that as true from my obseravations, and
thier DENIAL to accept REALITY causes my daughter to be around thugs than
around honest state workers.
> Yes. In electronics it's called "jamming." In economics it's called
> "paying for the desired results."
We have produced a world of contented bodies and discontented minds.
~Adam Clayton Powell, Keep the Faith, Baby!, 1967
Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated.
~Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons
The world is governed more by appearance than realities so that it is
fully as necessary to seem to know something as to know it. ~Daniel
Webster
The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and
calculators has succeeded. ~Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution
in France
Society is now one polish'd horde,
Formed of two mighty tribes, the Bores and Bored.
~Lord Byron, Don Juan, Canto XIII, stanza 95
I've been reading a lot lately about Indian captives. One woman who had
been captured by the Indians and made a squaw was resentful when she was
rescued because she'd found that there was a lot more work to do as the
wife of a white man. ~Stephen Vincent Benét
Society honors its living conformists and its dead troublemakers.
~Mignon McLaughlin
American youth attributes much more importance to arriving at driver's-
license age than at voting age. ~Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media:
The Extensions of Man, 1964
Everything is for the eye these days - TV, Life, Look, the movies.
Nothing is just for the mind. The next generation will have eyeballs as
big as cantaloupes and no brain at all. ~Fred Allen
Somebody recently figured out that we have 35 million laws to enforce the
ten commandments. ~Attributed to both Bert Masterson and Earl Wilson
Science is now the craft of the manipulation, substitution and deflection
of the forces of nature. What I see coming is a gigantic slaughterhouse,
an Auschwitz, in which valuable enzymes, hormones, and so on will be
extracted instead of gold teeth. ~Erwin Chargaff, Columbia Forum, Summer
1969
Johnny 5
$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> No, because they are produced, and they aren't subsidized. Women
>> don't buy them expecting unearned income from them.
>>
>>
>
> You obviously don't understand women's shoes.
My aunt bought so many shoes expecting free attention because she had
nice shoes, she would were them only 1 time and then put them in the
closet, she filled all the closets in the house with shoes, somehow in
her mind the more shoes she had, the more beautiful she was - I never
understood the correlation. She felt if she threw away shoes it limited
her somehow, her choices or beauty or free attention is all I could
figure. I have another theory on that, shopping is an emotional
experience for many people, a pleasurable one, and the shoes are a
reminder of that pleasurable experience, if you throw them away, you are
throwing away good memories, so she saved shoes and dresses to remember
good times.
> I suggest you refer to how public
> education developed as an institution.
My former state university was all about MONEY, it was no longer about
making good citizens. They created programs to cater to idiots and
pettle bullshit so that they could get more state money, it was such a
waste of resources.
> We're both speculating. All I am saying is that police protection
> commands a considerable sum, a sum which is arguably
> greater than deposit insurance or any other service ( besides
> national defense, in the U.S. ) than arguably exists.
Don't forget the black market corruption factor in your studies, the
police and drug dealers are some of the richest people in society, they
are above certain laws the rest of us are not. Who watches the watchers?
> I should go look up the actual numbers and publish them. But I
> have no compelling reason to.
Hardwork pays off later, but laziness pays off now - HAHA!
> I understand this. I am also a "potential" lotto winner, but I
> won't start spending it yet.
There was a woman in my old town who thought she had one the lottery, now
get this shit, a local reporter interviewed her and said she thought she
had won the lottery, she was one number off but she made a mistake and
the reporter must not have checked her ticket in his eagerness to get a
story, well anyways she got loans from the bank *I guess they saw her on
the news* and loans from car dealers and all kinds of money, a week
later she went to go cash the lottery ticket, it was one number off from
the numbers, an 8 instead of a 3 I think - anyways it really embarrased a
lot of people in the community and she went bankrupt. And these are the
idiots you want to trust with your resources? BWAHAHA!
> These are simple numbers on publically available financial
> statements. If those are just fiction, then a larger
> problem prevails.
You trust public statements, you will lose the game of life to those of
us that don't. Arthur Anderson just lost a lot of lawsuits for cooking
books no? It not just them at the top cooking, the people reporting the
numbers from walmart cooked, the manager that gave walmart accountants
some numbers also cooked - his employs did some cooking beneath him, buy
the time the bean gets up to the bean counter it has been refried so many
damn times it makes you hungry for mexican cuisine.
>> How could that possibly be relevant, given that the property is not
>> valued at market, but the cash flow is?
>>
>
> Then what possible purpose is that valuation? Is this
> not simple fraud?
Refer to my railroad example, it made some people rich.
>> Garbage. The War on Drugs does nothing for anyone but the dealers and
>> the police. The dealers tell the politicians and officials they own
>> to talk it up, and the cops tell the people it's the WoD or anarchy.
>>
>
> That's a simplistic way of looking at it.
From my dealing with REAL PEOPLE, that is the truth of the matter though.
> The WOD is because People's Lives Are Too Hard. Those pesky
> kids'll get all fscked up on The Drugs and not become
> little rentiers like Mommy wants 'em to, so Why Doesn't
> Somebody Do Something About It?
In one neighborhood by me, the crack house was the only one that could
afford the rent increases. They were making all the money.
> Other than the outright racist parts of the thing, that's
> pretty much why. It's a public service because Mommy doesn't
> know what went wrong with Junior. After all, we gave him all
> that money...
Right, mommy doesn't want daughter being a hooker because that is so
terrible, but marriage is just legalized prostitution and the free market
is more efficient.
> Ask a cop about it, after the cop is sufficiently lubricated
> to tell the truth.
Serpico is hard to find these days.
