info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Poverty
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Baxter
Mar 19, 2019, 1:07:52 PM3/19/19
to
Poverty exists NOT because we cannot feed the poor, but because we can't
satisfy the rich.
Why is it easier to believe that 150,000,000 Americans are being lazy
rather than 400 American are being greedy?
satisfy the rich.
Why is it easier to believe that 150,000,000 Americans are being lazy
rather than 400 American are being greedy?
BT
Mar 19, 2019, 3:36:27 PM3/19/19
to
This is so ignorantly stupid, but I'll make a brief reply not for your benefit for those who may believe this in general but who also know that they don't know enough about economics and will consider other views.
So tell me, Baxter - tell *us* - when Rockefeller started making loads of money, how exactly would it have benefited all those lower income people had he been retroactively vanished right about the time his oil business started to get somewhere in those early years in Cleveland, Ohio? Just how would there be a difference in their lives, to the good?
B. T.
Baxter
Mar 19, 2019, 10:48:55 PM3/19/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:082fa379-599e-4927...@googlegroups.com:
Your rambling rant has nothing to do with what I posted. Do try to read
for content and try to stick to the issue.
BTW - have you found those Alaskan fish guts yet?
news:082fa379-599e-4927...@googlegroups.com:
for content and try to stick to the issue.
BTW - have you found those Alaskan fish guts yet?
BT
Mar 20, 2019, 12:39:02 AM3/20/19
to
Baxter squished:
> Your rambling rant has nothing to do with what I posted.
BT says:
It had everything to do with the subject. A very wealthy person
like John D. Rockefeller, doing what he did for decades, cannot
be seen as being in a vacuum without having an effect on anyone else,
and therefore cannot be said to have been allowed to satisfy himself
in our system while everyone else could do nothing but look on get
poorer and poorer.
Looks like you get an "F" in this economic discussion, as usual.
But if you want to explain why Rockefeller getting richer made people
poorer and did not benefit lots of people, do try.
B. T.
> Your rambling rant has nothing to do with what I posted.
It had everything to do with the subject. A very wealthy person
like John D. Rockefeller, doing what he did for decades, cannot
be seen as being in a vacuum without having an effect on anyone else,
and therefore cannot be said to have been allowed to satisfy himself
in our system while everyone else could do nothing but look on get
poorer and poorer.
Looks like you get an "F" in this economic discussion, as usual.
But if you want to explain why Rockefeller getting richer made people
poorer and did not benefit lots of people, do try.
B. T.
William Elliot
Mar 20, 2019, 1:02:00 AM3/20/19
to
them.
Baxter
Mar 20, 2019, 10:48:10 AM3/20/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8bdf9716-dfec-4cb9-9bfa-
4f2343...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter squished:
>
>> Your rambling rant has nothing to do with what I posted.
>
>
> BT says:
>
> It had everything to do with the subject. A very wealthy person
> like John D. Rockefeller, doing what he did for decades, cannot
> be seen as being in a vacuum without having an effect on anyone else,
> and therefore cannot be said to have been allowed to satisfy himself
> in our system while everyone else could do nothing but look on get
> poorer and poorer.
When Rockefeller was managing Standard Oil he would deploy any method to
undercut a rival. He would lay veritable siege to his targets, bribing
legislators, attacking competitors in the press, buying up supplies to
strangle their operations and cutting secret deals with railroads to
nearly double their shipping costs.
Somehow, I don't think those shiny new dimes he handed out to strangers
did much to aleviate poverty.
>
> But if you want to explain why Rockefeller getting richer made people
> poorer and did not benefit lots of people, do try.
>
> B. T.
Boob Turdman believes that 150,000,000 Americans are being lazy rather
4f2343...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter squished:
>
>> Your rambling rant has nothing to do with what I posted.
>
>
> BT says:
>
> It had everything to do with the subject. A very wealthy person
> like John D. Rockefeller, doing what he did for decades, cannot
> be seen as being in a vacuum without having an effect on anyone else,
> and therefore cannot be said to have been allowed to satisfy himself
> in our system while everyone else could do nothing but look on get
> poorer and poorer.
undercut a rival. He would lay veritable siege to his targets, bribing
legislators, attacking competitors in the press, buying up supplies to
strangle their operations and cutting secret deals with railroads to
nearly double their shipping costs.
