PDA

View Full Version : Re: It isn't just tech jobs going overseas


leslie
July 18th 03, 03:43 PM
wrote:
: From WCAX.com
:
: "Waterbury Companies is lowering the flag on its Vermont operations---
: leaving the United States for overseas....
:

It's not just tech jobs going overseas. With few exceptions, there's
no occupation that can't be moved overseas, even if it requires also
transporting the client overseas and back:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?msid=49583
UK to send heart patients to India - The Economic Times

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_05/b3818001.htm
BW Online | February 3, 2003 | The New Global Job Shift

"The next round of globalization is sending upscale jobs offshore.
They include basic research, chip design, engineering--even financial
analysis. Can America lose these jobs and still prosper? Who wins? Who
loses?

[snip]

Near Bangalore's airport, at the offices of Wipro Ltd., five radiologists
interpret 30 CT scans a day for Massachusetts General Hospital..."


Here's a few sites that are tracking offshore outsourcing stories:

http://h1b.info/outsourcing/
Outsourcing News -
Collection of news articles about American jobs going overseas.

http://www.toraw.org/INTHENEWS.htm
The Organization for the Rights of American Workers

http://www.cwalocal4250.org/outsourcing/index.cfm
CWA Local 4250 - Fight Back


Once the free movement of labor is under the jurisdiction of the WTO,
a corporate global government, the U.S. voters will be powerless to
do anything about the loss of higher-paying jobs.


--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

ares
July 18th 03, 04:09 PM
Wouldn't he really have to thank Ronald Reagan?
ares

> wrote in message
...
> From WCAX.com
>
> "Waterbury Companies is lowering the flag on its Vermont
operations---leaving
> the United States for overseas. Workers were told the Randolph plant will
close
> within six months---and the first layoffs will come in two months. The
plant
> here in Randolph produces plastic moldings--making dispensers. You'll
likely
> find the sanitizers in restaurants and schools. In all 70 workers will
lose
> their jobs here Randolph...the company says its looking at moving the jobs
to
> China...one employee leaving the plant said "please thank George Bush" for
> us.... Company officials would NOT talk on camera..but they released a
> statement saying "globalization, economic conditions and price pressures
> outside the control of the local managers and workers" are the major
reasons
> for closing the plant. Those reasons were also told to Randolph officials:
> "it's not a tax issue. It was not a state issue, environmental issue. What
they
> told us was that they are in a very competive business and with other
companies
> that do business that do injection molding.... they either had to take the
bulk
> of what they do here and move it out of the US specifically to China and
if
> they didn't they were just not going to make a viable business in this
area")
> this is another blow to the manufactoring sector in the green
mountains..in the
> past two years, Vermont has lost more than 8-thousand manufactoring
jobs--and
> that number keeps growing with this latest blow to Orange County."
>
>
>
>

ares
July 18th 03, 04:09 PM
Wouldn't he really have to thank Ronald Reagan?
ares

> wrote in message
...
> From WCAX.com
>
> "Waterbury Companies is lowering the flag on its Vermont
operations---leaving
> the United States for overseas. Workers were told the Randolph plant will
close
> within six months---and the first layoffs will come in two months. The
plant
> here in Randolph produces plastic moldings--making dispensers. You'll
likely
> find the sanitizers in restaurants and schools. In all 70 workers will
lose
> their jobs here Randolph...the company says its looking at moving the jobs
to
> China...one employee leaving the plant said "please thank George Bush" for
> us.... Company officials would NOT talk on camera..but they released a
> statement saying "globalization, economic conditions and price pressures
> outside the control of the local managers and workers" are the major
reasons
> for closing the plant. Those reasons were also told to Randolph officials:
> "it's not a tax issue. It was not a state issue, environmental issue. What
they
> told us was that they are in a very competive business and with other
companies
> that do business that do injection molding.... they either had to take the
bulk
> of what they do here and move it out of the US specifically to China and
if
> they didn't they were just not going to make a viable business in this
area")
> this is another blow to the manufactoring sector in the green
mountains..in the
> past two years, Vermont has lost more than 8-thousand manufactoring
jobs--and
> that number keeps growing with this latest blow to Orange County."
>
>
>
>

leslie
July 18th 03, 07:17 PM
Ed Clarke ) wrote:
: In article >,
: tnlady wrote:
:
: >> Thanks to NAFTA, North Carolina has lost about 20,000 jobs in
: >> the textile industry alone.
:
: I don't know why that would be. Neither Mexico nor Canada seem to be
: very into textiles. Most of that is China/India/Phillipines/Sri Lanka.
: Unless these countries are moving to North America...
:

India is losing out to China..

http://www.siliconindia.com/shownewsdata.asp?newsno=16216&newscat=Business
Indian textiles losing advantage of low labor cost

"IANS
Monday, July 29, 2002

NEW DELHI: Notwithstanding low wages, India's textile and garment
production costs are amongst the highest in the world.

"India's production costs are among the highest in the world. This is
in spite of the near lowest labor cost in most activity lines," says
the Zurich-based International Textile Manufacturer's Federation
(ITME).

In textiles, the share of labor in production cost has fallen from 30
percent in conventional lines to just three percent in new automated
units.

"The paradigm shift in the cost profile of textiles does not augur
well for India, which traditionally tries to leverage its
comparatively low labor costs in finding export outlets," said Rajaram
Jaipuria, chairman of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation, commenting
on the ITME report.

"Modernization of textile units are now unavoidable for the survival
of Indian textile industry," he said.

[snip]

While in the last three years, garment exports rose from $4.76 billion
in 1999-2000 to $4.99 billion in 2001-02, in the wake of September 11
and economic slowdown, the Indian garment exports were severely hit
and dropped from a peak of $55.69 billion in 2000-01.

India currently has just two percent of the global market share in
garments as against China's 28 percent market share.

Experts say China is gearing up for capturing 50 percent global market
share by 2004 by cutting cost through automation and better management
practices."


: I've been told that China is too expensive for certain computer
: manufacturing.
:
: "We're going to make PC's in countries you can't pronounce, let alone
: find on a map..."
:
: That comment (from some senior management) didn't make me feel too happy.
:

A lot of R&D work that was peformed in the U.S. and Europe is being moved
to China; it would seem logical to have manufacturing there too:

http://news.com.com/2009-1001-940319.html
Tapping brainpower - Tech News - CNET.com

"BEIJING--The abundance of manual labor is legendary in this country of
1 billion people, but brainpower is quickly catching up.

