Highest proportion ever: wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005
Marco
in Share For Wealthiest Americans
By GREG IP
Wall Street Journal
October 12, 2007; Page A2
The richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar
record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and
underlining the divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling
anxiety among American workers.
The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005,
according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up
sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set
in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.
· Widening Gap: The wealthiest Americans' share of national income
has hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s
bull market, and highlighting the divergence of economic fortunes
blamed for fueling anxiety among American workers.
· Behind the Numbers: Scholars attribute rising inequality to several
factors, including technological change that favors those with more
skills, and globalization and advances in communications that enlarge
the rewards available to "superstar" performers whether in business,
sports or entertainment.
· Political Fallout: The data pose a potential challenge for
President Bush and the Republican presidential field. They have sought
to play up the strength of the economy and low unemployment, and the
role of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in both. Democrats may use the data to
exploit middle-class angst about stagnant wages.
The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and
a bit less than their 13% share in 2000.
The IRS data, based on a large sample of tax returns, are for
"adjusted gross income," which is income after some deductions, such
as for alimony and contributions to individual retirement accounts.
While dated, many scholars prefer it to timelier data from other
agencies because it provides details of the very richest -- for
example, the top 0.1% and the top 1%, not just the top 10% -- and
includes capital gains, an important, though volatile, source of
income for the affluent.
The IRS data go back only to 1986, but academic research suggests the
rich last had this high a share of total income in the 1920s.
Scholars attribute rising inequality to several factors, including
technological change that favors those with more skills, and
globalization and advances in communications that enlarge the rewards
available to "superstar" performers whether in business, sports or
entertainment.
[Unequal]
In an interview yesterday with The Wall Street Journal, President Bush
said, "First of all, our society has had income inequality for a long
time. Secondly, skills gaps yield income gaps. And what needs to be
done about the inequality of income is to make sure people have got
good education, starting with young kids. That's why No Child Left
Behind is such an important component of making sure that America is
competitive in the 21st century." (See article1.)
Jason Furman, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and an adviser to
Democratic politicians, said: "We've had a 30-year trend of increasing
inequality. There was an artificial reduction in that trend following
the bursting of the stock-market bubble in 2000."
The IRS data don't identify the source of increased income for the
affluent, but the boom on Wall Street has likely played a part, just
as the last stock boom fueled the late-1990s surge. Until this summer,
soaring stock prices and buoyant credit markets had produced
spectacular payouts for private-equity and hedge-fund managers, and
investment bankers.
One study by University of Chicago academics Steven Kaplan and Joshua
Rauh concludes that in 2004 there were more than twice as many such
Wall Street professionals in the top 0.5% of all earners as there are
executives from nonfinancial companies.
Mr. Rauh said "it's hard to escape the notion" that the rising share
of income going to the very richest is, in part, "a Wall Street,
financial industry-based story." The study shows that the highest-
earning hedge-fund manager earned double in 2005 what the top earner
made in 2003, and top 25 hedge-fund managers earned more in 2004 than
the chief executives of all the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-
stock index, combined. It also shows profits per equity partner at the
top 100 law firms doubling between 1994 and 2004, to over $1 million
in 2004 dollars.
The data highlight the political challenge facing Mr. Bush and the
Republican contenders for president. They have sought to play up the
strength of the economy since 2003 and low unemployment, and the role
of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in both. But many Americans think the economy
is in or near a recession. The IRS data show that the median tax
filer's income -- half earn less than the median, half earn more --
fell 2% between 2000 and 2005 when adjusted for inflation, to $30,881.
At the same time, the income level for the tax filer just inside the
top 1% grew 3%, to $364,657.
Democrats, on the other hand, have sought to exploit angst about
stagnant middle-class wages and eroding benefits in showdowns with Mr.
Bush over issues such as health insurance and trade.
Beladi Nasralla
> ... 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005
I would say: good for them ! If only everyone did like they did, than
we would not have the mass whinging (evident in part at s.r.c.).
Straydog
I got the Forbes "400 richest people in America" about a week ago and by
their estimates, these richest became more than 20-25% richer in just one
year than the year before. However, the more important issue is to what
extent this enrichment process causes a simultaneous impoverishment of the
underclass and the article below reports this trend which has been going
on for at least 2-3 decades. Of course it needs to be understood that we
really don't know how wealthy the wealthy really are; I think I would be
justifiably suspicious that a majority do all in their power to exploit
loopholes, tax dodges, tax shelters, and money-hiding options in their own
self interest. The most sad aspect of all of this is that most people do n
ot appreciate that concentration of wealth represents a concentration of
power (read: Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy" for a discussion).
===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====
Richard Eich
>
> I got the Forbes "400 richest people in America" about a week ago and by
> their estimates, these richest became more than 20-25% richer in just one
> year than the year before.
It isn't an accident, either.
> However, the more important issue is to what
> extent this enrichment process causes a simultaneous impoverishment of the
> underclass and the article below reports this trend which has been going
> on for at least 2-3 decades.
It isn't an accident, either.
> Of course it needs to be understood that we
> really don't know how wealthy the wealthy really are; I think I would be
> justifiably suspicious that a majority do all in their power to exploit
> loopholes, tax dodges, tax shelters, and money-hiding options in their own
> self interest. The most sad aspect of all of this is that most people do n
> ot appreciate that concentration of wealth represents a concentration of
> power (read: Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy" for a discussion).
Power. Bingo.
Russell
snip
I've just been reading an interesting book, _Critical Mass: How One
Thing Leads to Another_ by Philip Ball. It covers a lot of ground
including some things that I've run across before. One of those is
that research indicates a capitalist economy will produce a power
law income distribution, and the more inequitable that distribution
is, the more unstable the economy becomes.
Cheers,
Russell
Marco
Related to this is _The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the
Top Get So Much More Than the Rest of Us_ by Robert H. Frank, Philip
J. Cook
They cover how various forces converge for a few to gain power and
keep gaining power. Not only do they cover what happens in finance,
they actually discuss the careers of scientists, where being in the
right lab leads to more grants, career advancement, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Society-Much-More-Than/dp/0140259953/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-2576848-5883640?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192207302&sr=8-1
Marco
Russell
>
> Marco- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks. Frank is on the faculty here, and I've read another of
his books. Maybe I'll check out this one. He is one of the
economists whose work I respect.
Cheers,
Russell
Straydog
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Marco wrote:
I think it was yesterday's or day before's WSJ, they had a puff piece on
Ann Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and some BFD blowhard promoter who got on the
bully-pulpet and blew his horn about all this self-justifying selfishness
and listed some other executive-I-deserve-all-I-can-get types and for a
few seconds I was thinking about writing an LTE about all these guys who
secretly wish they could become robber-barron "Roman emperors" and justify
money-harvesting by any and all means available to them, whether legal,
moral, or ethical, and see if the censors would let it into print.
However, I'll also say that there are a lot of WSJ readers who are moral
and ethical because there is a fair bit of protest LTEs that do get into
print. So, if we get a wave of this in the next couple of days, I'll let
y'all know about it.
> Marco
>
>
Robert Miller
Another question. How many Democrat millionaires in the Congress compared
to millionaire Republicans?
"Richard Eich" <richar...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.21793f87b...@news.verizon.net...
Straydog
See below....
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
> What percentage of the total tax bill is paid by this same 1% of Americans?
>
> Another question. How many Democrat millionaires in the Congress compared
> to millionaire Republicans?
I don't follow a lot of statistics like that but let me offer you what I
inserted below (which I previously posted and is relevant to the issue):
This is a review of the book:
"Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign To Rig Our Tax System To
Benefit The Super Rich--And Cheat Everybody Else."
By: David Cay Johnson (Pulitzer Prize winning investigative NYT
reporter).ISBN 1-59184-019-8, c 2003, a Penguin Book, 338 pp incl.
Index.
This book does an outstanding job of explaining how seriously out
of control the problem of tax evasion has become, and how this is
making a very small fraction of the population very rich and making the
rest of us poorer. The author explains in simple but complete language
how all the tax scams work, how the tricks are used, and who benefits
and who suffers as a result of these schemes. Layered trusts exploit
loopholes in tax laws, expensive legal opinion letters from lawyers are
used as "get-out-of-jail" cards, and fancy Enron-type operations cause
small amounts of money to be converted into large amounts of tax
losses, or deferred compensation. Examples are all over the spectrum
but lead to, for example, $500 million dollar business deals that incur
$200-300 million in tax liability which, with the proper hoodwinking,
turn into tax liabilities of just $ thousands to millions. "Inversions"
which involve moving corporate headquarters to a foreign country from
the USA cost $billions in tax money to be lost by our government.