Somehow, I don't think those shiny new dimes he handed out to strangers
did much to aleviate poverty.
>
> Looks like you get an "F" in this economic discussion, as usual.
BT discussing economics is like a parrot discussing Shakespere.
> Looks like you get an "F" in this economic discussion, as usual.
>
> But if you want to explain why Rockefeller getting richer made people
> poorer and did not benefit lots of people, do try.
>
> B. T.
BT
Mar 21, 2019, 1:04:52 AM3/21/19
to
Baxter said:
> When Rockefeller was managing Standard Oil he would deploy any method to
> undercut a rival. He would lay veritable siege to his targets, bribing
> legislators....
> When Rockefeller was managing Standard Oil he would deploy any method to
> undercut a rival. He would lay veritable siege to his targets, bribing
BT says:
This is all r=irrelevant to the point I made, and to the fact that you are unable to address the point. The question was about whether or not all those millions of people would have been better off had Rockefeller not been born, and his contributions to oil as a commodity not taken place until much later and probably at a smaller scale.
Did people become poorer because Rockefeller existed?? Did their lives improve because of Rockefeller? Those are the points rather than any discussion of his business practices which had zero effect on the same points.
B. T.
Baxter
Mar 21, 2019, 10:57:14 AM3/21/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:824b0d81-ae60-4976...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter said:
>
>> When Rockefeller was managing Standard Oil he would deploy any method
>> to
>
>> undercut a rival. He would lay veritable siege to his targets,
>> bribing legislators....
>
>
> BT says:
>
> This is all r=irrelevant to the point I made,
And your "point", if you had one, was completely irrelevant to the issue I
posted.
news:824b0d81-ae60-4976...@googlegroups.com:
> Baxter said:
>
>> When Rockefeller was managing Standard Oil he would deploy any method
>> to
>
>> undercut a rival. He would lay veritable siege to his targets,
>> bribing legislators....
>
>
> BT says:
>
> This is all r=irrelevant to the point I made,
posted.
BT
Mar 21, 2019, 12:18:54 PM3/21/19
to
Baxter said:
> And your "point", if you had one, was completely irrelevant to the issue I
> posted.
BT says:
> And your "point", if you had one, was completely irrelevant to the issue I
> posted.
Your drive-by comments never address anything. I don't really care if you refuse to deal with any challenges to your initial statement so long as my pointing out that it's not worth much remains unanswered by you.
To try again, you said early on:
"Poverty exists NOT because we cannot feed the poor, but because we can't
satisfy the rich."
You failed to address that other than to bring up aspects of Rockefeller as businessman that had zero to do with what I asked about.
You therefore made your initial point, and then failed to back it up, and so lost this debate. I will not post in this one again because you have nothing to say.
B. T.
Baxter
Mar 21, 2019, 11:24:17 PM3/21/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fa2a7222-9bf4-4d6d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> To try again, you said early on:
>
> "Poverty exists NOT because we cannot feed the poor, but because we
> can't satisfy the rich."
>
> To that, I asked if those "poor people" and others would have been
> better off had Rockefeller not existed to make indoor lighting and
> then an inexpensive fuel, both of which made many good things become
> part of everyday life.
>
First - we're talking today, not the past.
But if we take abou Rockefeller, he's not the pargon you imagne:
- There were others that supplied the same products for indoor lighting
as he did. He used ruthless methods to gain a monopoly and drive them
out of business. He was hardly the inventor of his kerosene, and it was
soon replaced by electricty.
- he lived a lavish lifestyle, yet paid his workers low wages. If they
dared unionize, he simply closed the facility rather than pay higher
wages.
Given that Rockefeller is your idea of a beneficent god for the people,
you are simply not not living in this universe. Rockefeller lived lavish
at the expense of his workers.
news:fa2a7222-9bf4-4d6d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> To try again, you said early on:
>
> "Poverty exists NOT because we cannot feed the poor, but because we
> can't satisfy the rich."