> Which is far too simple an explanation. But hey, you could be
> the Galileo of rent seeking, f'rall I know.
HAHA! Burn him! We don't need round taxes, everyone knows they should be
flat!
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f6f663...@news.telus.net:
>
>> Garbage. The taxpayers were robbed to pay off S&L depositors because
>> the deposit insurance rates have always been far below appropriate
>> actuarial risk compensation. The next big bank failure, the same
>> thing will happen: taxpayers will be robbed, and the money given to
>> the rich.
>
>Look why won't anyone answer me - how do you get crackhead brittney to
>pay taxes to bail out the rich?
Tax the crack.
>> It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
>> ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
>> vast, unproductive "industry."
>
>Where are these subsidies?
Everywhere. Almost everything government does subsidizes landowners.
>I have friends that own property, I have
>owned property, after you pay to fix the roof, the pipes, the carpet, pay
>the yard man etc etc we all LOST money, several of my friends went
>BANKRUPT.
"Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
>>>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
>>
>> False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
>> countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
>> USA).
>
>In my old county there was a big prison, and I am pretty sure the
>prisoners were a bigger population than all the public works employees of
>that county put together, cops and teachers included. Yet I read it
>costs 40k per year to house a prisoner - they aren't taxed, why do we
>spend SO MUCH for such an unproductive MEMBER of society? It is BREAKING
>US. Either work those prisoners or quit spending the money on them. We
>don't need to import mexicans to work the fields, we got enough prison
>population to do that.
Using convicts for work is one of the things we object to the Chinese
doing, but I agree the whole system makes little sense.
>>>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
>>
>> Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
>
>I don't know the specific budgets, but in my old county there were
>probably more prisoners at 40K a year each than all gubbment workers of
>that county by a factor of 5 or maybe even 10 - it was a large disparity.
Well, I can tell you there are many times as many government employees
as prisoners, and their wages and benefits average much more than
$40K.
> You can't end the war on
>> theft without ending society as we know it:
>
>There are creative solutions to all kinds of problem, even theft. If no
>one owns anything, no one can steal anything.
If no one owns anything, everything that is produced is stolen from
its producers.
>> How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
>> government employees?
>
>How many prisoners at 40K a year each?
About a million, last I heard.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:40:25 GMT, Les Cargill
>> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>But banks, in general, do not fail.
>>
>> Actually, they fail fairly often.
>
>Another fact hidden from us? :)
Only from you, apparently.
>>>There
>>>have been spans of time when lots of banks
>>>fail. Amortizing all those failures over all
>>>time, it looks like the premium risk of deposit
>>>insurance is very low.
>>
>> <yawn> That must be why it took $50B of taxpayers' money to pay off
>> the S&L depositors....
>
>$50B integrated over what other sum? It's the ratio
>that matters, not the absolute sum.
No, it's the fact that any tax dollars at all went to S&L depositors,
rather than deposit insurance premiums paying the full tab.
>Liquidity isn't all that relevant.
>>
>> Right. It refers to expected speed of liquidation, not ability to
>> liquidate. Which is why it is a red herring.
>
>Liquidity refers to what's already been liquidated - to
>cash-on-hand.
No, it doesn't. It refers to the ease of an asset's liquidation or
conversion to cash on hand. Get yourself a better dictionary.
>It's irrelevant - the value of either a bank account or the
>pension is the summed payout of the instrument.
Wrong. The pension's payouts can't be summed, because the lifetime of
the pensioner cannot be predicted; and it has no value, because it
cannot (normally) be liquidated.
>>>>>I think the emphasis on real estate is ridiculous,
>>>>>myself. But it's quite real.
>>>>
>>>>It's certainly ridiculous in one sense: the subsidies to land
>>>>ownership are so ridiculously extravagant that they support such a
>>>>vast, unproductive "industry."
>>>
>>>The same could be said of wome's shoes.
>>
>> No, because they are produced, and they aren't subsidized. Women
>> don't buy them expecting unearned income from them.
>
>You obviously don't understand women's shoes.
Glib, but false. My statements were simply correct as a matter of
objective fact. Your statement was false as a matter of objective
fact. That is the normal pattern in these discussions.
>>>Which is why
>>>we talk about revealed preferences - I'd say the
>>>mass of humanity shares these particular preferences.
>>
>> A preference for unearned income? Certainly.
>
>No. A preference for land. Period.
Wrong. The _need_ to use land for all production is not a preference
but a fact of objective reality. The desire to be a recipient of the
subsidies to landowners rather than a contributor to them is a
preference to receive rather than provide unearned income, not a
preference for land.
>>>>>>>In terms of where the money is spent in government, especially
>>>>>>>police services, it seems that the poor consume more than
>>>>>>>their "share".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Police services are a microscopic fraction of government spending,
>>>>>
>>>>>There are more cops than any other form of public servant.
>>>>
>>>>False. Public school teachers outnumber cops in all civilized
>>>>countries, and usually by a significant multiple (OK, maybe not in the
>>>>USA).
>>>
>>>Fair enough, then. I was really thinking of the USA, and
>>>schoolteachers are public servants only by fiat.
>>
>> ?? Nonsense.
>
>I suggest you refer to how public
>education developed as an institution.
I suggest you refer to the above exchange, which proves that I am
right and you are wrong.
>Educaiton doesn't have to be private.
>Police proteciton doesn't *have* to, either,
>but it's closer to "have to" that education.
Nice attempt at weaseling out.
>>>>>There must therefore be more money spent on 'em.
>>>>
>>>>Totally wrong. Look at the budgets.
>>>
>>>I have. Summing all the county and city budgets for
>>>all counties and states, it's a considerable amount.