While many technology giants are expanding manufacturing plants in
China, a significant number of multinationals are increasingly combing
the mainland for engineers and researchers to handle projects for
global applications that, in recent years, would have been performed
in labs in the United States or Europe.

"I'm hiring Ph.D.s with years of experience for less than what it
would cost to hire a new college grad out of Stanford," said Chief
Executive Al Sisto of Phoenix Technologies, a software company in San
Jose, Calif.

At first glance, the trend might appear to be a typical brain drain or
a way for U.S. companies to hire foreign labor while skirting
political obstacles related to the H-1B visa immigration controversy.
But executives on both sides of the Pacific say the hiring is more of
a massive talent search aimed at a new generation of engineers being
churned out of China's schools.

Chinese university students are flocking to the industry for a
combination of reasons, including comparatively high salaries,
government policies that encourage technical education, and a booming
domestic market. An estimated 700,000 engineers graduate annually from
China's schools, and U.S. companies want to get the cream of the crop.

"We are putting our design centers where the talent is," Intel CEO
Craig Barrett said when asked about the chipmaker's research centers
in China and Russia. "We'll just chase the best talent."

There is no denying, however, that Chinese engineers cost far less
than their American counterparts. Single-degree engineers in China
generally make between $4,800 and $8,800 a year, depending on
experience and the company, according to various sources, not
including payments to housing, pension and medical funds that can
raise the compensation figure by 50 percent..."



--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

leslie
July 18th 03, 07:17 PM
Ed Clarke ) wrote:
: In article >,
: tnlady wrote:
:
: >> Thanks to NAFTA, North Carolina has lost about 20,000 jobs in
: >> the textile industry alone.
:
: I don't know why that would be. Neither Mexico nor Canada seem to be
: very into textiles. Most of that is China/India/Phillipines/Sri Lanka.
: Unless these countries are moving to North America...
:

India is losing out to China..

http://www.siliconindia.com/shownewsdata.asp?newsno=16216&newscat=Business
Indian textiles losing advantage of low labor cost

"IANS
Monday, July 29, 2002

NEW DELHI: Notwithstanding low wages, India's textile and garment
production costs are amongst the highest in the world.

"India's production costs are among the highest in the world. This is
in spite of the near lowest labor cost in most activity lines," says
the Zurich-based International Textile Manufacturer's Federation
(ITME).

In textiles, the share of labor in production cost has fallen from 30
percent in conventional lines to just three percent in new automated
units.

"The paradigm shift in the cost profile of textiles does not augur
well for India, which traditionally tries to leverage its
comparatively low labor costs in finding export outlets," said Rajaram
Jaipuria, chairman of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation, commenting
on the ITME report.

"Modernization of textile units are now unavoidable for the survival
of Indian textile industry," he said.

[snip]

While in the last three years, garment exports rose from $4.76 billion
in 1999-2000 to $4.99 billion in 2001-02, in the wake of September 11
and economic slowdown, the Indian garment exports were severely hit
and dropped from a peak of $55.69 billion in 2000-01.

India currently has just two percent of the global market share in
garments as against China's 28 percent market share.

Experts say China is gearing up for capturing 50 percent global market
share by 2004 by cutting cost through automation and better management
practices."


: I've been told that China is too expensive for certain computer
: manufacturing.
:
: "We're going to make PC's in countries you can't pronounce, let alone
: find on a map..."
:
: That comment (from some senior management) didn't make me feel too happy.
:

A lot of R&D work that was peformed in the U.S. and Europe is being moved
to China; it would seem logical to have manufacturing there too:

http://news.com.com/2009-1001-940319.html
Tapping brainpower - Tech News - CNET.com

"BEIJING--The abundance of manual labor is legendary in this country of
1 billion people, but brainpower is quickly catching up.

While many technology giants are expanding manufacturing plants in
China, a significant number of multinationals are increasingly combing
the mainland for engineers and researchers to handle projects for
global applications that, in recent years, would have been performed
in labs in the United States or Europe.

"I'm hiring Ph.D.s with years of experience for less than what it
would cost to hire a new college grad out of Stanford," said Chief
Executive Al Sisto of Phoenix Technologies, a software company in San
Jose, Calif.

At first glance, the trend might appear to be a typical brain drain or
a way for U.S. companies to hire foreign labor while skirting
political obstacles related to the H-1B visa immigration controversy.
But executives on both sides of the Pacific say the hiring is more of
a massive talent search aimed at a new generation of engineers being
churned out of China's schools.

Chinese university students are flocking to the industry for a
combination of reasons, including comparatively high salaries,
government policies that encourage technical education, and a booming
domestic market. An estimated 700,000 engineers graduate annually from
China's schools, and U.S. companies want to get the cream of the crop.

"We are putting our design centers where the talent is," Intel CEO
Craig Barrett said when asked about the chipmaker's research centers
in China and Russia. "We'll just chase the best talent."

There is no denying, however, that Chinese engineers cost far less
than their American counterparts. Single-degree engineers in China
generally make between $4,800 and $8,800 a year, depending on
experience and the company, according to various sources, not
including payments to housing, pension and medical funds that can
raise the compensation figure by 50 percent..."



--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

Lecher9000
July 23rd 03, 03:01 AM
Hmmm... I wonder how the average U.S. resident fared in the 50's, when there
wasn't "globalization". I have to assume we were slightly betterr off back
then, on a "Quality of Life" scale. At least we had some control of our
borders then, and a sense of what it was to be an American, and not have to
move every 5 years, away from a decaying neighborhood.

SoCalMike
July 23rd 03, 07:40 AM
"Lecher9000" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm... I wonder how the average U.S. resident fared in the 50's, when
there
> wasn't "globalization". I have to assume we were slightly betterr off
back
> then, on a "Quality of Life" scale. At least we had some control of our
> borders then, and a sense of what it was to be an American, and not have
to
> move every 5 years, away from a decaying neighborhood.

unions were bigger then, so high school educated people could get a job
screwing together fords for a wage good enough to buy a house. and still
have enough to buy groceries at the local mom-n-pop, since there was no
walmart driving down prices.