>
> To that, I asked if those "poor people" and others would have been
> better off had Rockefeller not existed to make indoor lighting and
> then an inexpensive fuel, both of which made many good things become
> part of everyday life.
>
But if we take abou Rockefeller, he's not the pargon you imagne:
- There were others that supplied the same products for indoor lighting
as he did. He used ruthless methods to gain a monopoly and drive them
out of business. He was hardly the inventor of his kerosene, and it was
soon replaced by electricty.
- he lived a lavish lifestyle, yet paid his workers low wages. If they
dared unionize, he simply closed the facility rather than pay higher
wages.
Given that Rockefeller is your idea of a beneficent god for the people,
you are simply not not living in this universe. Rockefeller lived lavish
at the expense of his workers.
BT
Mar 22, 2019, 12:27:41 AM3/22/19
to
Finally, Baxter might be participating:
> There were others that supplied the same products for indoor lighting
> as he did. He was hardly the inventor of his kerosene
BT says:
No one ever said he invented it. What he did was bring efficiency to
its production and distribution that others could only eventually copy.
It became a very inexpensive product used for decades and people were
better off for this. Other producers couldn't match his ability to sell at the lowest prices which would have meant fewer people using it and benefitting.
Baxter:
> and it was soon replaced by electricty.
BT:
So what. That's normal in places that are not highly controlled by the State which would have too many disincentives for improvements. Besides, oil switched to use in combustion engines which again helped make people's lives better and kept us centuries ahead of the rest of the world when it came to lifestyle, comfort, etc.
Baxter:
> Given that Rockefeller is your idea of a beneficent god for the people
BT:
Never said he was my idea of "a beneficent god" for the people (you are addicted to lying through your yellow, crooked teeth, aren't you?), and neither Rockefeller not anyone else has to be good in order to benefit others.
Baxter:
> Rockefeller lived lavish at the expense of his workers.
BT says:
Again, that's too misleading. None of them had to work for him. So he made money. So what. It's been reported that George Clooney made over $200 Million in 2017 - when will you point out that loads of people involved in the production consumption of his product (which leads to him getting paid) get little, or in some cases (such as ushers who no longer exist in many theaters) don't work at all?
Once again you failed to point out how people would have been better without Rockefeller existing to do what he did.
B. T.
> There were others that supplied the same products for indoor lighting
BT says:
No one ever said he invented it. What he did was bring efficiency to
its production and distribution that others could only eventually copy.
It became a very inexpensive product used for decades and people were
better off for this. Other producers couldn't match his ability to sell at the lowest prices which would have meant fewer people using it and benefitting.
Baxter:
> and it was soon replaced by electricty.
So what. That's normal in places that are not highly controlled by the State which would have too many disincentives for improvements. Besides, oil switched to use in combustion engines which again helped make people's lives better and kept us centuries ahead of the rest of the world when it came to lifestyle, comfort, etc.
Baxter:
> Given that Rockefeller is your idea of a beneficent god for the people
Never said he was my idea of "a beneficent god" for the people (you are addicted to lying through your yellow, crooked teeth, aren't you?), and neither Rockefeller not anyone else has to be good in order to benefit others.
Baxter:
> Rockefeller lived lavish at the expense of his workers.
Again, that's too misleading. None of them had to work for him. So he made money. So what. It's been reported that George Clooney made over $200 Million in 2017 - when will you point out that loads of people involved in the production consumption of his product (which leads to him getting paid) get little, or in some cases (such as ushers who no longer exist in many theaters) don't work at all?
Once again you failed to point out how people would have been better without Rockefeller existing to do what he did.
B. T.
Baxter
Mar 22, 2019, 10:50:37 AM3/22/19
to
BT <robert.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:686026c7-8482-4185...@googlegroups.com:
> Finally, Baxter might be participating:
>
Boob Turdman posts revisionist history in an attempt to distract from the
issue I posted.
news:686026c7-8482-4185...@googlegroups.com:
> Finally, Baxter might be participating:
>
issue I posted.
0 new messages