>>
>> Sure. It's a big country. But if you want me to believe cops account
>> for the bulk of public expenses in the USA, you'll have to show me the
>> numbers.
>
>We're both speculating.
No. You are speculating. I am identifying the facts.
>All I am saying is that police protection
>commands a considerable sum, a sum which is arguably
>greater than deposit insurance or any other service ( besides
>national defense, in the U.S. ) than arguably exists.
It's certainly more than deposit insurance and less than, e.g.,
medicare. And in any case, because the police do not _serve_ the
poor, but rather oppress them, it could hardly be less relevant.
>>>>>>and it's hard to see how prevention of theft helps the poor more
>>>>>>than the rich.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not talking about theft - I am talking about
>>>>>the long pole in the gummint tent - the
>>>>>cost of crime. Most crime is drug and alcohol related.
>>>>
>>>>??? And how does putting the poor in jail for doing the only kind of
>>>>business they can make money at "serve" them? In any case, end the
>>>>War on Drugs, and you end the drug "crime." You can't end the war on
>>>>theft without ending society as we know it:
>>>
>>>I am not talking about "service" - I am asking "where
>>>does the money go, now"?
>>
>> ??? So, you figure if the money "now goes to" oppressing the poor,
>> they should pay the freight for their own oppression, but the rich
>> shouldn't pay for the money that "now goes to" lining their pockets?
>
>Actually, what I'm doing is speculating that the vaunted location
>rents do not have quite the economic impact that is presently
>claimed.
And I am identifying the fact that they have more.
>I should go look up the actual numbers and publish them. But I
>have no compelling reason to.
Indeed, you have a compelling reason not to: the numbers would prove
you wrong.
>>>>>It's quite simple - in all cases, all I have to do is
>>>>>actually look at the cash flows of the various entities
>>>>>you discuss, and the "rent is everything" hypothesis
>>>>>simply doesn't hold up.
>>>>
>>>>Rent is not a cash flow. Too bad you also have to ignore that fact.
>>>
>>>Rent attaches to a cash flow, or it wouldn't be relevant.
>>
>> Wrong. It is only a _potential_ cash flow, which is realized to
>> varying degrees. That's why economists speak of "imputed" rents.
>
>I understand this.
Then why didn't you understand that your claim beginning about 15
lines up was garbage?
>>>If it
>>>don't flow, it's not even visible.
>>
>> That is, as Bastiat termed it, the fallacy of the seen vs the unseen.
>> That is very much the point.
>
>I'm not sure what to make of this. I do not meen visible as in
>"seen or unseen", but really "exists or doesn't".
Land rent certainly exists. It just doesn't take the form of an
accounting entry.
>>>Flows matter. Accumulations do *not*.
>>
>> Complete garbage. If accumulations didn't matter, the rich wouldn't
>> mind giving theirs up. But they do. Which proves you are wrong.
>
>Yes, the tendency of people to prefer to keep their
>property, real or not, is a pretty well understood phenomenon.
>
>Let's try again: All that accumulation doesn't mean anything.
It most certainly does. Your claim is just absurd.
>It is the *flow* that matters. One does not really care about
>the stored charge in a battery - one cares about the
>light the battery can produce.
?? But the charge _is_ a measure of how much light the battery can
produce. That's the whole _point_ of batteries as opposed to
capacitors.
You are just spouting nonsense.
>That would be a flow.
Invalid analogy, as proved above.
>>>I'm beginning to see where
>>>we diverge.
>>
>> Right. You don't care about the facts, and refuse to know them.
>
>A contraire. I wish to see how the facts look under various
>mathematical treatments, back-of-envelope things.
First, you have to be treating the right things.
>What is the impact and sensitivity significance of rents?
What does that _mean_?
>What are the relative flows between productive and location
>rent flows?
As above.
>>>>>I did it with WalMart's
>>>>>balance sheet, with relative populaitons of
>>>>>civil servants, and other relatively detailed
>>>>>analyses.
>>>>
>>>>?? When? Let us see the data.
>>>
>>>It's on WalMart's last quarter's financials.
>>
>> No, actually, it isn't.
>
>I've repeatedly ( not *that* repeatedly, however )
>asked for why this is. You simply deny it.
You made the claim. It was and is nonsensical.
>These are simple numbers on publically available financial
>statements. If those are just fiction, then a larger
>problem prevails.
They do not refer to what you claim they do. They summarize
_accounting_entries_, not actual values.
>>>You might have missed it
>>
>> I missed it because it wasn't there.
>
>Odd. I saw it. No matter.
No, you saw something quite different, and confused yourself into
thinking you saw something relevant to total land rent.
>>>but the cash flow of WM is
>>>much more than it's summed value of property.
>>
>> How could that possibly be relevant, given that the property is not
>> valued at market, but the cash flow is?
>
>Then what possible purpose is that valuation?
To keep the books straight. The corporate accounts record its
_actual_transactions_, not increases in market value.
>Is this
>not simple fraud?
Not usually.
>WallWorld doesn't have to squeeze the land value
>to get out of taxes. They do that via tax abatements.
Not so. Tax abatements only get them out of paying local property
taxes. By undervaluing their land and commensurately overvaluing the
improvements, they increase claimable depreciation, reducing their
federal taxes.
>>>WM will doubtless be an extreme example, but not
>>>*that* extreme, for any business with it's kind of ROI.
>>
>> Complete garbage. Retail and trading companies often have huge cash
>> flow relative to assets.
>
>Well, how about that. Why did I use the word "extreme" above?
Because you mistakenly thought it was relevant.