Edgar S.
July 23rd 03, 04:30 PM
The Real Bev > wrote in message >...
> Lecher9000 wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm... I wonder how the average U.S. resident fared in the 50's, when there
> > wasn't "globalization". I have to assume we were slightly betterr off back
> > then, on a "Quality of Life" scale. At least we had some control of our
> > borders then, and a sense of what it was to be an American, and not have to
> > move every 5 years, away from a decaying neighborhood.
>
> I think the difference was that back then we weren't constantly aware of
> government actions and their effect on our day-to-day lives. The
> California legislature was a part-time operation then, and it is to our
> everlasting shame that we decided to "professionalize" it.
>
> If our quality of life was better, it was because there weren't so many
> people to get in our way.

Taxation was a lot less. ONE family member could bring home enuf
money to support the family. The husband, usually was the only one who
had to hold an outside job. The wife could stay home and raise the
kids.

Middleclass families also made use of more household help. They
usually had a maid and frequently had a cook. They could hire a
gardener. The wife would have her hair "done" at a beauty salon every
week.

baron48
July 23rd 03, 06:52 PM
I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
the 50's. Pretty much every economic statistic has improved. Working
conditions are better, people are better educated, and techology has
advanced dramatically. What is it exactly that you thought was better
during the 50's?

-Tom

(Lecher9000) wrote in message >...
> Hmmm... I wonder how the average U.S. resident fared in the 50's, when there
> wasn't "globalization". I have to assume we were slightly betterr off back
> then, on a "Quality of Life" scale. At least we had some control of our
> borders then, and a sense of what it was to be an American, and not have to
> move every 5 years, away from a decaying neighborhood.

Albert Wagner
July 23rd 03, 07:26 PM
On 23 Jul 2003 09:52:31 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

If you don't mind I'll venture an opinion.

> I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
> really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
> the 50's.

> Pretty much every economic statistic has improved.

Economic statistics bear only a coincidental relationship to "Quality of
Life."

> Working conditions are better,

For who? This is arguable.

> people are better educated,

Also arguable. Wisdom is not the same as knowledge.

> and techology has advanced dramatically.

Definitely true.

> What is it exactly that you thought was better
> during the 50's?

Old Timer's reply to the same thread as yours pretty much says it for
me.

Karen Wheless
July 23rd 03, 07:52 PM
> True that the wife stayed home and took care of the house and the kids
> but the family income was far less than what todays two income
> families have, even less than what todays one income family has.
> Working wives is why todays families have, several cars, motorhomes,
> pleasure boats, snowmobiles, skijets, ocean cruise vacations, trips to
> such places as China's Great Wall and tours of Europe, frequent dining
> at fine restaurants, and are living in 2500 sq ft houses

I'm not sure if the "average" family does all these things. I don't
know anyone who does these things, except for multiple cars which is
necessary if both parents work.

This probably differs in different parts of the country. Here in the
northeast, the cost of living has skyrocketed so dramatically in the
last decade or so, that it's very difficult to live on one income. Most
people in this area that I know - who are working at "middle class" jobs
- are living in 1950's houses (quite literally, just about every house
in my neighborhood was built before 1960), but they can't afford those
1950's houses on one salary. Those 1950's houses now cost $300,000.
However, this is a fairly recent occurence - there's big divide between
people who bought houses 15-20 years ago and people who have bought
houses in the last 5-10 years. That's when the huge run-up in housing
costs took place. Someone who bought a house in 1990 could afford it on
one income. That house now costs 3 times more, but salaries have not
tripled in that time period.

However, this is probably an issue limited to the Northeast and some
other big urban areas. It's not nearly as big an issue in other areas
of the country.

However, another big issue since the 1950's is the loss of jobs in many
areas of the country. There are a lot of small towns where there are
just no livable jobs at all. So you have "expensive but jobs available"
areas in the Northeast and "cheap but no jobs" in many rural and small
town areas. The places that fall in between still exist, but I think
they are being squeezed out the two ends.

I wouldn't want to go back to the 1950's - for one thing, it probably
would have been very difficult for me to have lived in the 1950's as a
single woman, since many jobs weren't available for women, I would
probably had to have gotten married if I wanted to get ahead at all
economically - but the economy has changed in many ways, some good, some
bad.

Karen

July 23rd 03, 08:33 PM
(baron48) wrote:

>I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
>really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
>the 50's. Pretty much every economic statistic has improved. Working
>conditions are better, people are better educated, and techology has
>advanced dramatically. What is it exactly that you thought was better
>during the 50's?
>
>-Tom

And whose computer makes the statistics?...

I think that one of the key things better about the 50s was the idea that the
future was going to be better... MUCH better. The reality turned out much
differently, and the future looks even more bleak.

I am thankful that I don't have to grow up in the mess that is life today.
Yeah, I almost died from pneumonia and a shot of penicillin as a kid, but the
doctor came to the house and didn't charge a year's wages to watch over me.
Yeah, I couldn't afford a lot of toys, but I could walk for hours on un-posted
fields and in forests. For that matter, I could walk up to any person on the
street in the 50s and not be afraid.

People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
down to meet lowered expectations. Education is no longer prized. I'll
provide an example: Speaking from first hand knowledge I can confidently state
that Florida's schools are horrendous, turning out many illiterate graduates.
There is a campaign underway here that is straight out of Ayn Rand's novels. A
group of Florida parents are upset that their children didn't pass the new
state competency tests that allow them to graduate to the next grade, so they
are blaming the state government for making the tests too hard, and even
trying to start boycotts of Florida products to force the kids being moved to
the next grade. The woman who seems to be rousing the rabble is a real-life
Elsworth Toohey imitation of Rosanne Rosannadana. In the 50s she would have
been ignored as a total kook. I can't even fathom the depth of her stupidity.
"School is too hard for my idiot child, so rather than hold him back and give
him a chance to learn what he missed, I want you to lower the standards for
everyone." Why not just get t-shirts saying "I'm stupid and I want the world
to be stupid too."

The technology isn't that much better now, and today it comes from overseas or
is so miniaturized and complex that it is impossible to comprehend. There is a
growing gap between technology that can be bought and that which you can
understand and make on your own. Remember Heathkit? Remember making crystal
radios? Try making a receiver for HDTV from a bit of quartz and some wire. For
that matter, try to get parts for any involved project. Without the internet
and mail order you can't make anything involving electronics. Anyone with half
a brain had control over at least part of his environment and part of his life
in the 50s.