Partnerships that involve an offshore entity end up giving large profits
but totally tax-free. Many examples, too numerous to quote, show how
executives cheat their employees, lower compensation, cut benefits,
and have different and more lucrative benefit plans for themselves. The
book explains in substantial detail the operations of what is called "the
political donor class"--the rich who make significant donations to all
manner of politicians who, in turn, intercede in all manner of ways to
reduce or have the effects of reducing taxation and/or investigation of
tax evasion by the rich. The book showed how the tax system is geared
to selectively benefit the rich. Figures are given which show that 25 to
75% of tax evading tax returns that involve complex tax evasion
strategies are either never selected for audit, never audited, and if
audited are rarely prosecuted for tax evasion. Those legal opinion
letters, which can be as short as one page or as long as 50 pages are
sold to rich people as "insurance" against audits and prosecution and
cost up to $50,000-$1,000,000, are recycled and resold by the tax
lawyers to other clients with only minor changes in details to fit the
particular client's situation. Nice easy cash for those lawyers. Easy
"get-out-of-jail" card for the clients. Enron was discussed. Abusive tax
shelters were discussed.
So, why isn't the IRS--which most people either hate or fear--doing
something about this? The IRS, besides being limited by its own
bureaucracy, just does not have the budget and staff to do the audits
and prosecute tax evaders. If the client has enough clout, then "orders"
come from above to "lay off" that client. Many examples were given
and names named.
Despite all of the bad news, there were a few bright spots. Yes,
lightning bolts of justice did fall on the heads of a few tax evaders. The
author, and maybe others too, wrote clear newspaper articles (in the
NY Times, and others) which exposed the tax scams and these articles
were read by people with enough power and influence to close
loopholes and prosecute. Some scams were disallowed and money had
to be--after all--ponied up.
An early part of the book made reference to landmark studies by two
guys, Picketty and Saez (see at: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez
where you will get re-directed and find a large list of scholarly papers)
that show that the rich in the USA have become vastly richer in the last
10-20 years. Besides all of the other schemes (LBOs, M&A deals,
manipulations, etc), a significant part of this "redistribution" of wealth
from the poor to the rich is also due to all this tax evasion and
machinations by which significant amounts of money can be made to
appear almost out of nothing. The Picketty and Saez research has been
widely disucssed in diverse publications (I've seen articles now in The
Economist, Business Week, and the WSJ) and the general notion of the
rich becoming vastly richer in recent years has been found by other
studies. It is particularly disturbing when it takes place at the same time
that US industry and well-paying jobs are being destroyed by
excessively greedy-selfish CEOs and other rich people who see no
other purpose in life than enriching themselves at the expense of
everyone else.
//////////////////////////////////////
rick++
digressions on this in his new book "Conscience of a Liberal".
Hes touring bookstores now, so you might catch him live or
taped on CSPAN-2.
Robert Miller
"Straydog" <a...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix2.panix.com...
See below....
No Shit!
It may seem to you that I'm playing both sides of the issue, perhaps I am,
but from two different levels.
Another very good book by William Benson "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS"
describes who the 16th Amendment written for the benifit of, and how they
would benifit. From the Income Tax Code.
Read both volumes I & II. I describes the ratification process with all
it's errors.
II describes the history of the Income Tax in America and the players
involved
including Philander Knox and who his Clients were before he became Sec. of
State
and fraudulently certified the amendment as ratified.
Many will be surprised to know that there are more wealthy Democrats in the
Congress
than Republican, and more of those Democrats inherited their money. More of
the
Republicans were successful in their careers before going into politics.
Like Ron Paul
who was a Medical Doctor.
Straydog
Robert, I deleted all old material in the interests of cutting down space
occupied by the post. My comment is below yours...
Well, that is all very interesting. Like I said, I don't follow a large
fraction of all the inequities, injustices, conivings & schemings that go
on to keep power and wealth concentrated in the hands of the few (while
the rest of us end up at some level of groveling). I have spent some
years, recently, reading history, and if there is any common phenomenon
then it is how this power/wealth was always, as far back as recorded
history goes, concentrated in the hands of the few and by themselves for
themselves, and at the expense of everyone else farther down the pecking
order.
tsk, tsk.
Straydog
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:36:39 -0400, Straydog <a...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, that is all very interesting. Like I said, I don't follow a large
>> fraction of all the inequities, injustices, conivings & schemings that go
>> on to keep power and wealth concentrated in the hands of the few (while
>> the rest of us end up at some level of groveling). I have spent some
>> years, recently, reading history, and if there is any common phenomenon
>> then it is how this power/wealth was always, as far back as recorded
>> history goes, concentrated in the hands of the few and by themselves for
>> themselves, and at the expense of everyone else farther down the pecking
>> order.
>>
>> tsk, tsk.
>
>
> And law and regulation, taxation and redistribution are NECESSARY to
> keep it from running amuck into event like the French Revolution. ;->
Hah! I can think of a few, too. Who was is ceaucescu, in Romania, when the
Soviet Empire fell, the people charged into the palace and dragged him out
and shot him or whatever right on the spot.
Generally, I think we should avoid violent physical revolutions.
Lots of people get hurt, killed. Lots of destruction. Lots of disorder.
> That should set Robert off for a while.
Buuut, how could we do something about all those crook CEOs, war monger
politicians, power broker parasites, and all their "fellow travelers"?
Robert Miller
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:36:39 -0400, Straydog <a...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, that is all very interesting. Like I said, I don't follow a large
>>> fraction of all the inequities, injustices, conivings & schemings that
>>> go
>>> on to keep power and wealth concentrated in the hands of the few (while
>>> the rest of us end up at some level of groveling). I have spent some
>>> years, recently, reading history, and if there is any common phenomenon
>>> then it is how this power/wealth was always, as far back as recorded
>>> history goes, concentrated in the hands of the few and by themselves for
>>> themselves, and at the expense of everyone else farther down the pecking
>>> order.
>>>
>>> tsk, tsk.
>>
>>
>> And law and regulation, taxation and redistribution are NECESSARY to
>> keep it from running amuck into event like the French Revolution. ;->
>
> Hah! I can think of a few, too. Who was is ceaucescu, in Romania, when the
> Soviet Empire fell, the people charged into the palace and dragged him out
> and shot him or whatever right on the spot.
>
> Generally, I think we should avoid violent physical revolutions. Lots of
> people get hurt, killed. Lots of destruction. Lots of disorder.
>
stolen. Including the American Revolution. Interesting that very few
people
know who actually raised the Continental Army or even under who's flag they
fought. Well for the first 6 months anyway. Should I give it all away in
the first
post and seem fool? Or let it out a little at a time to be digested and
contemplated?
>> That should set Robert off for a while.
>
> Buuut, how could we do something about all those crook CEOs, war monger
> politicians, power broker parasites, and all their "fellow travelers"?
>
If you are lost you have to understand where you are, and how you got there,
before
you can find your way back to where you want to be.
The story of where America is today started in 1402 when the King of England
chartered one of the first multi-national corporations, and gave it the 13
Colonies as
it's trading monopoly. With the authority to raise armies and appoint
Judges in
order to protect it's monopoly.
This is an important fact that describes the starting point. If it can be
rebutted, I'd
like to see it. If I give the whole story away at one time the
intellectually lazy will
attack it simply because they did not learn it in their history class.
>
>
>
>
Vid...@tcq.net
the people that preach against violence do it for a reason. they are
those 2% or so that have soaked up everything that ain't nailed down,
and right now they are pulling out the nails. they know that what they
are doing will create a state of violence once the gullible catch on.
so the free market lunatics that got hold of america have preached
against violence because once the illusion has been removed from the
face of the naive, all hell breaks loose, just as it did in america
when it was a colony. and what has happened thru out history in every
country that comes under the feverish grip of conservatism. greed
simply will destroy every country they touch. so they live in constant
fear, and try to brainwash the peasants.
Robert Miller
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:1194015454.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
People that really understand that violence only begats more violence,
and that one person can not damage another without damaging their own
soul.
> those 2% or so that have soaked up everything that ain't nailed down,
> and right now they are pulling out the nails. they know that what they
> are doing will create a state of violence once the gullible catch on.
> so the free market lunatics
We are not under a free market economy. The free market is one end
of an extreme of commerce, and at the other extreme end is a fully
controlled economy. Of the two the free market is the most efficient at
generating wealth, the other is the most efficient at generating poverty.
The American economy is both styles at war with each other, but the
statists are the ones with the most influence and put their weight against a
real free market, and towards monopolies or a controlled market by and for
the benifit of the monopolist's.
that got hold of america have preached
> against violence because once the illusion has been removed from the
> face of the naive, all hell breaks loose, just as it did in america
> when it was a colony. and what has happened thru out history in every
> country that comes under the feverish grip of conservatism. greed
> simply will destroy every country they touch. so they live in constant
> fear, and try to brainwash the peasants.
conservatism simply means resists change. People use the word and do
not understand there are many forms of conservaitism, so they lump them
all together. It is not uncommon to have constitutional conservatives as
social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
I'd guess I've just lost you haven't I?