>The point remains: for any reasonable business which is not
>a slavering attempt to "prise the rent out of the local Hebrews" -
>(Spinal Tap), the relative rent cash flow will quickly exceed
>the rent potential by a whole bunche.
I don't know what you mean by "relative rent cash flow."
>>>>And how on earth do you think the poor are "served" by being put in
>>>>jail for pursuing their happiness in ways the police don't approve?
>>>
>>>Has nothing to do with the police - but the populace.
>>
>> Garbage. The War on Drugs does nothing for anyone but the dealers and
>> the police. The dealers tell the politicians and officials they own
>> to talk it up, and the cops tell the people it's the WoD or anarchy.
>
>That's a simplistic way of looking at it.
>
>The WOD is because People's Lives Are Too Hard.
?? The WoD makes them harder.
>Ask a cop about it, after the cop is sufficiently lubricated
>to tell the truth.
I have.
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
>>pay taxes to bail out the rich?
>
> Tax the crack.
We have, Crack rock is far more expensive than it needs to be, but laws
have taxed it heavily, you must pay for it with your freedom in some
cases - assuming you don't have a crooked cop. Laws have taxed stinky
hole - if anyone could sell it I wouldn't have to pay 2000 per hour in
Vegas for a hand job.
www.dopewars.org if you want to play a game showing you the taxes on
crack rock.
>>In my old county there was a big prison, and I am pretty sure the
>>prisoners were a bigger population than all the public works employees
>>of that county put together, cops and teachers included. Yet I read
>>it costs 40k per year to house a prisoner - they aren't taxed, why do
>>we spend SO MUCH for such an unproductive MEMBER of society? It is
>>BREAKING US. Either work those prisoners or quit spending the money
>>on them. We don't need to import mexicans to work the fields, we got
>>enough prison population to do that.
>
> Using convicts for work is one of the things we object to the Chinese
> doing,
No, I think we have both concluded slave labor can benefit some people at
certain times, what I object to the chinese doing is pouring acid on some
little girl when she doesn't keep up the pace and killing her and your
seeming uninterest to do anything about it.
> but I agree the whole system makes little sense.
Hey great news, in my old city a woman was running along a major roadway
that had a lot of overgrown grass and almost stepped on a snake, so she
complained to gubbment there and they went and got the prisoners out of
the prison and made them start cutting that grass - problem solved. What
happens if they lose prisoners though? Who cuts the grass then?
>>I don't know the specific budgets, but in my old county there were
>>probably more prisoners at 40K a year each than all gubbment workers
>>of that county by a factor of 5 or maybe even 10 - it was a large
>>disparity.
>
> Well, I can tell you there are many times as many government employees
> as prisoners, and their wages and benefits average much more than
> $40K.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf
More than 8.75 million people are held in penal institutions throughout
the world, mostly as
pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or having been convicted and
sentenced. About half of
these are in the United States (1.96m), Russia (0.92m) or China (1.43m
plus pre-trial
detainees and prisoners in ‘administrative detention’).
. The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world,
some 686 per 100,000
of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia
(638), Belarus (554),
Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447),
Suriname (437) and
Dominica (420).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
21,540,000 Government Employees versus 2 million prisoners - so about 10
gubbment workers to 1 prisoner. How many cops and wardens to how many
prisoners?
> If no one owns anything, everything that is produced is stolen from
> its producers.
Tonto made a quilt and I needed it so I took it, he was cool with that
because he didn't feel he owned it. He didn't NEED it, your definition
still lets GREED work its magic, maybe tonto is very good at making
quilts, he uses up all the cotton in the city making quilts - me and my
bumb buddies need a quilt, he made all the quilts and used all the cotton
and he only needs 1 but owns 5,000 - why should he get to keep 5000?
>>> How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
>>> government employees?
>>
>>How many prisoners at 40K a year each?
>
> About a million, last I heard.
Nope, you are wrong, a little over 2 million is what I am hearing.
ro...@telus.net
>>>Look why won't anyone answer me - how do you get crackhead brittney to
>>>pay taxes to bail out the rich?
>>
>> Tax the crack.
>
>We have, Crack rock is far more expensive than it needs to be, but laws
>have taxed it heavily, you must pay for it with your freedom in some
>cases - assuming you don't have a crooked cop.
?? That's not a tax. The dough goes to the dealers, not the
government.
>> Using convicts for work is one of the things we object to the Chinese
>> doing,
>
>No, I think we have both concluded slave labor can benefit some people at
>certain times, what I object to the chinese doing is pouring acid on some
>little girl when she doesn't keep up the pace and killing her and your
>seeming uninterest to do anything about it.
That is not the kind of problem individual boycotts can address
effectively.
>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
>
>21,540,000 Government Employees versus 2 million prisoners - so about 10
>gubbment workers to 1 prisoner. How many cops and wardens to how many
>prisoners?
Not enough to make 10 million, anyway.
>> If no one owns anything, everything that is produced is stolen from
>> its producers.
>
>Tonto made a quilt and I needed it so I took it, he was cool with that
>because he didn't feel he owned it. He didn't NEED it, your definition
>still lets GREED work its magic,
Nope. Greed is trying to get _more_than_you_deserve_. The producer
deserves everything he produces.
> maybe tonto is very good at making
>quilts, he uses up all the cotton in the city making quilts - me and my
>bumb buddies need a quilt, he made all the quilts and used all the cotton
>and he only needs 1 but owns 5,000 - why should he get to keep 5000?
He made them.
>>>> How many police officers are there in the USA? How many other
>>>> government employees?
>>>
>>>How many prisoners at 40K a year each?
>>
>> About a million, last I heard.
>
>Nope, you are wrong, a little over 2 million is what I am hearing.