Working conditions are not appreciably better today. Employees and low level
managers are being increasingly made subject to sweatshop rules and abuse. The
following phases are heard more and more: Work off the clock. Buy a cell
phone so we can contact you whenever we want at a moment's notice. Wear this
uniform, do your hair this way, repeat these phrases, vote this way.
Programmers weren't working just weekdays and a half day Saturday during the PC
revolution. Marathon sessions and catching naps under the desk were common.

We haven't grown as a race. We've become more fragmented, more attracted to
bright shiny objects, more tolerant of mean-spirited assholes, more resigned to
business and the government arm of business ruling our lives, and less
conscious of our actions. We've totally broken the barriers that prevented
diseases of plants, animals and humans from running over the entire globe.
We've destroyed cultures, economic systems, and ecosystems. We've replaced
redundant small-scale businesses and farms with unstable mega-agriculture and
patented plants and animals. We've stolen the profit of egg money from the
farm wife and given it to the landlords of factory farmers. We've stolen the
cultural identity of large groups of people and turned them into supplicants at
fast food soda bars. We've claimed God given parts of humans as corporate
bio-technology property. The "quality of life" today is no longer a
philosophical concept, but a dollars and cents equation on an outdated
computer owned by the government, programmed by businesses, and designed to
pacify the masses.

lpogoda
July 23rd 03, 11:41 PM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On 23 Jul 2003 09:52:31 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
>
>If you don't mind I'll venture an opinion.

I certainly don't mind. As a matter of fact, I'll offer one right back
atya.

>
>> I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
>> really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
>> the 50's.
>
>> Pretty much every economic statistic has improved.
>
>Economic statistics bear only a coincidental relationship to "Quality of
>Life."


Since you haven't defined "quality of life" the accuracy of this statement
is not ascertainable.

>> Working conditions are better,
>
>For who? This is arguable.


So argue it. Pick an industry, tell us what working conditions were like
then and what they're like now. Then go on to another industry and do the
same, working your way through the economy. Or cite statistics like
accident rates or job-related illnesses for the economy as a whole. A snide
insinuation is not an argument.


>> people are better educated,
>
>Also arguable. Wisdom is not the same as knowledge.


In the first place, the statement was about education, not wisdom. In the
second place, you haven't showed that education and wisdom are related, or
that one precludes or is necessary for the other. In the third place, you
haven't argued anything, just made an off the point insinuation.

>> and techology has advanced dramatically.
>
>Definitely true.
>
>> What is it exactly that you thought was better
>> during the 50's?
>
>Old Timer's reply to the same thread as yours pretty much says it for
>me.

That's not much help to me - I don't seem to have the missive to which
you're referring.

lpogoda
July 23rd 03, 11:44 PM
Semi-Detached wrote in message
>...
>>From: (baron48)
>
>>
>>I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
>>really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
>>the 50's. Pretty much every economic statistic has improved. Working
>>conditions are better, people are better educated, and techology has
>>advanced dramatically. What is it exactly that you thought was better
>>during the 50's
>
>IIRC, women didnt have to be 30 pounds underweight to be considered
attractive.
>
Go back far enough, and they had to be 50 pounds overweight to be considered
attractive. That sort of thing is just a matter of fashion, and fashions
change with time. But it's not an indication of quality of life one way or
the other.

Edgar S.
July 24th 03, 12:09 AM
(Karen Wheless) wrote in message >...
> it's very difficult to live on one income.

Hello? It's difficult to live on TWO incomes. In many cases, the
family ends up with more time and about the same money if only one
family member works a job for outside income.

In any case...two incomes is no picnic either.


Most
> people in this area that I know - who are working at "middle class" jobs
> - are living in 1950's houses (quite literally, just about every house
> in my neighborhood was built before 1960), but they can't afford those
> 1950's houses on one salary. Those 1950's houses now cost $300,000.
> However, this is a fairly recent occurence - there's big divide between
> people who bought houses 15-20 years ago and people who have bought
> houses in the last 5-10 years.

That's cause your first group actually paid off the house. The second
group are generally on mortgages. If u r paying a mortgage, u don't
actually OWN your house.

> That's when the huge run-up in housing
> costs took place. Someone who bought a house in 1990 could afford it on
> one income. That house now costs 3 times more, but salaries have not
> tripled in that time period.

Then there's property tax. In some areas, the property tax is more per
month than the owners EVER paid on a mortgage payment.

>
> However, this is probably an issue limited to the Northeast and some
> other big urban areas. It's not nearly as big an issue in other areas
> of the country.
>
> However, another big issue since the 1950's is the loss of jobs in many
> areas of the country. There are a lot of small towns where there are
> just no livable jobs at all.

The "jobs" concept is flawed.


> So you have "expensive but jobs available"
> areas in the Northeast and "cheap but no jobs" in many rural and small
> town areas. The places that fall in between still exist, but I think
> they are being squeezed out the two ends.
>
> I wouldn't want to go back to the 1950's - for one thing, it probably
> would have been very difficult for me to have lived in the 1950's as a
> single woman, since many jobs weren't available for women, I would
> probably had to have gotten married if I wanted to get ahead at all
> economically - but the economy has changed in many ways, some good, some
> bad.

Working for wages all one's adult life is no improvement in quality of
life.

JoelnCaryn
July 24th 03, 12:30 AM
> Is there a word anywhere
>near "homesick" that expresses a longing for a time rather than a place?

Nostalgia.

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 01:31 AM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:41:30 -0400
"lpogoda" > wrote:
<snip>
> Since you haven't defined "quality of life" the accuracy of this
> statement is not ascertainable.
<snip>
> So argue it. Pick an industry, tell us what working conditions were
> like then and what they're like now. Then go on to another industry
> and do the same, working your way through the economy. Or cite
> statistics like accident rates or job-related illnesses for the
> economy as a whole. A snide insinuation is not an argument.
<snip>
> In the first place, the statement was about education, not wisdom. In
> the second place, you haven't showed that education and wisdom are
> related, or that one precludes or is necessary for the other. In the
> third place, you haven't argued anything, just made an off the point
> insinuation.