>
Straydog
I have ignored too much of the early history of my own country (except
for the fact that in US history we've had about as many robber-barrons
as anyone else) but I'm also aware of some significant historical
controversies.
Well for the first 6 months anyway. Should I give it all away in
> the first
> post and seem fool? Or let it out a little at a time to be digested and
> contemplated?
Oh, please proceed in any way you see fit. I might learn something. I'll
find out more about your agenda.
>
>>> That should set Robert off for a while.
>
>
>>
>> Buuut, how could we do something about all those crook CEOs, war monger
>> politicians, power broker parasites, and all their "fellow travelers"?
>>
>
> If you are lost
We are all lost.
> you have to understand where you are,
All self-perceptions are a matter of personal preferences and biases.
> and how you got there,
Less by my own chosing than by luck and forces at work generally beyond my
control.
> before
> you can find your way back to where you want to be.
Only overlings have a chance to get where they want to be; most underlings
get trickle-down, crumbs, and dry bones (if they are lucky).
> The story of where America is today started in 1402 when the King of England
> chartered one of the first multi-national corporations, and gave it the 13
> Colonies as
> it's trading monopoly.
Is that 1402 I see written up there? 90 years before Columbus? Did you
mean the 13 colonies that couldn't have existed before America was
discovered? Are you sure it is appropriate to call them corporations (not
different from today's corporations?).
With the authority to raise armies and appoint
> Judges in
> order to protect it's monopoly.
>
> This is an important fact that describes the starting point. If it can be
> rebutted, I'd
> like to see it. If I give the whole story away at one time the
> intellectually lazy will
> attack it simply because they did not learn it in their history class.
OK, Here is my "update" on part of the whole lot that I didn't learn in my
history class...
----insertable file below-------
Important stuff you probably didn't know, and an important book.
title: "Lies My Teacher Told Me--Everything Your American History
Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen (1995, The New Press, 372 pp
incl index).
The author spent several years reviewing twelve popular American
History books and found absolutely gross lies and
misrepresentations. The reference list is 50 pages long, citing
primary and secondary sources for the _actual_ historical facts.
Do you know who Helen Keller is? Did you know she was a flaming
socialist? Here is a quote, given on page 24:
"I had once believed that we were all masters of our fate--that we
could mould our lives into any form we pleased...I had overcome
deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy, and I supposed
that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiantly
into life's struggle. But as I went more and more about the country
I learned that I had spoken with assurance on a subject I knew
little about. I forgot that I owed my success partly to the
advantages of my birth and environment....Now, however, I learned
that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of
everyone [ref 38, ch 1]"
The author of the book made this comment about the above quote:
"Textbooks don't want to touch this idea. 'There are three great
taboos in textbook publishing,' an editor at one of the biggest
houses told me, 'sex, religion, and social class.'...The notion
that opportunity might be unequal in America, that not everyone has
'the power to rise in the world.' is anathema to textbook authors."
Chapter 2 is about Christopher Columbus. You know who he is. What
you probably don't know is that he was also a very very NOT nice
guy. You would have to read the chapter. Most of it squares with
what Will Durant also said about CC: he was not a nice guy.
However, in the textbooks he is painted up as a national hero.
And, if you read Gavin Menzies' book "1421", you will get the story
that CC and his brother forged a map that they used to help sell
the idea to the queen to fund a sea-going trip going West.
Chapter 3 (starting at page 67) is about the first thanksgiving in
the USA (you know, the pilgrims and the indians, sharing a feast).
Well, it didn't happen. What did happen was complicated and beyond
the scope of this essay.
Also, it appears that our ancestors were really not nice guys,
either. Here is a quote from page 81:
"Historians could hardly tout Virginia as moral in intent; in the
words of the first history of Virginia written by a Virginian: 'The
cheif Design of all Parties concern'd was to fetch away the
Treasure from thence, aiming more at sudden Gain, than to form any
regular Colony.[ref 56, ch 3]' In 1623 the British indulged in the
first use of chemical warfare in the colonies when negotiating a
treaty with the tribes near the Potomac River, headed by Chiskiack.
The British offered a toast 'symbolizing eternal friendship,'
whereupon the cheif, his family, advisors, and two hundred
followers dropped dead of poison [ref 57, ch 3].' Besides the early
Virginians engaged in bickering, sloth, even cannibalism. The spent
their early days digging random holes in the ground, haplesly
looking for gold instead of planting crops. Soon they were starving
and diffing up putrid Indian corpses to eat or renting themselves
out to Indian families as servants--hardly the heroic founders that
a great nation reuires [ref 58, ch 3]."
Do you know who Squanto is? The story is fantastik and complicated;
maybe you will read for yourself one day. He crossed the Atlantic
six times in the early 1600s.
Well, we white guys were not all bad. Here is a quick sketch
(quoted from page 88) of the author speaking again:
"I have focused here on untoward detail only because our histories
have suppressed everything awkward for so long. The Pilgrims'
courage in setting forth in the late fall to make their way on a
continent new to them remains unsurpassed. In their first year the
Pilgrims, like the Indians, suffered from diseases, including
scurvy and pneumonia; half of them died [I recall reading that
during the sailing about half of passengers died during the trip,
too]. It was not immoral of the Pilgrims to have taken over
Patuxet. They did not cause the plague and were as baffled as to
its origin as the stricken Indian villagers. Massasoit was happy
that the Pilgrims were using the bay, for the Patuxet, being dead,
had no more need for the site. Pilgrim-Indian relations started
reasonably positively. Plymouth, unlike many other colonies,
usually paid the Indians for the land it took. In some instances
Europeans settled in Indian towns because Indians had _invited_
them, as protection against anotehr tribe or a nearby competing
European power [ref 79, ch 3]. In sum, U.S. history is no more
violent and oppressive than the history of England, Russia,
Indonesia, or Burundi--but neither is it exceptionally less
violent."
Chap 4: all about Indian-European relations. The author starts the
chapter like this: "Historically, American Indians have been the
most lied-about subset of our population." Native Americans,
interestingly, had a surprising amount of advanced "technology"
although one would not think as such by looking at their clothing
and living methods. You have to read this stuff to appreciate what
they could do.
page 96 - Here is a piece of insightful observations:
"Tribes that were closest to the Europeans got guns first, guns
that could be trained on interior peoples who had not yet acquired
any. Suddenly some nations had a great military advantage over
others. Native nations had engaged in conflict before Europeans
came, of course. Tribes rarely fought to the finish, however. Some
tribes did not want to take over the lands belonging to other
nations, partly because each had its own sacred sites. For a nation
to exterminate its neighbors was difficult anyway, since all
enjoyed the same level of military technology. Now all this
changed. European powers deliberately increased Indian warfare by
playing one nation off against the other. The Spanish, for example,
used a divide-and-conquor strategy to defeat the Aztecs in Mexico.
In Scotland and Ireland, the English had played tribes against one
another to extend British rule. Now they did the same in North
America [ref 24].'
page 101:
"The historian Gary Nash tells us that interculturation took place
from the start in Virginia, 'facilitated by the fact that some
Indians lived among the English as day laborers, while a number of
settlers fled to Indian villages rather than endure the rigors of
life among the autocratic English [ref 40].' Indeed, many white and
black newcomers chose to live an Indian lifestyle. In his _Letters
from an American Farmer_, Michel Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur
wrote, 'There must be in the Indians' social bond something
singularly captivating, and far superior to be boasted of among us;
for thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of
even one of those Aborigines having from choice become
Europeans.[ref 41]' Crevecoeur overstated his case: as we know from
Squanto's example, soem Natives chose to live among whites from the
beginning. The migration was mostly the other way, however. As
Benjamin Franklin put it, 'No European who has tasted Savage Life
can afterwards bear to live in our societies [ref 42].'"
Around page 103-104 is considerable discussion that in Indian life,
there was more democracy than in the life of the settlers.
Page 105:
"Historians have known for centuries that Indians of the Americas
domesticated more than half of the food crops now grown around the
world."
Page 118:
"We also have to admit that Adolf Hitler displayed more knowledge
of how we treated Native Americans than American high schoolers who
rely on their textbooks. Hiterl admired our concentration camps for
Indians in the west' and often praised to this inner circle the
efficiency of America's extermination--by starvation and uneven
combat; as he model for his extermination of Jews and Gypsies [ref
92]"
Some Indians became quite wealthy and lived like whites. Page 124
shows a fairly large southern colonial house (I would guess 1600
SF, two story, four columns in front extending to the second floor)
owned, in 1825, by an Indian by the name of Joseph Vann (from the
caption on the figure). The local whites didn't like this and so
they, with the help of the sheriff, took the house away from the
Indian.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal, respectively, with the "invisibility" of
racism in American history textbooks and the "invisibility" of
anti-racism, too, in these books. I simply can't do justice to this
important subject and can only implore anyone reading this to, by
himself or herself, do some research on one's own to become
enlightened. The story is also very ugly, too. The only thing I
found strange was no mention at all of the Underground Railway.