I stand corrected. Maybe I was thinking of just federal prisoners, or
something. Anyway, it is obviously way out of line with other
advanced countries, and just as obviously not keeping US citizens as
safe as the citizens of other advanced countries. US voters need to
give their heads a shake.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f71968...@news.telus.net:
>
>> And by buying land as soon as possible.
>
>Roy I am really trying to believe you, you seem like a real smartie, but
>I have owned land, I have rented it, and after you pay taxes, insurance,
>upkeep, property manager, etc etc mortgage payments, YOU LOSE my friend,
>trust me, you LOSE A LOT, me and many of my friends LOST A LOT - what is
>this meccha of LAND you are talking about - tell me - I don't believe you
>- I went to the oasis in the desert and still starved to death. It
>wasn;t just one state either, I bought land in florida, land in illinois,
>land in georgia, many pieces of land, commercial land, residential land,
>wasteland, farm land, NEGATIVE roy l, ALL OF IT, 1 rental house out of
>the more than 40 properties I owned made money, all the rest went
>NEGATIVE. Some of my friends went into bankruptcy, they were not able to
>get out from under it, liquidity trap - we await in silence for you to
>tell us why we didn't make money in rent and land when you say it is easy
>as pie - I think you are FULL OF SHIT and have been through the declining
>bank accounts to PROVE IT. I did not make money in land or rent, niether
>did most of my friends, you are WRONG. Maybe 50 or 100 years ago land
>ownership was HOT, but not today 2004 USA.
1/3 of US households are living in _rented_ accommodation. Do you
really imagine all their landlords are losing money? Do you imagine
even that _most_ are? If you do, you are deluding yourself.
>> Land titles aren't the only privileges.
>
>How do I make money in land, I read every real estate book, every
>accounting book, every tax loophole, every rental agreement loophole, I
>did everything in the world to maximize my profit and limit my risk
No, you very obviously didn't.
You bought properties in places where you could not supervise them
personally.
You bought more properties when you were in negative cash flow on the
properties you already had.
You did not check out tenants adequately.
You did not check out property managers adequately.
You bought in jurisdictions you knew were corrupt.
You sold properties at a loss soon after buying them.
You took mortgage financing at interest rates and in amounts your rent
income could not sustain.
Etc.
>and I
>lost a SHITLOAD of money, but you obviously know something I don't - you
>have held and lost 40 pieces of land like I have - you know something in
>your ivory tower that I never found out down here working in the valley,
>please tell me so I can go tell my bankers they are WRONG when they tell
>me I am poor and broke, I need to tell them that I am RICH, because I
>have owned LAND and RENTED it. Come down out of the economics textbooks,
>come down out of your abstract conceptualizations, come down out of your
>ivory tower, I am a person sitting here broke telling you in the REAL
>WORLD owning land does not make you rich - no matter how many times you
>scream that shit at me, my REAL WORLD experience REFUTES your abstact
>THEORY.
1/3 of US households are being subsidized by their landlords? Don't
_think_ so.
>> It is that black and white.
>
>In your disconnected paradigms its that black and white, but in the REAL
>WORLD your models missed some variables - me and my friends are PROOF.
>REAL PEOPLE REAL LOSSES. Let me tell you the PROBLEMS you don't
>understand, Banks mortgages cost, service men to fix the property cost,
>property managers to manage the property cost, insurance costs, property
>taxes cost, tenants sign contracts, tear up your walls with domestic
>violence or drunken rages - have their kids and pets piss on your rugs -
>they steal your water heater or air conditioner or refrigerator - they
>move out, they do not pay you, you cant get satisfaction from a judge -
>they have left the city or the state or make too little money or the
>judge doesnt care, he just hates landlords like you and always sides with
>the thieving contract braking lying trashy drunk tenant.
1/3 of US households rent. You think all those people are drunks and
thieves and deadbeats? How was it that you managed to attract the bad
element so consistently? I know. Do you?
>Let me give you more CORRUPTION that you have not factored into your
>black and white easy as pie model - the property manager owns a few
>properties down the road from you - she goes in and tears up shit -
>punches holes in walls - telling you she has an investor to sell your
>negative cash flow property too, you cant keep tenants, she says that
>area is full of crime, you sell it at a loss to her investor, turns out
>it is her brother or sister in law - you get FUCKED.
Because you didn't check it out.
>Let me give you another one your black and white model misses Roy, the
>bank manager, and the insurance agent and property manager are all
>related, they know the tax collector too - well you come into town to buy
>some LAND cause ROY L said you can get RICH - so you go to get the land,
>the LYING tax collector appraises the property for FAR more that it will
>ever bring in a fair market - the bank mananger gives you the inflated
>loan on this false number, the insurance man sells you inflated insurance
>on this false number, see how all these LIARS are the ones making money -
>not the LAND LORD - the property mananger tells you things are broke that
>arent, but sends you a bill from her friend that owns a wall repair
>business - you pay 600 bucks for a wall that was never broke - you put a
>new fridge in there, a few months later an old fridge is there, in one
>case the property manager was trading out my GOOD NEW stuff with her old
>stuff in her personal properites, in one case it was the tenants, in
>other cases I don't know, it could have been a million different things.
Right. You don't know. And you don't see a problem with that.
>One guy is friends with the city marshall, he lets the place go to shit ,
You mean you do.
>basically tears it up in 1 week, they condem the property I lose my ass.
>
>I go to sue one tenant who lived for free for 3 months on a 12 month
>contract, it takes a year to go to court, he has died by then, sue
>another, takes almost 2 years to go to court, he has left to mexico, etc
>etc.
You should have just sold the debt to a collection agency.