You seem to have me confused with some student of yours in a
philosophical debate class. I am only expressing my opinion on Usenet,
no thank you for the homework assignment.

<snip>
> That's not much help to me -

I was making no attempt to help you.

> I don't seem to have the missive to which
> you're referring.

It's your newsreader. You figure out how to make it work.

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 01:32 AM
On 23 Jul 2003 22:30:34 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:

> > Is there a word anywhere
> >near "homesick" that expresses a longing for a time rather than a
> >place?
>
> Nostalgia.

Right. Thank you.

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 01:35 AM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:58:36 -0700
Old_Timer wrote:
<snip>
> Now if this were buffet style and I could pick and choose from now and
> 50 years ago there is a lot I would choose from the past, but since
> that is not possible I will have to opt for today.

I agree. It's a mixed bag.

The Real Bev
July 24th 03, 02:26 AM
lpogoda wrote:
>
> Semi-Detached wrote:
>
> >>From: (baron48)
> >
> >>I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
> >>really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
> >>the 50's. Pretty much every economic statistic has improved. Working
> >>conditions are better, people are better educated, and techology has
> >>advanced dramatically. What is it exactly that you thought was better
> >>during the 50's
> >
> >IIRC, women didnt have to be 30 pounds underweight to be considered
> attractive.
> >
> Go back far enough, and they had to be 50 pounds overweight to be considered
> attractive. That sort of thing is just a matter of fashion, and fashions
> change with time. But it's not an indication of quality of life one way or
> the other.

Sure it is! Life is MUCH higher quality when you can pig out!

--
Cheers,
Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
You know how dumb the average person is?
Well, by definition, half are *even dumber*!

baron48
July 24th 03, 06:38 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Jul 2003 09:52:31 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> If you don't mind I'll venture an opinion.
>
> > I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
> > really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
> > the 50's.
>
> > Pretty much every economic statistic has improved.
>
> Economic statistics bear only a coincidental relationship to "Quality of
> Life."

Tell me what you think is a "good" quality of life. It is highly
likely that it requires some amount of economic well-being.

>
> > Working conditions are better,
>
> For who? This is arguable.

Tell me one industry where working conditions are worse than in
the 50's. The fact that most people have moved from manual
labor to office/retail work should make this point obvious.

>
> > people are better educated,
>
> Also arguable. Wisdom is not the same as knowledge.

Wisdom is not necessarily attained through education though
wisdom and knowledge are related. We belabored that point
to death in another thread. There are more college educated
people now especially among women and minorities. You can
argue all day about the quality of education now and then,
but it is a tough thing to prove one way are the other.
I guess a better term would have been "more" educated
instead of "better" educated. Educational opportunities
are also much greater for the average person.

-Tom

baron48
July 24th 03, 06:40 AM
(Semi-Detached) wrote in message >...
> >From: (baron48)
>
> >
> >I guess it depends on how you measure "Quality of Life" but I can't
> >really imagine that most people aren't better of than they were in
> >the 50's. Pretty much every economic statistic has improved. Working
> >conditions are better, people are better educated, and techology has
> >advanced dramatically. What is it exactly that you thought was better
> >during the 50's
>
> IIRC, women didnt have to be 30 pounds underweight to be considered attractive.

Don't worry. Fat or thin, you still aren't going to get any.

-Tom

JoelnCaryn
July 24th 03, 09:05 AM
>Yeah, I almost died from pneumonia and a shot of penicillin as a kid, but the
>doctor came to the house and didn't charge a year's wages to watch over me.

With '50's medical care, I'd be dead, as would my son, husband, and mother...

>People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
>down to meet lowered expectations. Education is no longer prized.

That depends on your sample, though. I value education highly, and my MIL
didn't learn about the periodic table in high school, and my mom was told that
she didn't have to learn chemistry because she was just a girl, and they'd pass
her anyway... so there's some anecdotes which contradict your anecdotes.

>The technology isn't that much better now, and today it comes from overseas
>or
>is so miniaturized and complex that it is impossible to comprehend.

I'd say it's better to have microwaves. Some technology can be considered
goofy, or unnecessary (I think power windows in a car are unnecessary), but
some of it saves lives and speeds research, like PCR. And I'd disagree that
it's impossible to comprehend -- it might be harder for the man on the street
to stare at a TV, see what's wrong with it, and fix it, though. Comprehension
takes more effort. Then again, new TVs don't cost near what they used to cost.

> Anyone with half
>a brain had control over at least part of his environment and part of his
>life in the 50s.

We can still cook from scratch. :-)

>Working conditions are not appreciably better today.

They're a lot better for minorities and women.

>The "quality of life" today is no longer a
>philosophical concept, but a dollars and cents equation on an outdated
>computer owned by the government, programmed by businesses, and designed to
>pacify the masses.

I would argue, however, that things are more *fair* than when an elite set of
well-paid white guys were doing well, and the women and the minorities were
screwed sideways.

Now I'll have to go read de Tocqueville again. There's that bit about how
culture is going to degrade to the lowest common denominator without an elite
to support higher culture...

Chloe
July 24th 03, 02:10 PM
"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
> Now I'll have to go read de Tocqueville again. There's that bit about how
> culture is going to degrade to the lowest common denominator without an
elite
> to support higher culture...

Nah, save the time and effort with a simple, fun experiment.

Take a look around at the audience at the next orchestral concert you play
in, and record your observations. Then spend an evening--unaccompanied by
your husband or other companions--at some hip hop club in one of the less
economically advantaged parts of town. Record your observations. Report back
to us.

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 03:26 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:23:55 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:
<snip>
> if individuals pursue frugality its good thing; if businesses do the
> same, somehow its devilish. may be U.S induhviduals expect businesses
> to do charity work of paying high salaries and protect their jobs
> too..

Individual frugality does not involve biteing the hand that feeds you.

July 24th 03, 03:42 PM
(baron48) wrote:

> Personally, I will take current-day air travel,

Fine. You can have my portion as well. The difference in flying in a roomy
seat at low level in a DC3 compared to a cramped undercushioned seat flying
above clouds is like night and day. The flying time may have been longer, but
you were able to see where you flew. I won't even begin to go into the
security measures at airports today. I haven't flown since 911 and have no
intention of ever flying commercial airlines again.