Chapter 7 is about politics. "The land of opportunity" is the
title. Only in fact it is not. The progression of the development
of wealth among only a small subset of the population is the fact.
All well documented with references and a complex story with a
large amount of detail. From page 204: "By 1910 the top 1 percent
of the [US] population received more than a third of all personal
income, while the bottom got less than one-eigth [ref 30]."
Chapter 8 is about "Big Brother" the Federal Government. Lots of
good poop here. page 211: "Since at least the 1920s, textbook
authors have claimed that the United States is more generous than
any other nation in the world in providing foreign aid [ref 10].
The myth was untrue then; it is likewise untrue now. Today at least
a dozen European and Arab nations devote much larger proportions of
their gross domestic product...or total government expenditures to
foreign aid thatn does the United States [ref 11]." The rest of the
chapter provides numerous examples of US-robber-barron-bullying of
countries to the south of us, including actions by our CIA, and of
how our FBI harrassed many people in the USA
Chapter nine is mostly about the Viet Nam war. Big mistake.
The books ends with a very deep and complex analysis of the US
"mood" and why history is taught with lies. Here is a key quote
(page 268):
"David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot tell us when this all started:
between 1890 and 1920 businessmen came to have by far a greater
impact on public education than any other occupational group or
stratum [ref 18]. Some writers on education even conclude that
upper-class control makes real improvement impossible. In a
critique of educational reform intitiatives, Henry M. Levin stated,
'The educational system will always be applied toward serving the
role of cultural transmission and preserving the status quo [ref
19].' 'The public schools we have today are what the powerful and
the considerable have made of them,' wrote Walter Karp. 'They will
not be redeemed by trifling reforms.'[ref 20]"
The book ends on a very troubling notion.
Straydog
All through history the _predominant_ form of control has included brutal
repression, imprisonment without trials, networks of spys, state-supported
terrorism, and the violence and injustices continue.
>
>> those 2% or so that have soaked up everything that ain't nailed down,
>> and right now they are pulling out the nails. they know that what they
>> are doing will create a state of violence once the gullible catch on.
>> so the free market lunatics
>
> We are not under a free market economy.
No kidding! Tentatively I'd call it the "robber-barron economy."
The free market is one end
> of an extreme of commerce, and at the other extreme end is a fully
> controlled economy.
They don't exist either. There has always been the black market,
corruption, clever lawbreaking, etc.
> Of the two the free market is the most efficient at
> generating wealth,
Nah, nah, nah..... from the beginnings of recorded history, kings and
emperors efficiently acquired tribute and taxes (tons of gold and silver
that would make Fort Knox look small).
After that, look at the nobles and landlords going back to ancient times.
After than, look at the monopolists that also went back to ancient times
and even got charters from the kings.
And, while you're at it, look at the Christian church in Europe and the
amount of land that ended up under its control, adding up the likes of
20-30% of all the land in Germany, France, etc.
> the other is the most efficient at generating poverty.
All depends on how you define wealth.
> The American economy is both styles at war with each other, but the
> statists are the ones with the most influence and put their weight against a
> real free market, and towards monopolies or a controlled market by and for
> the benifit of the monopolist's.
Dont forget the price-fixers (eg. Archer-Daniels, Ucars, etc) and
fraudsters (LBO-RJR-Nabiscos, Enron, Andersen, stock options backdating,
and many others, etc)
> that got hold of america have preached
>> against violence because once the illusion has been removed from the
>> face of the naive, all hell breaks loose, just as it did in america
>> when it was a colony. and what has happened thru out history in every
>> country that comes under the feverish grip of conservatism. greed
>> simply will destroy every country they touch. so they live in constant
>> fear, and try to brainwash the peasants.
>
> conservatism simply means resists change.
In Alice-in-Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, the Queen of
Hearts(?) (I need to check this) said "I can use a word any way I want"
> People use the word and do
> not understand there are many forms of conservaitism, so they lump them
> all together.
You can say the same thing about the word: freedom.
> It is not uncommon to have constitutional conservatives as
> social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
>
> I'd guess I've just lost you haven't I?
You can avoid more problems if you start with the question: who is getting
rich right now, and who is getting poor, simultaneously, with who is
getting rich.
You're welcome to tell me you don't understand that question.
>
>
>
Robert Miller
For those who have faith in the Creator, but since this is not a religious
discussion. I'll only quote the last 5 commandments for good clean
living one person to another. Is the gold standard of a civil society.
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not
covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female
servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your
neighbor's.'
But I digress.
>
>> and how you got there,
>
> Less by my own chosing than by luck and forces at work generally beyond my
> control.
>
>> before
>> you can find your way back to where you want to be.
>
> Only overlings have a chance to get where they want to be; most underlings
> get trickle-down, crumbs, and dry bones (if they are lucky).
>
If you don't know where you are or how you got there, you are still walking
in the dark
>> The story of where America is today started in 1402 when the King of
>> England
>> chartered one of the first multi-national corporations, and gave it the
>> 13
>> Colonies as
>> it's trading monopoly.
>
> Is that 1402 I see written up there? 90 years before Columbus? Did you
> mean the 13 colonies that couldn't have existed before America was
> discovered? Are you sure it is appropriate to call them corporations (not
> different from today's corporations?).
>
In 1402 the King of England chartered the East India Trading Company
> With the authority to raise armies and appoint
>> Judges in
>> order to protect it's monopoly.
>>
>> This is an important fact that describes the starting point. If it can
>> be
>> rebutted, I'd
>> like to see it. If I give the whole story away at one time the
>> intellectually lazy will
>> attack it simply because they did not learn it in their history class.
>
Sounds like a very good and interesting book and a great topic for another
thread.
We all were taught that the Continental Army was raised by the Congress,
but the flag above G. Washington's HQ for the first 6 months was the East
India Company's Ensign. 13 Red & White stripes with a familiar blue field.
Except the Cross of King George was in the Blue field.
Nobody funds a revolution without getting favorable terms, so what did the
East India Company get? They got the privilege of keeping the Judicial
system they set up in 1620. For the purpose of protecting their monopoly.
One of the most important factors in the legal system was the lawyers who
had titles of Nobility in England or Esquire still evidenced today. The
State
BAR Associations are chartered by the American BAR Assoc. which is
Chartered by the International BAR Assoc. and was chartered by the King
of England and headquartered in London.
The U.S. Constitution forbids titles of Nobility, but prescribes no penalty
for them. So the "Titles of Nobility Amendment was set to correct that in
the law. Virginia was the last State needed to vote for ratification, then
sent
their documents to Washington to the Library of Congress, and to the various
States and Territories of the United States. Shortly after that they were
invaded by the English Army who entered the State Legislature and removed
the Legislative Journals, then marched on Washington D.C. and burned the
Library of Congress.
When the States won their independence from England what happened to
the many citizens who were still loyal to the British Crown? Did they pack
up and move to England? Perhaps a few did, but most lived and worked
as they had always done.
When people talk about a fifth column being the Communists, it was a
tiny fraction of the influence the Monarchists had.
What was the amendment they had to remove?
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain,
any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress,
accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind
whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person
shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of
holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
Main Entry: emol暉搶ent
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin emolumentum advantage,
from emolere to produce by grinding, from e- + molere to grind -
more at meal
Date: 15th century
1: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form
of compensation or perquisites
2 archaic : advantage
So this law would have removed every lawyer from public office and
from every business as their loyalty to the U.S. was in question.
How many Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Judges, ect... would
have been removed from office and business, by what many people
believe was accomplished with this one Amendment to the Constitution.
We could still have lawyers, but not those chartered by and under the
English Crown with a monopoly on the practice of Law. There is their
advantage
That's the short version. Don't ask me for cites!, I've cited a valid
enrolled amendment to the Constitution which can still be ratified and would
do far more to change things than any President could ever do.
Robert Miller
history!
>>
>>> those 2% or so that have soaked up everything that ain't nailed down,
>>> and right now they are pulling out the nails. they know that what they
>>> are doing will create a state of violence once the gullible catch on.
>>> so the free market lunatics
>>
>> We are not under a free market economy.
>
> No kidding! Tentatively I'd call it the "robber-barron economy."
>
Yes we are, but we don't call it that anymore do we?
> The free market is one end
>> of an extreme of commerce, and at the other extreme end is a fully
>> controlled economy.
>
> They don't exist either. There has always been the black market,
> corruption, clever lawbreaking, etc.
>
>> Of the two the free market is the most efficient at
>> generating wealth,
>
> Nah, nah, nah..... from the beginnings of recorded history, kings and
> emperors efficiently acquired tribute and taxes (tons of gold and silver
> that would make Fort Knox look small).