>I have done it Roy, I have OWNED land, I have seen the REALITY, and
>the reality is not accurately modeled by your THEORIES.
"Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
>You go buy 40 pieces of property like I have,
Over-extend myself like a fool? Uh-uh.
>>>Many people sell land and rent - why Roy?
>>
>> Because they do not understand the economics. Or maybe they are
>> trying to time the market.
>
>Or maybe they did more than theorize like you but actually LAND LORDED
>and saw it for the bullshit it was, how many pieces of property have you
>land lorded, how does the old saying go - don't knock it til you try it -
>I tried it, and you are not LIVING IN REALITY.
??? What does it matter if I have landlored, or if you have, for that
matter? 1/3 of US households pay rent to landlords. The fraction of
businesses that rent is probably similar or even higher. Do you
really think all or even a large fraction of those landlords can be
losing money hand over fist, or even losing money at all? You are
deluding yourself.
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
>>laws have taxed it heavily, you must pay for it with your freedom in
>>some cases - assuming you don't have a crooked cop.
>
> ?? That's not a tax. The dough goes to the dealers, not the
> government.
Here is how I look at it Roy, wants and NEEDS, satisfying them is
happiness, denying them misery - economists need to look at how to
satisfy the wants and needs of the majority to maximize happiness -
Prohibition proved they were not maximizing happiness, and that is also
true in the war on DRUGS. ANd I dont know about your town, but in my old
town the sheriff took BIG PAYOFFS to look the other way. It is STUPIDITY
to try and do ACCURATE economic analysis and not include the underground
economy - that is denying REALITY. You can't make effective policy
decision without that.
>>No, I think we have both concluded slave labor can benefit some people
>>at certain times, what I object to the chinese doing is pouring acid
>>on some little girl when she doesn't keep up the pace and killing her
>>and your seeming uninterest to do anything about it.
>
> That is not the kind of problem individual boycotts can address
> effectively.
We sent people to die and shed blood on the tree of liberty when it was
negroes 150 years ago - little slant eye girl isn't worth that same
bloodshed? How can we justify one and not the other - seems hypocritical
to me.
>>Tonto made a quilt and I needed it so I took it, he was cool with that
>>because he didn't feel he owned it. He didn't NEED it, your
>>definition still lets GREED work its magic,
>
> Nope. Greed is trying to get _more_than_you_deserve_. The producer
> deserves everything he produces.
Tonto does not deserve 5000 cotton blankets when me and my homeless
buddies are freezing to death and he could save our lives with a little
resource disparity reduction.
>> maybe tonto is very good at making
>>quilts, he uses up all the cotton in the city making quilts - me and
>>my bumb buddies need a quilt, he made all the quilts and used all the
>>cotton and he only needs 1 but owns 5,000 - why should he get to keep
>>5000?
>
> He made them.
People are more important than constitutions, LAWS, gubbments, WORK,
PRODUCE, LABOR, this is where I disagree with you, Tonto did make them,
but his LABOR is not more important than HUMAN LIFE that has USE. We
have all these idols we have built up in the tower of Babel that are
coming before HUMAN LIFE and HUMAN Freedom and most HUMAN HAPPINESS -
like the founders said, life, liberty the pursuit - these idols must be
dispersed. After LIFE, after LIBERTY, after HAPPINESS, then Tonto can
OWN all the blankets he wants, but while me and my bumb friends are
freezing in the streets that is a sad thing to advocate when he doesnt
NEED 5000 blankets.
> I stand corrected. Maybe I was thinking of just federal prisoners, or
> something. Anyway, it is obviously way out of line with other
> advanced countries, and just as obviously not keeping US citizens as
> safe as the citizens of other advanced countries. US voters need to
> give their heads a shake.
Agreed.
Johnny 5
> 1/3 of US households are living in _rented_ accommodation. Do you
> really imagine all their landlords are losing money? Do you imagine
> even that _most_ are? If you do, you are deluding yourself.
I imagine fannie and freddie and lots of banks are gonna be SCREWED if
those interest rates go up too much more because I got a lot of friends
with ARM's for thier refinancing and they will not be able to service
that loan repayment if it goes up even just a little. THey will be
forced into bankruptcy and those current property values will be WIPED
AWAY. I got a lot of friends with 30K cards that still have 10K of debt
to put on visa. The day is coming, they are losing jobs, losing money,
getting poorer, paying for things with Visa or ARM refinance, not cutting
thier spending, still buying 50 dollar steak dinners becaue the FREE
money is still flowing and visa sending them new card offers everyday.
I imagine some of my friends that are still landlording are gonna find
out very soon what liquidity trap means from teh school of hard knocks
when they have mortgages they are paying on and have no tenants to pay
rent and wont be able to find buyers to take the hot potato and still
have to make mortgage payments. In rising tides we all go up, but in
lowering tides we all gonna sink with the titanic. I did it Roy, I
managed a lot of properites, the money just isn't there, too much
corruption and lack of foresight. I was a land owner, richebacher says
numbers like 10X too high property valuation - not 2x, 3x, 10x - that is
gonna be a massive deflating bubble if he is correct.
>>> Land titles aren't the only privileges.
>>
>>How do I make money in land, I read every real estate book, every
>>accounting book, every tax loophole, every rental agreement loophole,
>>I did everything in the world to maximize my profit and limit my risk
>
> No, you very obviously didn't.
I did, the crooks at my old city had a better mousetrap, blood is thicker
than water.
> You bought properties in places where you could not supervise them
> personally.
Right, big land owners have to buy big land where they can find it - I
found some here and some there.
> You bought more properties when you were in negative cash flow on the
> properties you already had.