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 03:47 PM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:21:03 -0700
Old_Timer wrote:
<snip>
> At the time, way back when, that fashion called for attractive women
> to be heavier may have had an economic connection. I do not believe
> that the working class people of that era customarily had rich diets.
>
> So perhaps a status symbol of the more affluent was to have a wife,
> mistress, or girlfriend that was "well fed".
>
> During the years I spent in Asia during my military career I saw some
> of this. The more affluent people were a little plump while the
> peasants were almost universally slender, very slender. Therefore it
> was a status symbol to be a little heavier and someone was
> complimented when it was mentioned. I can no longer remember how to
> say it in Chinese but the compliment was "You look rich".

Yes. I agree. The same phenomenon is observable in other fads also.
Used to be that pale skin was a sign of wealth because the poor worked
outside and were tanned. Now being tanned indicates that you spend most
of your time at the pool or the beach and are therefore wealthy. Ditto
with long fingernails; Sun streaked hair; and myriad other things.

July 24th 03, 04:01 PM
In article >,
Pat Meadows > wrote:

> In the 'quality of life' column, I'd place such things as
> enjoying a natural environment (parks, etc.)., breathing
> unpolluted air, drinking unpolluted water, living in a quiet
> and safe neighborhood, having access to a good public
> library, etc.

And lets not forget <time> to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

leslie
July 24th 03, 04:01 PM
lorenzo ) wrote:
: leslie wrote:
:
: > Once the free movement of labor is under the jurisdiction of the WTO,
: > a corporate global government, the U.S. voters will be powerless to
: > do anything about the loss of higher-paying jobs.
:
: you say it as if its a bad thing. if the same skills are available
: for lot lesser pay why not ? its irony you say this in m.c.f-l.
:

So you also endorse slavery, child labor, abolishing workers' rights,
and settling contracts & mortgages for a few cents on the dollar.

: if individuals pursue frugality its good thing; if businesses do the
: same, somehow its devilish. may be U.S induhviduals expect businesses
: to do charity work of paying high salaries and protect their jobs too..
:

One problem about the U.S. workers making the same amount of money
as their counterparts in India and Communist China is that contracts,
and mortgages can't be adjusted quickly:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/mfg_jobs.htm
Globalism plus Outsourcing Equals American Dispossession

``...This makes "globalism" a direct threat to U.S. living standards.
A number of economic factors, such as existing contracts and mortgage
debt, make it impossible for U.S. wages and salaries to quickly adjust
downward to Chinese and Indian levels. Therefore, Americans will
continue to lose ground in the global labor market. The "jobless
recovery" is one indication of this lost ground."''

Or perhaps you support the mortgage holders accepting 10 cents or less
on the dollar.

Multinational corporations don't like nasty old things like:

o laws against pollution
o laws outlining workers' rights
o laws against child labor

Those are some of the reasons transnational corporations prefer brutal
dictatorships like Communist China [1] where workers can be literally
worked to death. [2]

The WTO consists of corporate attorneys from the transnational corporations
and the WTO tribunals have a perfect track record on environmental issues,
workers' rights and safety, and law suits against corporations, always
siding with the corporations. [3]

For example, a Canadian corporation filed suit against the state of
California for its plan to ban MTBE, a gasoline additive found to be
a carcinogen that has polluted ground water supplies. [4]

In U.S.-controlled Saipan, pregnant workers were forced to have
an abortion or be fired [5], until the courts provided some relief
against the near slavery conditions [6].

In summary, the WTO is a creation of multinational corporations,
for the benefit of multinational corporations, and is totally
nondemocratic, operating in secret like the Star Chambers of old.

The "Free Trade Myth" article [3] has sample letters to send to
the President and Congress, requesting that the U.S. withdraw from
the WTO unless the WTO conducts its business in a more democratic
and open manner.


[1] http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/survey.html
Globalization Survey Reveals U.S. Corporations Prefer Dictatorships

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8254-2002May12.html
Worked Till They Drop (washingtonpost.com)

[3] http://www.theemailactivist.org/FreeTrade.htm
The Free Trade Myth

[4] http://www.globalexchange.org/wto/collier072499.html
WTO: U.S. Laws Diluted by Trade Pacts Rulings Stir Criticism
across Political Spectrum

[5] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/saipan0331.html
ABCNEWS.com : Forced Labor, Abortions in Saipan

[6] http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/marianas/2002settlement.html
SWEATSHOP WATCH: Stop Saipan Sweatshops - Retailers Agree to Settlement



--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

lorenzo
July 24th 03, 04:01 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Individual frugality does not involve biteing the hand that feeds you.

example ?

(oh, please skip enron, worldcom unless you are inferring mgmt screwups)

*lorenzo*

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 04:26 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:01:30 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > Individual frugality does not involve biteing the hand that feeds
> > you.
>
> example ?

Example of what? You were discussing offshoring of jobs by US
businesses.
Of the companies that do that, pick any you choose as an example. My
statement applies to them all. Any corporation that benefits from being
located in the US and then ships jobs overseas is biting the hand that
feeds it.

<snip>

lorenzo
July 24th 03, 04:40 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Example of what? You were discussing offshoring of jobs by US
> businesses.
> Of the companies that do that, pick any you choose as an example. My
> statement applies to them all. Any corporation that benefits from being
> located in the US and then ships jobs overseas is biting the hand that
> feeds it.

jobs are by product of business activity and the business owns it.
it can shift/modify those resources however the hell it wants without
getting bogged down in syndromes like patriotism etc. first, get your
logic of who feeds who right.

*lorenzo*

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 06:04 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:40:41 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > Example of what? You were discussing offshoring of jobs by US
> > businesses.
> > Of the companies that do that, pick any you choose as an example. My
> > statement applies to them all. Any corporation that benefits from
> > being located in the US and then ships jobs overseas is biting the
> > hand that feeds it.
>
> jobs are by product of business activity and the business owns it.
> it can shift/modify those resources however the hell it wants without
> getting bogged down in syndromes like patriotism etc. first, get your
> logic of who feeds who right.

Spoken like a true materialist, not at all "bogged down" with
patriotism, morality, or ethics. "Only Mammon is God, and money is his
profit. All praise to Mammon."