>
When Kings have failed the market has continued. Every system to control
the market eventually fails. In the brief times that the markets are
unregulated
much of the wealth is created, then the wealthy attempt to control the
market
to limit compeitition.
> After that, look at the nobles and landlords going back to ancient times.
>
> After than, look at the monopolists that also went back to ancient times
> and even got charters from the kings.
>
> And, while you're at it, look at the Christian church in Europe and the
> amount of land that ended up under its control, adding up the likes of
> 20-30% of all the land in Germany, France, etc.
>
>> the other is the most efficient at generating poverty.
>
> All depends on how you define wealth.
>
I define wealth as having enough capital resources to provide for one's
family, and perhaps one's decendents.
>> The American economy is both styles at war with each other, but the
>> statists are the ones with the most influence and put their weight
>> against a
>> real free market, and towards monopolies or a controlled market by and
>> for
>> the benifit of the monopolist's.
>
> Dont forget the price-fixers (eg. Archer-Daniels, Ucars, etc) and
> fraudsters (LBO-RJR-Nabiscos, Enron, Andersen, stock options backdating,
> and many others, etc)
>
>> that got hold of america have preached
>>> against violence because once the illusion has been removed from the
>>> face of the naive, all hell breaks loose, just as it did in america
>>> when it was a colony. and what has happened thru out history in every
>>> country that comes under the feverish grip of conservatism. greed
>>> simply will destroy every country they touch. so they live in constant
>>> fear, and try to brainwash the peasants.
>>
>> conservatism simply means resists change.
>
> In Alice-in-Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, the Queen of
> Hearts(?) (I need to check this) said "I can use a word any way I want"
>
The Courts and Lawyers routinely do the same. If you don't understand their
words, they can not hang you with yours. A neat trick is to understand their
words, and the entimology of their words better than they. Then it is
possible
to lead them where you want. Or at least not fall for the traps they've
set.
I have learned to play this game at least in a modest way.
>> People use the word and do
>> not understand there are many forms of conservaitism, so they lump them
>> all together.
>
> You can say the same thing about the word: freedom.
>
>> It is not uncommon to have constitutional conservatives as
>> social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
>>
>> I'd guess I've just lost you haven't I?
>
> You can avoid more problems if you start with the question: who is getting
> rich right now, and who is getting poor, simultaneously, with who is
> getting rich.
>
The problem is not who is rich and who is poor. Unless you are poor and
you covet what your neighbor has.
> You're welcome to tell me you don't understand that question.
>
What question are you asking?
Straydog
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
>
> "Straydog" <a...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix3.panix.com...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1194015454.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 2, 7:36 am, Straydog <a...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:36:39 -0400, Straydog <a...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally, I think we should avoid violent physical revolutions.
>>>>> Lots of people get hurt, killed. Lots of destruction. Lots of disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That should set Robert off for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buuut, how could we do something about all those crook CEOs, war monger
>>>>> politicians, power broker parasites, and all their "fellow travelers"?
>>>>
>>>> the people that preach against violence do it for a reason. they are
>>>
>>> People that really understand that violence only begats more violence,
>>> and that one person can not damage another without damaging their own
>>> soul.
>>
>> All through history the _predominant_ form of control has included brutal
>> repression, imprisonment without trials, networks of spys, state-supported
>> terrorism, and the violence and injustices continue.
>>
> So? your point is.
Your point "People that really understand...." is arguable. My point was
that the perpetrators of violence didn't give a crap about their own soul.
Every behaviour known to man has persisted all through
> history!
>
>>>
>>>> those 2% or so that have soaked up everything that ain't nailed down,
>>>> and right now they are pulling out the nails. they know that what they
>>>> are doing will create a state of violence once the gullible catch on.
>>>> so the free market lunatics
>>>
>>> We are not under a free market economy.
>>
>> No kidding! Tentatively I'd call it the "robber-barron economy."
>>
> Yes we are,
Depends on your definition of "we".
>but we don't call it that anymore do we?
Also depends on your definition of being "under" that economy.
>> The free market is one end
>>> of an extreme of commerce, and at the other extreme end is a fully
>>> controlled economy.
>>
>> They don't exist either. There has always been the black market,
>> corruption, clever lawbreaking, etc.
>>
>>> Of the two the free market is the most efficient at
>>> generating wealth,
>>
>> Nah, nah, nah..... from the beginnings of recorded history, kings and
>> emperors efficiently acquired tribute and taxes (tons of gold and silver
>> that would make Fort Knox look small).
>>
> When Kings have failed the market has continued.
All depends on whether money existed (it did not in
hunter-gatherer-planter economies), and whether someone else with less
money wanted it badly enough to give something back (goods or services).
The Incas proved money was irrelevant.
Every system to control
> the market eventually fails.
Every system to control the market had to fight the other system that was
trying to control the same market.
In the brief times that the markets are
> unregulated
> much of the wealth is created,
As when there are no police, then the theives will create the wealth.
then the wealthy attempt to control the
> market
> to limit compeitition.
I'll agree with that one.
>> After that, look at the nobles and landlords going back to ancient times.
>>
>> After than, look at the monopolists that also went back to ancient times
>> and even got charters from the kings.
>>
>> And, while you're at it, look at the Christian church in Europe and the
>> amount of land that ended up under its control, adding up the likes of
>> 20-30% of all the land in Germany, France, etc.
>>
>>> the other is the most efficient at generating poverty.
>>
>> All depends on how you define wealth.
>>
> I define wealth as having enough capital resources to provide for one's
> family, and perhaps one's decendents.
Two major problems with your definition: i) the robber-barrons never get
enough, and ii) they don't care how they get more (including crime,
unethical, and selfish behavior).
>>> The American economy is both styles at war with each other, but the
>>> statists are the ones with the most influence and put their weight
>>> against a
>>> real free market, and towards monopolies or a controlled market by and
>>> for
>>> the benifit of the monopolist's.
>>
>> Dont forget the price-fixers (eg. Archer-Daniels, Ucars, etc) and
>> fraudsters (LBO-RJR-Nabiscos, Enron, Andersen, stock options backdating,
>> and many others, etc)
>>
>>> that got hold of america have preached
>>>> against violence because once the illusion has been removed from the
>>>> face of the naive, all hell breaks loose, just as it did in america
>>>> when it was a colony. and what has happened thru out history in every
>>>> country that comes under the feverish grip of conservatism. greed
>>>> simply will destroy every country they touch. so they live in constant
>>>> fear, and try to brainwash the peasants.
>>>
>>> conservatism simply means resists change.
>>
>> In Alice-in-Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, the Queen of
>> Hearts(?) (I need to check this) said "I can use a word any way I want"
>>
> The Courts and Lawyers routinely do the same.
All depends on who has the greater power.
If you don't understand their
> words, they can not hang you with yours. A neat trick is to understand their
> words, and the entimology of their words better than they. Then it is
> possible
> to lead them where you want. Or at least not fall for the traps they've
> set.
Fidel Castro didn't worry about lawyers (but the book says he was one).
> I have learned to play this game at least in a modest way.
Newsgroups are a great place to practice arguing.
>>> People use the word and do
>>> not understand there are many forms of conservaitism, so they lump them
>>> all together.
>>
>> You can say the same thing about the word: freedom.
>>
>>> It is not uncommon to have constitutional conservatives as
>>> social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
>>>
>>> I'd guess I've just lost you haven't I?
>>
>> You can avoid more problems if you start with the question: who is getting
>> rich right now, and who is getting poor, simultaneously, with who is
>> getting rich.
>>
> The problem is not who is rich and who is poor.
The issue is _how_ the rich got rich, not who is rich, who is poor.
Unless you are poor and
> you covet what your neighbor has.
The rich always covet what their neighbor has, regardless of whether they
are rich or poor.
>> You're welcome to tell me you don't understand that question.
>>
> What question are you asking?
>
How do the rich get rich and why do the poor always suffer in the process.
>
>
Straydog
See below....
The reason for this is that they had juvenile delinquents back 4,000 years
ago or more. Translations of clay tablets found in Mesopotamia (ancient
Sumer) prove this. I'll give you a book title, too.
> SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
They had a lot more problem with homicide the farther back you go.
> SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
They had a lot of problems with this, too. Women in ancient Sparta,
whether they were married or not, slept with whatever man they felt like.
Also, in Babylon and other areas.
> EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
Kings and emperors, as well as petty theifs, were constantly considering
the aquisitions of anything they could get their hands on, by whatever
means. Much like Enron, Andersen, Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Oligarchs in
1990s Russia, etc.
> NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
You should read Thucydides' book "The History of the Peloponeisian War" (I
could cite others).
> TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not
> covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female
> servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your
> neighbor's.'
See under thout shalt not steal. Same answer.
> But I digress.
>
>>
>>> and how you got there,
>>
>> Less by my own chosing than by luck and forces at work generally beyond my
>> control.