I was good for about 20 properites - still on positive cash flow - but
then my old city started raising property taxes on many of my properties
faster than I can raise rents to keep up - went negative very quickly at
that point.
> You did not check out tenants adequately.
Only let tenants with good credit in the apartments, century 21 said they
were getting harder and harder to find, more and more people with bad
credit, I personally was the first bad mark against about 5 tenants, they
had good credit until they didn't pay me and century 21. this was 2
years ago, century 21 in that city has since told me it is getting worse
and worse to find good quality tenants. I believe them, mexico boy is
coming into town and killing the wages people used to make, companies
pulling out of the city - going to mexico or china or india.
> You did not check out property managers adequately.
There were only 3, century 21 offered to do it for 7% - the other 2
wanted 10% - but that was not the big whammy - the big whammy was the
local tax assesors office raising taxes far in excess of what I could
raise rent - that took about 14 positive cash flow properties and
basically overnight turned them NEGATIVE - OUCH.
> You bought in jurisdictions you knew were corrupt.
I didn't know that originally, but like I said, it happened in several
places and even when I moved down to tampa I am reading in the st pete
times about corrupt land deals all over this place too - I think it is a
general trend for the whole country, perhaps I am wrong.
> You sold properties at a loss soon after buying them.
>
Some properties I held for 6 - 8 years, the taxes didn't change much, but
as the town imported mexico boy, the town also lost industry, military
that used to rent got sent to the war - and you have to legally let them
out of the contract - I am all for that, they defend the country, but my
pocketbook suffered - but the town overall just seemed to get poorer, too
many bank loans for too much development of new property and rentals, so
as the job market collapsed because of mexico boy, and businesses left
because of nafta, and the war took away good renters, they were adding
unneeded supply. the town just seems to begin losing money - state
government sending less to local university - enrollment numbers went
down, college renters went down - so the assessors office started raising
taxes at rates that you couldn't raise rent - in FACT they needed to be
LOWERING property values, but they kept RAISING them, I tried to sell the
apartments at the new valuation, no one was buying, had to get out of
them, couldn't make money anymore, dont understand how the town keep
raising rates as bankruptcies and bad credit are beginning to skyrocket
all over that city, old friends of 20 and 30 years cant make payments
between their mom and pop busineses anymore and beating each other up in
the streets for non payment. Currently in a lawsuit with an old friend
myself in that town who got 8K of my money and didn't deliver the product
because on down the supply chain someone got most of the money and didn't
deliver to him and own down some more to the next guy. Just a big mess.
> You took mortgage financing at interest rates and in amounts your rent
> income could not sustain.
Originally they could, I got 8% to begin with, and was able to refinance
at 5% years later - but with the way the property taxes and service men
charges were skyrocketing, the refinancing did not do much, and then with
successively lower and lower quality tenant, more and more repairs,
theft, and robbery - well you get the picture, I tried every trick in the
book roy, but when the tide is going down, everybody drowns in the
titanic. Perhaps I picked a few of the bad markets and inflation and
property taxes and service work is not going up in many parts of the
country, but my gut tells me it is. The only way I could have made it
profitable was to be my own handyman, but I am just one geek, I cant do
the work required to service 40 properties in 3 states - had to get out,
the stress was getting too much.
> 1/3 of US households are being subsidized by their landlords? Don't
> _think_ so.
Time will tell, these areas I was in are probably more sensitive to
waning economy than richer cities, in the growing tide this made them
grow fast, but in the lowering tide we all go down, it just a matter of
time before la and san francisco and west palm feel what these middle
size and small town america cities going through right now. Maybe they
are rich enough they can absorb the small town collapses and not hurt
like the small and middle size towns.
> 1/3 of US households rent. You think all those people are drunks and
> thieves and deadbeats? How was it that you managed to attract the bad
> element so consistently? I know. Do you?
The drunks used to be fine christians that didnt miss a payment for 5
years, but when the Saft battery company got moved to mexico he lost his
factory job and had to work cutting grass, and mexico boy came in and
took his lawncare job, he started drinking, his wife left him and he
started drinking more. I tried to hit him up for more rent cause my
taxes and payments for service men going up and he punches a whole in the
wall, steals all the appliances and sets the rug on fire. Judge went to
AA with this guy, wont do much for me prosecuting him and even if he did,
guy is broke now, no credit, nothing to go after, pawned the appliances
for beer money and now sits on the bench at the corner.
> Because you didn't check it out.
Not in that particular city, I nickname it the WEB and they all CROOKS
there, no way ANYONE gonna make money there, just not possible. The GBI
investigating the city for all these missing funds that was supposed to
go to various public works projects like new heated pool for the
community and new roads and new arts center and the chief of police found
to have syphoned off 200K and have nice 150K RV he goes fishing in texas
with, accounting firm working with the YMCA syphoned off 1 million -
never found, several other businessman and city gubbment syphoning off
money - BANK OF AMERICA calls GBI in because books not lining up anymore,
takes them 5 months to trace SOME of the corruption, GBI tell me, bank of
america and the community and many others we cant lock up city hall, the
town would descend into anarchy - how does the old saying go - TOO BIG TO
FAIL. News paper when it first breaks the story names the businesses, as
months go by no updates, one small update not naming any of the people or
businesses, several months later I see people I KNOW stole 200K or 1
million walking free on the streets, still running their shops, business
as usual.
>>know, it could have been a million different things.
>
> Right. You don't know. And you don't see a problem with that.
Yes, the problem is I can't go take a gun and point at that bitches face
like the land lord of old because her brother is chief of police and if I
point a gun at her demanding my money and appliances she stole, I AM THE
ONE going to jail.