Crawl back under your rock, Toad.

lorenzo
July 24th 03, 06:23 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:

>>jobs are by product of business activity and the business owns it.
>>it can shift/modify those resources however the hell it wants without
>>getting bogged down in syndromes like patriotism etc. first, get your
>>logic of who feeds who right.
>
>
> Spoken like a true materialist, not at all "bogged down" with
> patriotism, morality, or ethics. "Only Mammon is God, and money is his
> profit. All praise to Mammon."

ok, Mr. Punter, any relavancy for a change
from your room temparature IQ noggin ?

*lorenzo*
PS: i'll excuse you for adding unsaid words like ethics, morality mr.brunei-man.

Albert Wagner
July 24th 03, 06:43 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:23:09 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> >>jobs are by product of business activity and the business owns it.
> >>it can shift/modify those resources however the hell it wants
> >without>getting bogged down in syndromes like patriotism etc. first,
> >get your>logic of who feeds who right.
> >
> >
> > Spoken like a true materialist, not at all "bogged down" with
> > patriotism, morality, or ethics. "Only Mammon is God, and money is
> > his profit. All praise to Mammon."
>
> ok, Mr. Punter, any relavancy for a change
> from your room temparature IQ noggin ?

That's the best I can do given your statement. Anything more will
require behaviour from you beyond the robotic. When you display enough
humanity to convince me that you are not just a Turing machine, then
perhaps we can have a discussion.

>
> *lorenzo*
> PS: i'll excuse you for adding unsaid words like ethics, morality
> mr.brunei-man.
>

I thought that the "etc." gave me that license.

lorenzo
July 24th 03, 06:53 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> That's the best I can do given your statement. Anything more will
> require behaviour from you beyond the robotic.

ok, now we are talking: excuses.

> When you display enough
> humanity to convince me that you are not just a Turing machine, then
> perhaps we can have a discussion.

thanks, but no thanks. i've seen your reasoning at work
in other threads.

> I thought that the "etc."

that must have hurt quite a bit !

*lorenzo*

JoelnCaryn
July 24th 03, 07:23 PM
>> Now I'll have to go read de Tocqueville again. There's that bit about how
>> culture is going to degrade to the lowest common denominator without an
>elite
>> to support higher culture...
>
>Nah, save the time and effort with a simple, fun experiment.
>
>Take a look around at the audience at the next orchestral concert you play
>in, and record your observations. Then spend an evening--unaccompanied by
>your husband or other companions--at some hip hop club in one of the less
>economically advantaged parts of town. Record your observations. Report back
>to us.

And yet, de Tocqueville thought it was a good idea *anyway*.

baron48
July 24th 03, 09:27 PM
wrote in message >...
> (baron48) wrote:
>
>
> >Computers don't "make" statistics. Just process the data.
>
> You miss the point. The beginning and end of the post were linked in concept.

Yes, but your statements were wrong in both cases, so you failed to
make any point (let alone sense).

>
> >What did you think the future was going to be like? I don't think
> >that now, the future looks paticularly bleak. Certainly not perfect,
> >but not bad by historical standards.
>
> I had a naive notion that government would still be by the people and for the
> people.

Yes, very naive. It has, of course, never been that way. Humans have
fundamental flaws that preclude this.

[Snip a lot of wishful thinking...]

Again, you are expecting a certain level of perfection for humans
that is simply not there.

> I expected millions of miles of roads would be falling into disuse
> because of a safer, cheaper, and more efficient method of driverless
> transportation. I expected lakes to be full of clean water instead of milfoil,
> lamprey, and phosphorus. I expected men on the moon and mars. I could
> continue for weeks.

We have made many technology advances. The environment in a lot of
places is much improved over what it was in the 50's.

>
> >Personally, I will take now over then for medical care. I didn't have
> >to suffer through the joys of mumps like my Dad and a host of other
> >unpleasant infections like my Grandpas did. They also could have
> >probably diagnosed my one Grandpa's cancer a lot earlier and very
> >likely could have saved the other who died of a heart attack.
>
> *shrug* Until doctors find a way to keep people from dying before 120, and find
> a way to eliminate all un-needed pain, I'm not overwhelmed with their powers.

Uhh...ok. Kind of a high standard there.

> I'm finding that for day to day life, ancient Chinese medical wisdom seems to
> be an improvement on Western medicine and the drug du'jour.

Could be. Do what works for you. I'm glad to have the option
of Western medicine on occassion though.

>
> >> People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
> >> down to meet lowered expectations. Education is no longer prized.
>
> >It's just one anecdote. There is no question that there are more people
> >attending college (especially among women and minorities) and more advanced
> >degrees being awarded than ever before. You can argue all you want about
> >quality of education, but you will never be able to prove it one way or the
> >other because you can never nail down the definition of "quality." There
> >is definitely more opportunity for people to become educated if they wish
> >to today than in the 1950's. They were still fighting over racial
> >segregation and such things in the 1950's for Christ sake!
>
> I'm sorry, but when I see job applications of teenagers that look like those of
> four year olds, I'm not impressed.

Me either. How were the job applications in the 50's?

> There will always be exemplary schools,
> colleges, and universities. The core education of the masses is what is
> falling down. As long as it is one person = one vote, this will create a
> population that can be easily manipulated by demagogs. (FWIW, I no longer
> believe in the one person one vote concept and believe that extra votes should
> be granted based on intelligence, income, age, and other factors.)

I thought you wanted government by the people for the people?

>
> >> (on technological complexity)
> >So what? I don't need to be able to build something to nake use of it.
>
> Like a sentence? (grin - sorry, couldn't resist)

Thanks for the proof read.

> The more things that a
> person uses but doesn't understand, the less self-sufficient they are.

Not in a complex, industrial society. Specialization is the key.

> Businesses and governments want people to be dependent on them to live. With
> that dependency comes loss of personal power.

True, but selling them low-priced, throw-away consumer electronics
will
not accomplish this. Social programs are the government's preferred
method.

>
> >>Anyone with half
> >> a brain had control over at least part of his environment and part of his life
> >> in the 50s.
> >
> >I have no idea what you are trying to say. Just because I can't build a
> >TV from scratch doesn't mean I can't make use of it. If you are worried,
> >try pushing the power button. I've never had it decide to not shut off
> >when I did that.
>
> Give it time...