>>
>>> before
>>> you can find your way back to where you want to be.
>>
>> Only overlings have a chance to get where they want to be; most underlings
>> get trickle-down, crumbs, and dry bones (if they are lucky).
>>
> If you don't know where you are or how you got there, you are still walking
> in the dark
I'll come back to this.
>
>>> The story of where America is today started in 1402 when the King of
>>> England
>>> chartered one of the first multi-national corporations, and gave it the
>>> 13
>>> Colonies as
>>> it's trading monopoly.
>>
>> Is that 1402 I see written up there? 90 years before Columbus? Did you
>> mean the 13 colonies that couldn't have existed before America was
>> discovered? Are you sure it is appropriate to call them corporations (not
>> different from today's corporations?).
>>
> In 1402 the King of England chartered the East India Trading Company
According to my sources (three books, including the Encyclopedia
Britanica), there were, in addition to England, seven _other_ countries
that founded _an_ East India Company. Hence there were at least eight of
them. The Encyclopedia Britanica (11th edition) has this sentence (quote):
"Queen Elizabeth incorporated it [the English East India Company] by royal
charter, dated December 31, 1600...." and that makes it look like you are
almost two hundred years off, and you have the wrong guy doing the
chartering.
>> With the authority to raise armies and appoint
>>> Judges in
>>> order to protect it's monopoly.
>>>
>>> This is an important fact that describes the starting point. If it can
>>> be
>>> rebutted, I'd
>>> like to see it. If I give the whole story away at one time the
>>> intellectually lazy will
>>> attack it simply because they did not learn it in their history class.
>>
> Sounds like a very good and interesting book and a great topic for another
> thread.
>
> We all were taught that the Continental Army was raised by the Congress,
> but the flag above G. Washington's HQ for the first 6 months was the East
> India Company's Ensign. 13 Red & White stripes with a familiar blue field.
> Except the Cross of King George was in the Blue field.
This and the next few paragraphs are interesting, but subject to me
verifying your accuracy since there is a big descrepancy between what you
said about 1402 and the three sources I consulted (all three agreed with
each other and had different scholarly authors). More below....
> Nobody funds a revolution without getting favorable terms, so what did the
> East India Company get? They got the privilege of keeping the Judicial
> system they set up in 1620. For the purpose of protecting their monopoly.
>
> One of the most important factors in the legal system was the lawyers who
> had titles of Nobility in England or Esquire still evidenced today. The
> State
> BAR Associations are chartered by the American BAR Assoc. which is
> Chartered by the International BAR Assoc. and was chartered by the King
> of England and headquartered in London.
>
> The U.S. Constitution forbids titles of Nobility, but prescribes no penalty
> for them. So the "Titles of Nobility Amendment was set to correct that in
> the law. Virginia was the last State needed to vote for ratification, then
> sent
> their documents to Washington to the Library of Congress, and to the various
> States and Territories of the United States. Shortly after that they were
> invaded by the English Army who entered the State Legislature and removed
> the Legislative Journals, then marched on Washington D.C. and burned the
> Library of Congress.
>
> When the States won their independence from England what happened to
> the many citizens who were still loyal to the British Crown? Did they pack
> up and move to England? Perhaps a few did, but most lived and worked
> as they had always done.
I am less interested in all this.
> When people talk about a fifth column being the Communists, it was a
> tiny fraction of the influence the Monarchists had.
There really were no communists, per se, until mid 1800s unless you
wanted to entertain speculations in which some anthropologists portrayed
hunter-gatherer societies as "communist" in the sense that no one owned
anything, including the lands.
> What was the amendment they had to remove?
>
> If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain,
> any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress,
> accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind
> whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person
> shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of
> holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
>
> Main Entry: emol暉搶ent
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Latin emolumentum advantage,
> from emolere to produce by grinding, from e- + molere to grind -
> more at meal
> Date: 15th century
> 1: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form
> of compensation or perquisites
>
> 2 archaic : advantage
>
> So this law would have removed every lawyer from public office and
> from every business as their loyalty to the U.S. was in question.
Up to now, and farther below, we are following YOUR agenda and this is
pretty far off the topic of free trade (and the priviledges granted by the
rich/powerful to themselves to exploit anything they fee like) and I'm
still waiting for some response from you on MY agenda.
===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====
> How many Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Judges, ect... would
Vid...@tcq.net
> See below....
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
>
> > "Straydog" <a...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix3.panix.com...
>
> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
>
> >>> "Straydog" <a...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix3.panix.com...
>
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Latin emolumentum advantage,
> > from emolere to produce by grinding, from e- + molere to grind -
> > more at meal
> > Date: 15th century
> > 1: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form
> > of compensation or perquisites
>
> > 2 archaic : advantage
>
> > So this law would have removed every lawyer from public office and
> > from every business as their loyalty to the U.S. was in question.
>
> Up to now, and farther below, we are following YOUR agenda and this is
> pretty far off the topic of free trade (and the priviledges granted by the
> rich/powerful to themselves to exploit anything they fee like) and I'm
> still waiting for some response from you on MY agenda.
>
> ===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====
>
> > How many Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Judges, ect... would
> > have been removed from office and business, by what many people
> > believe was accomplished with this one Amendment to the Constitution.
>
> > We could still have lawyers, but not those chartered by and under the
> > English Crown with a monopoly on the practice of Law. There is their
> > advantage
>
> > That's the short version. Don't ask me for cites!, I've cited a valid
> > enrolled amendment to the Constitution which can still be ratified and would
> > do far more to change things than any President could ever do.
don't hold your breath, does he remind you of somebody, err, maybe
somebodies?
Robert Miller
See below....
So what point are you trying so hard to make?
Okay that's possible. It has been 1994 since I read the thesis on the East
India Companies involvement in the Revolution.
>> With the authority to raise armies and appoint
>>> Judges in
>>> order to protect it's monopoly.
>>>
>>> This is an important fact that describes the starting point. If it can
>>> be
>>> rebutted, I'd
>>> like to see it. If I give the whole story away at one time the
>>> intellectually lazy will
>>> attack it simply because they did not learn it in their history class.
>>
> Sounds like a very good and interesting book and a great topic for another
> thread.
>
> We all were taught that the Continental Army was raised by the Congress,
> but the flag above G. Washington's HQ for the first 6 months was the East
> India Company's Ensign. 13 Red & White stripes with a familiar blue
> field.
> Except the Cross of King George was in the Blue field.
This and the next few paragraphs are interesting, but subject to me
verifying your accuracy since there is a big descrepancy between what you
said about 1402 and the three sources I consulted (all three agreed with
each other and had different scholarly authors). More below....
I have done the same and came to the same conclusion. I can only imagine
that in 13 years some bits of the story have been forgoten and replaced. I
did have a collection of U.S. postage stamps and it showed the the first
flag
was the same as the one described as the Ensign of the East India Company.
Which I have found and posted the link below.
http://www.fotw.us/flags/gb-eic.html#jack
And the U.S. flag is almost identical
http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/usflag/flaghist.html
If I had to say what my agenda is, I'd say it is to learn and discuss topics
of
interest. To move from a point of general ignorance, or misinformed towards
clear understanding and enlightenment. There are many on Usenet who are
happy to correct me, and I'm not unhappy about being corrected.
Regulated trade is not free trade. Monopolies must regulate any trading
they
don't control, so they can make a percentage off all trade. I can only
think of
limited areas of free trade.
Flea Markets and yard sales or road side produce stands come to mind. In
Russia these were called the Black Market and allowed because the economy
in large part depended on people getting the things they couldn't get in the
State
run stores or couldn't get without standing in a very long que.
===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====
> How many Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Judges, ect... would
> have been removed from office and business, by what many people
> believe was accomplished with this one Amendment to the Constitution.
>
> We could still have lawyers, but not those chartered by and under the
> English Crown with a monopoly on the practice of Law. There is their
> advantage
>
> That's the short version. Don't ask me for cites!, I've cited a valid
> enrolled amendment to the Constitution which can still be ratified and
> would
> do far more to change things than any President could ever do.
>
>
Everything should be checked and confirmed, as I am not perfect nor is my
understanding always perfect. I learn a great deal more from Usenet when I
am
wrong than I do if I'm correct.
Robert Miller
later in life. Many have repented their evil ways and have done great
deeds.
One example comes to mind of one of the Dresden bomber pilots later
invented the smoke detector.
Have you never said something and later wished you hadn't because your
words hurt them, even if you didn't realize or care at the time. The more
enlightened someone becomes the better they understand this simple truth.
Others never become the least bit enlightened, and many are as angry and
miserable as they can be and don't know why.
> Every behaviour known to man has persisted all through
>> history!
>>
>>>>
>>>>> those 2% or so that have soaked up everything that ain't nailed down,
>>>>> and right now they are pulling out the nails. they know that what they
>>>>> are doing will create a state of violence once the gullible catch on.