> You mean you do.
I mean I am one geek, trying to live that rich land lord dream you
talking about with 40 properties in various states and that JUST NOT
POSSIBLE cause I just one person, managing 2 or 3 properites in a small
trailer park possible, but you never make enough money that way to be
this big evil rich landlord you saying we need to tax into oblivion -
that person does not exist - that person is fantasy, that person needs
services and gubbment help that is not THERE because of CROOKS, but the
little guy in the small trailer park can work on the 3 trailers on his
own and not need service people in 3 different states.
> You should have just sold the debt to a collection agency.
I looked at that for one group of properties, they didn't want to give me
what my accountant said I could claim in losses, so the tax issue made it
more profitable or should I say the loss of less capital to take the loss
then sell the debt.
> "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
Tools, Rules, and Fools, this big powerful land owner with lots of land,
he does not exist, he is a myth like santa claus, because to exist he
needs economies of scale and depending on many people, people that are
crooks all they way down the supply chain. To make money in real estate
you have got to do all that stuff yourself, and there is only 24 hours a
day and only so much 1 man can do, this seriously limits your profit
potential and does not make you into an evil land lord.
>>You go buy 40 pieces of property like I have,
>
> Over-extend myself like a fool? Uh-uh.
Wasn't a problem until they started jacking me for taxes and I couldn't
pass it on down - it was many things happening too close together - how
would YOU manage 40 properties in 3 states? You got a private plane to
fly out everytime the water heater element break?
> matter? 1/3 of US households pay rent to landlords. The fraction of
> businesses that rent is probably similar or even higher. Do you
> really think all or even a large fraction of those landlords can be
> losing money hand over fist, or even losing money at all? You are
> deluding yourself.
I think hindsight is 20/20, and I think 1/3 of us households maybe are in
the big cities and not as sensitive to the waning economy as the cities
where I was invested - nafta and migrant populations haven't hit thier
economy so hard so fast.
http://www.hoyt.org/ - big time georgist benevolent real estate analysis
The Hoyt Group recognized the potential for REIT industry growth in 1992
and began a REIT analysis and investment program. The analysis program
resulted in the development of a REIT valuation model now known as the
Hoyt REIT Model. Since 1992, the Institute has used the evolving Hoyt
REIT Model as an important tool for investing its endowment. The results
of that analysis and investment program are shown on the following chart.
Homer Hoyt people saying they gonna make a killing over the next 3
years, they outperforming other REIT's, I am gonna eat my hat if they can
continue that kind of return between now and 2008 - everything I have
seen says the free lunch is coming to an end. I had properties since
1990, nafta hit, mexico boy hit, y2k hit, corruption hit, I don't know
how they are still making money but I dont believe it will continue for
much longer.
Les Cargill
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:10:17 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
Roy, whatever. I do not wish to play dueling
dictionaries. I've reread my posts, and I'm
perfectly content with them, as fragmentary
as they may be. It *all* needs considerable
rewrite.
This seems remakably counterproductive. I'm not
ducking the discussion, but it's just messy.
My apologies for muddying the water some - I
think those points are relevant, but there's
only so much time to commit to this - and,
frankly, I cheerfully admit to being somewhat
out-of-depth on this subject.
The point about accumulation is related to how
accumulation of wealth is not a guarantee of
cash flow - and accumulation of intangible
assets is *certainly* no guarantor of cash
flow, even for non-fraudulent corporate
entities.
>>These are simple numbers on publically available financial
>>statements. If those are just fiction, then a larger
>>problem prevails.
>
>
> They do not refer to what you claim they do. They summarize
> _accounting_entries_, not actual values.
>
>
I think what you are saying here is that simply
Google diving for numbers, then 'sheet'ing those
does not expose any quantities relevant to this
discussion. That financial statements do not
( apparently ) show me what I'd be looking for.
So what am I to do?
All potential jokes about the accounting profession aside,
is there a carefully prepared, reasonably mathematical
treatise that defines and exposes the relative quantities
related to rents in print?
Define "reasonably mathematical" as "simple differential
equations OK". I read George's text - it does not
do much for the arithmetic side of it.
I suspect this text does not exist, unless
the reader is the beneficiary of considerable previous
training, and it may be considerably more than
just one book.
<snip>
sinister
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:40f799f5...@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:40:25 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:17:59 GMT, Les Cargill
> >> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>>Does deposit insurance actually *cost* anything, over
> >>>and above administrative charges?
> >>
> >> Certainly. If it doesn't, it's not insurance.
> >
> >But banks, in general, do not fail.
>
> Actually, they fail fairly often.
>
> >There
> >have been spans of time when lots of banks
> >fail. Amortizing all those failures over all
> >time, it looks like the premium risk of deposit
> >insurance is very low.
>
> <yawn> That must be why it took $50B of taxpayers' money to pay off
> the S&L depositors....
The *total* cost of the bailout was about $125B:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/html_gen.php?entryId=76
(That's *not* including interest payments---rather, a pretty good estimate
of the NPV of the cost.)
<snip>
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:40f799f5...@news.telus.net...
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:40:25 GMT, Les Cargill
>> <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >There
>> >have been spans of time when lots of banks
>> >fail. Amortizing all those failures over all
>> >time, it looks like the premium risk of deposit
>> >insurance is very low.
>>
>> <yawn> That must be why it took $50B of taxpayers' money to pay off
>> the S&L depositors....
>
>The *total* cost of the bailout was about $125B:
>
>http://www.truthandpolitics.org/html_gen.php?entryId=76
Taxpayers thus contributing more than _four_times_ as much to the
bailout as deposit insurance.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
-- Roy L