>>>>> so the free market lunatics
>>>>
>>>> We are not under a free market economy.
>>>
>>> No kidding! Tentatively I'd call it the "robber-barron economy."
>>>
>> Yes we are,
>
> Depends on your definition of "we".
I think we share the same economy don't you?
>
>>but we don't call it that anymore do we?
>
> Also depends on your definition of being "under" that economy.
>
"under", "in", "participating in" seem to have the same definition
when it comes to sharing an economy.
>>> The free market is one end
>>>> of an extreme of commerce, and at the other extreme end is a fully
>>>> controlled economy.
>>>
>>> They don't exist either. There has always been the black market,
>>> corruption, clever lawbreaking, etc.
>>>
>>>> Of the two the free market is the most efficient at
>>>> generating wealth,
>>>
>>> Nah, nah, nah..... from the beginnings of recorded history, kings and
>>> emperors efficiently acquired tribute and taxes (tons of gold and silver
>>> that would make Fort Knox look small).
>>>
>> When Kings have failed the market has continued.
>
> All depends on whether money existed (it did not in
> hunter-gatherer-planter economies), and whether someone else with less
> money wanted it badly enough to give something back (goods or services).
> The Incas proved money was irrelevant.
They still had places to store value, which is basicly what money is.
At it's most basic money is a place to store one mans labor, and trade it
for another mans labor. 200 years ago a gold minor might trade some
gold for a new suit. Today a man might trade about the same amount of
gold for a new suit.
>
> Every system to control
>> the market eventually fails.
>
> Every system to control the market had to fight the other system that was
> trying to control the same market.
>
> In the brief times that the markets are
>> unregulated
>> much of the wealth is created,
>
> As when there are no police, then the theives will create the wealth.
Theives don't create wealth, they take if from others who have already
created it.
When there are no police people band together to protect themselves. If
you suddenly showed up at somebody's door you might get filled with
buckshot.
>
> then the wealthy attempt to control the
>> market
>> to limit compeitition.
>
> I'll agree with that one.
>
>>> After that, look at the nobles and landlords going back to ancient
>>> times.
>>>
>>> After than, look at the monopolists that also went back to ancient times
>>> and even got charters from the kings.
>>>
>>> And, while you're at it, look at the Christian church in Europe and the
>>> amount of land that ended up under its control, adding up the likes of
>>> 20-30% of all the land in Germany, France, etc.
>>>
>>>> the other is the most efficient at generating poverty.
>>>
>>> All depends on how you define wealth.
>>>
>> I define wealth as having enough capital resources to provide for one's
>> family, and perhaps one's decendents.
>
> Two major problems with your definition: i) the robber-barrons never get
> enough, and ii) they don't care how they get more (including crime,
> unethical, and selfish behavior).
>
They were called Rober-barrons for a reason. Sounds like you lump every
wealthy person into the robber-barron catagory. Why is that?
>>>> The American economy is both styles at war with each other, but the
>>>> statists are the ones with the most influence and put their weight
>>>> against a
>>>> real free market, and towards monopolies or a controlled market by and
>>>> for
>>>> the benifit of the monopolist's.
>>>
>>> Dont forget the price-fixers (eg. Archer-Daniels, Ucars, etc) and
>>> fraudsters (LBO-RJR-Nabiscos, Enron, Andersen, stock options backdating,
>>> and many others, etc)
>>>
>>>> that got hold of america have preached
>>>>> against violence because once the illusion has been removed from the
>>>>> face of the naive, all hell breaks loose, just as it did in america
>>>>> when it was a colony. and what has happened thru out history in every
>>>>> country that comes under the feverish grip of conservatism. greed
>>>>> simply will destroy every country they touch. so they live in constant
>>>>> fear, and try to brainwash the peasants.
>>>>
>>>> conservatism simply means resists change.
>>>
>>> In Alice-in-Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, the Queen of
>>> Hearts(?) (I need to check this) said "I can use a word any way I want"
>>>
>> The Courts and Lawyers routinely do the same.
>
> All depends on who has the greater power.
>
Knowledge is a wonderful power, even the meek can can weild.
> If you don't understand their
>> words, they can not hang you with yours. A neat trick is to understand
>> their
>> words, and the entimology of their words better than they. Then it is
>> possible
>> to lead them where you want. Or at least not fall for the traps they've
>> set.
>
> Fidel Castro didn't worry about lawyers (but the book says he was one).
>
>> I have learned to play this game at least in a modest way.
>
> Newsgroups are a great place to practice arguing.
True! I try to learn all the arguements I'll face in a legal arguement,
before I
ever have a discussion before a Judge. Meek as a lamb, knowedgeable as an
Owl is the way to face any Judge.
>
>>>> People use the word and do
>>>> not understand there are many forms of conservaitism, so they lump them
>>>> all together.
>>>
>>> You can say the same thing about the word: freedom.
>>>
>>>> It is not uncommon to have constitutional conservatives as
>>>> social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
>>>>
>>>> I'd guess I've just lost you haven't I?
>>>
>>> You can avoid more problems if you start with the question: who is
>>> getting
>>> rich right now, and who is getting poor, simultaneously, with who is
>>> getting rich.
>>>
>> The problem is not who is rich and who is poor.
>
> The issue is _how_ the rich got rich, not who is rich, who is poor.
>
> Unless you are poor and
>> you covet what your neighbor has.
>
> The rich always covet what their neighbor has, regardless of whether they
> are rich or poor.
Always? If I invent an efficient electric scooter that travels 70 miles at
35 mph
and I make a great deal of money from it. Why would I have to covet
something
for the production of my scooter?
>
>>> You're welcome to tell me you don't understand that question.
>>>
>> What question are you asking?
>>
>
> How do the rich get rich and why do the poor always suffer in the process.
>
If I build a factory and hire skilled and unskilled labor to produce my
scooter how
has anybody suffered by my success? Perhaps I've hired a few who were
unemployed
and provided better jobs to others who already had jobs.
Vid...@tcq.net
> > > Two major problems with your definition: i) the robber-barrons never get
> > > enough, and ii) they don't care how they get more (including crime,
> > > unethical, and selfish behavior).
>
> > They were called Rober-barrons for a reason. Sounds like you lump every
> > wealthy person into the robber-barron catagory.
>
>
> LOL!
the conservatives threw massive tax cuts at them. look at how they
use it. they might as well be one. children go without so that those
two fools can party. they should be called robber parasites.
Straydog
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, morri...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
>
>
The traditional use of the term was following Johnston's book "The
Robber-Barrons" which examined a number of brutal industrialists in the
late 1800s. It is a fairly derisive but soft term that can be applied to
a large number of people who were otherwise known as "nobles", merchants,
bankers, persons of influence and power, etc., going back thousands of
years before the 1800s. The Roman emperors were, more often than not,
classifiable as robber-barrons since their aquisitions of wealth and
territory were by conquest followed by death and/or enslavement of their
victims/enemies. Further reading will reveal that going back to the
copper, bronze, and iron ages there was a preponderance of attention given
to the production of materials for war. Still further reading will
reveal that the development of agriculture allowed much of society some
extra free time and allowed the development of bureaucrasies (heirarchies,
officers, leaders, and their courts), which then began to compete with
each other as they developed an appetite for more wealth and power. This
fed into, or engendered, those who became or worshiped greed and
selfishness.
The profession of landlord seems to be the first "organization" of
heirarchies since it allows a few people to engage in rent-seeking
behavior (the first parasites on society) by getting other people to do
larger shares of the work and bear larger shares of risk.
A good academic question is whether egalitarian civilization can be ever
acheived (and how many people really want it) or feudal-totalitarian
plutocracies will be the enduring heirarchichal organization among our
species.
Straydog
Since a "parasite" is already a robber, the term "rober parasite" might be
a redundancy. However, I cannot think of a worse term for these scumbags.
Straydog
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
>
> "Straydog" <a...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix1.panix.com...
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Robert Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Straydog" <a...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix3.panix.com...
>>>> repression, imprisonment without trials, networks of spys,
>>>> state-supported
>>>> terrorism, and the violence and injustices continue.
>>>>
>>> So? your point is.
>>
>> Your point "People that really understand...." is arguable. My point was
>> that the perpetrators of violence didn't give a crap about their own soul.
>>
> I know of people who have commited violence and were tortured by it
> later in life. Many have repented their evil ways and have done great
> deeds.
> One example comes to mind of one of the Dresden bomber pilots later
> invented the smoke detector.
I know of many who did not repent.
> Have you never said something and later wished you hadn't because your
> words hurt them, even if you didn't realize or care at the time.
If I look around me, I find the majority of people really do not reflect
at all on what they think, what they do, and that their ignorance or
scheming limits them.
The more
> enlightened someone becomes the better they understand this simple truth.
I would like to believe this, but I can cite evidence to the otherwise.
> Others never become the least bit enlightened, and many are as angry and
> miserable as they can be and don't know why.
And, I can think of simple secretaries and janitors that I have met and
talked with in my life who were better, more compassionate human beings
than some of the richest and most educated people I've met.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are not under a free market economy.
>>>>
>>>> No kidding! Tentatively I'd call it the "robber-barron economy."
>>>>
>>> Yes we are,
>>
>> Depends on your definition of "we".
>
> I think we share the same economy don't you?
A comment which distracts you from the fact that the rich are getting
richer and the poor are getting poorer. Most studies have shown that this
has been going on for three decades now.
>>> but we don't call it that anymore do we?
>>
>> Also depends on your definition of being "under" that economy.
>>
> "under", "in", "participating in" seem to have the same definition
> when it comes to sharing an economy.
Its all fine if you are in the middle or higher up the socio-economic
scale.
>>>>
>>>>> Of the two the free market is the most efficient at
>>>>> generating wealth,
>>>>
>>>> Nah, nah, nah..... from the beginnings of recorded history, kings and
>>>> emperors efficiently acquired tribute and taxes (tons of gold and silver
>>>> that would make Fort Knox look small).
>>>>
>>> When Kings have failed the market has continued.
>>
>> All depends on whether money existed (it did not in
>> hunter-gatherer-planter economies), and whether someone else with less
>> money wanted it badly enough to give something back (goods or services).
>> The Incas proved money was irrelevant.
>
> They still had places to store value, which is basicly what money is.
Nah, nah, nah....their gold was all used for ornaments. What they had of
value were crop harvests, their infrastructures, their society.
> At it's most basic money is a place to store one mans labor, and trade it
> for another mans labor. 200 years ago a gold minor might trade some
> gold for a new suit. Today a man might trade about the same amount of
> gold for a new suit.
I am fascinated that the Incas had everything they needed, got everything
they needed, and had a stable society for 200-300 years (until the
conquistdors came), without money.
>> In the brief times that the markets are
>>> unregulated
>>> much of the wealth is created,
>>
>> As when there are no police, then the theives will create the wealth.
>
> Theives don't create wealth, they take if from others who have already
> created it.
And, you think they created it without taking it from others by means of
"deals"? Or, do you think they created it out of thin air? Or, do you
think all "created" wealth was done by honesty?
> When there are no police people band together to protect themselves.
The farther back you go in history, the more you will find that theives
and criminal behavior was more prevalent (hence the commandments about
stealing, killing, coveting [which are also present in Judaism and Islam])
If
> you suddenly showed up at somebody's door you might get filled with
> buckshot.
Not if I pulled the trigger first.
>>>>> the other is the most efficient at generating poverty.
>>>>
>>>> All depends on how you define wealth.
>>>>
>>> I define wealth as having enough capital resources to provide for one's
>>> family, and perhaps one's decendents.
>>
>> Two major problems with your definition: i) the robber-barrons never get
>> enough, and ii) they don't care how they get more (including crime,
>> unethical, and selfish behavior).
>>
> They were called Rober-barrons for a reason. Sounds like you lump every
> wealthy person into the robber-barron catagory. Why is that?
Going back even to ancient Sumer, ancient Egypt, I am finding that there
was always a wealthy class. They always organized their lives for their
own benefit. Organized whenever possible (by networking with the leaders,
anyone who had power, political power), for benefits for themselves,
favors for themselves. It also included that these rich people--just like
today--want taxes not for themselves but taxes on the poor. This is
exactly the way it was hundreds to thousands of years ago, and so far in
all of my readings, all over the planet and its history, no matter what
country, what peoples, or where or when you look. The robber-barron
mindset was there, set up to exploit as many people as possible, for as
long as possible, and as much as possible. The socio-economic situation in
in today's Europe, USA, and Japan can thank the conditions which brought
about the presence of a middle class. It seems that this did not exist
anywhere in any prior time.
>>>>>
>>>>> conservatism simply means resists change.
>>>>
>>>> In Alice-in-Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, the Queen of
>>>> Hearts(?) (I need to check this) said "I can use a word any way I want"
>>>>
>>> The Courts and Lawyers routinely do the same.
>>
>> All depends on who has the greater power.
>>
> Knowledge is a wonderful power, even the meek can can weild.
Money is even more wonderful. Look what campaign contributions and
lobbying and public relations can get you. All you need is money, no
knowledge.
>> Fidel Castro didn't worry about lawyers (but the book says he was one).
>>
>>> I have learned to play this game at least in a modest way.
>>
>> Newsgroups are a great place to practice arguing.
>
> True! I try to learn all the arguements I'll face in a legal arguement,
> before I
> ever have a discussion before a Judge. Meek as a lamb, knowedgeable as an
> Owl is the way to face any Judge.
And, don't forget the old lawyer's motto: if you can't pound on the facts,
then pound on the table.
>>>> rich right now, and who is getting poor, simultaneously, with who is
>>>> getting rich.
>>>>
>>> The problem is not who is rich and who is poor.
>>
>> The issue is _how_ the rich got rich, not who is rich, who is poor.
>>
>> Unless you are poor and
>>> you covet what your neighbor has.
>>
>> The rich always covet what their neighbor has, regardless of whether they
>> are rich or poor.
>
> Always?
I have a few books on this. If not _always_ then 95% of the time.
If I invent an efficient electric scooter that travels 70 miles at
> 35 mph
> and I make a great deal of money from it. Why would I have to covet
> something
> for the production of my scooter?
You would do even better to develop a monopoly. Eg. Rockefeller, Bill
Gates, and others. I have more books for you to read, too.
>>>> You're welcome to tell me you don't understand that question.
>>>>
>>> What question are you asking?
>>>
>>
>> How do the rich get rich and why do the poor always suffer in the process.
>>
> If I build a factory and hire skilled and unskilled labor to produce my
> scooter how
> has anybody suffered by my success?
How did you get the land for your factory. How did you get the money to
build that factory? What do you pay your labor? How do you treat them? Do
they have any choices>
Perhaps I've hired a few who were
> unemployed
> and provided better jobs to others who already had jobs.
Perhaps? A word which is a rug under which you can sweep a lot of dirt.
>
>
Robert Miller
<morri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194176906....@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > Two major problems with your definition: i) the robber-barrons never
>> > get
>> > enough, and ii) they don't care how they get more (including crime,
>> > unethical, and selfish behavior).
>>
>> They were called Rober-barrons for a reason. Sounds like you lump every
>> wealthy person into the robber-barron catagory.
>
>
> LOL!
>
> The rich always covet what their neighbor has, regardless of whether they
> are rich or poor.
Always? If I invent an efficient electric scooter that travels 70 miles at
35
mph and I make a great deal of money from it. Why would I have to covet
something for the production of my scooter?
>
>>> You're welcome to tell me you don't understand that question.
>>>
>> What question are you asking?
>>
>
> How do the rich get rich and why do the poor always suffer in the process.
>
If I build a factory and hire skilled and unskilled labor to produce my
scooter how has anybody suffered by my success? Perhaps I've hired
a few who were unemployed and provided better jobs to others who
already had jobs.
From your point of view, I don't think you can answer this question.
Straydog
Wifey and I usually go out for breakfast on Sunday mornings. She does
grocery shopping either before or after. She uses discount coupons. She
saves us enough money on the coupons to pay for the breakfast.
Out of several decent restaurants we go to, at one we noticed an
interesting thing: several of the waitstaff (we know four by name) had
been previously at another restaurant just 1 mile down the road.
Both my wife and I know them to be above average in attentiveness,
accuracy, and responsiveness in terms of our orders, defference, etc., and
we always left bigger tips for them (bigger by a dollar).
So, I decided to intercept one of them and ask....
"Say, aren't you ___blank___, previously at Bob Evans down the street?"
She hesitated, then said "Yes"
And, I said "And, do I see X, Y, Z, A, here, who were also from Bob Evans
down the street? Did you guys have some kind of revolt or revolution
there? Anything you can tell me?
And, she said "Oh, they got new management there [bingo]. And, they
decided they didn't want their older more experienced people [bingo] any
more." And, I said that's too bad.
So, there you are. Today's management is only interested in the bottom
line and to hell with quality. Of course, I'm sure the new "entry level"
people are getting paid less, maybe even less benefits, too.
The spreadsheet operators and the bean-counters. All geared to transfer,
as much as possible, money from the underlings to the overlings. They call
that "wealth creation." What about all the other qualities of life? What
happened to "pay for performance?"
This is a story and a process that has been going on for a long time. I
have heard many many examples of this. Just think of all those jobs that
were offshored, especially, to India. And, I can remember all of those 800
numbers I called and got a human being that could not understand me, I
could not understand them, and my problem did not get solved, or they
tried to sell me something I didn't want.