I did. They gave me a remote, so I don't even have to get out of
the chair.

>
> >> Working conditions are not appreciably better today. Employees and low level
> >> managers are being increasingly made subject to sweatshop rules and abuse. The
> >> following phases are heard more and more: Work off the clock. Buy a cell
> >> phone so we can contact you whenever we want at a moment's notice. Wear this
> >> uniform, do your hair this way, repeat these phrases, vote this way.
>
> >Yea, guess you would rather be having a good ole time sweating away in
> >the coal mine or steel mill. It's not like this stuff didn't happen in the
> >50's. We just didn't have much a mass media to instantly broadcast it
> >all over the country. Most people's work conditions are miles ahead of
> >the dangerous and unhealthy conditions that existed in the 50's in many
> >industries.
>
> I wouldn't call it miles ahead. Stress is an unhealthy condition. The damaged
> lungs and limbs have been overtaken by burnout and other less visible injuries.

No one had stress back in the 50's? Doubtful. More likely, it just
wasn't diagnosed.

>
> >> We haven't grown as a race. We've become more fragmented, more attracted to
> >> bright shiny objects, more tolerant of mean-spirited assholes, more resigned to
> >> business and the government arm of business ruling our lives, and less
> >> conscious of our actions. We've totally broken the barriers that prevented
> >> diseases of plants, animals and humans from running over the entire globe.
> >> We've destroyed cultures, economic systems, and ecosystems. We've replaced
> >> redundant small-scale businesses and farms with unstable mega-agriculture and
> >> patented plants and animals. We've stolen the profit of egg money from the
> >> farm wife and given it to the landlords of factory farmers. We've stolen the
> >> cultural identity of large groups of people and turned them into supplicants at
> >> fast food soda bars. We've claimed God given parts of humans as corporate
> >> bio-technology property. The "quality of life" today is no longer a
> >> philosophical concept, but a dollars and cents equation on an outdated
> >> computer owned by the government, programmed by businesses, and designed to
> >> pacify the masses.
> >
> >Nice diatribe, but some of these are just plain wrong, and other's can
> >be mostly attributed to the World becoming more crowded. Sorry that
> >your personal utopia was not achieved, but it probably had more to do
> >with infeasibility than coporate/government bogeymen and such.
>
> Well I might have gone overboard with "bright shiny objects" but every other
> point in the paragraph can be documented.

Really? Where is the documentation on how we have become more
fragmented?
Where is the documentation on how we have become more tolerant of
"mean-
spirtied assholes." More resigned to business and and the government
arm of business ruling our lives, and less conscious of our actions?

> I'll agree that excess population
> does have a lot to do with some problems, but you are dead wrong about
> "infeasibility."

Like I said. Humans are fundamentally flawed. That makes much of
what you propose infeasible. So, no I'm not "dead wrong."

> Making changes in a society with rigid intellectual property
> rights can be next to impossible. Much of the speed of the computer revolution
> was possible only because the courts ruled that Compaq's reverse engineering of
> IBMs code was legal. The digital millennium copyright act now makes such
> activities a federal crime.

Possibly true, but having a society with little intellectual property
rights will result in little intellectual property being created. As
with many things, there is a balance.

>
> Did you think I was mourning the loss of a personal utopia? I wasn't. I was
> mourning the loss of freedoms, integrity, and even manners.

I didn't think you were mourning the loss of it. I hope not, because
it
never existed. I suspect you just got old and are engaging in the
standard, intergenerational carping. I hear the same thing from my
Dad all the time. He got it from Grandpa, and so on...

-Tom

Neil
July 24th 03, 09:57 PM
wrote in message >...
> (baron48) wrote:

(snip)

> >What did you think the future was going to be like? I don't think
> >that now, the future looks paticularly bleak. Certainly not perfect,
> >but not bad by historical standards.

Especially if you take into account (at least for the sort of people
reading this and many others) improved health care, longer life spans,
elimination of some diseases, much safer childbirth, etc.

> I had a naive notion that government would still be by the people and for the
> people.

With universal suffrage and the lowering of the voting age to 18 in
the US, we arguably have much more power as citizens.

>I expected that copyrights would expire after the creator of the work
> died or within 20 years of his or her death, and not be held in perpetuity by
> mega-corporations. I expected that large publicly held corporations would be
> run by people other than thieves.

To some extent, businesses are about greed.

>I expected the president of the U.S. would
> be able to speak at least a paragraph properly and be respected as a person
> around the world.

To quote a certain president, then you "misunderestimated"...sorry,
couldn't resist!

>I expected that free speech would continue,

And freedom of movement...

>and cartoonists
> wouldn't be harassed by the secret service as is now the case. I expected that
> property rights and fourth amendment rights would be upheld. I expected that
> foods would not be filled with water, extenders, hormones, chemical
> preservatives, dyes made from ground up beetles, and genetically engineered bug
> killers. I expected millions of miles of roads would be falling into disuse
> because of a safer, cheaper, and more efficient method of driverless
> transportation.

Reminds me of the song by Donald Fagen (which he meant as ironic
commentary): "What a beautiful world this will be/What a glorious time
to be free...Just machines that make big decisions/Programmed by men
of compassion and vision"

But seriously, our ongoing transportation problems, frenzy to build
more roads, pave whatever's not paved yet, and sell and buy
cars/vehicles/SUVs that get worsening mpg, really puzzles me
sometimes, especially after the energy crisis of the 1970's. One of
the disapppointments of the present is seeing that many of the worst
predictions made decades are slowly coming true, yet there's little
effort to fix the problems.

For example, look at hybrid cars, which aren't so much good as less
bad than previous cars. And we in the US could send a man to the Moon
34 years ago, yet we still can't make fuel-efficient and/or
non-oil-dependent cars. The hybrids are Japanese and they're already
years ahead in bringing such vehicles to market. And I'm not talking
about any big change in transportation, I'm only talking about getting
cars that work better within the habits and framework we've had in the
US for perhaps 100 years.

>I expected lakes to be full of clean water instead of milfoil,
> lamprey, and phosphorus. I expected men on the moon and mars. I could
> continue for weeks.

I know what you mean about putting people on the Moon and Mars. Who'd
have guessed that after we put men on the Moon in 1969, (at least
IMHO) we haven't really made dramatic progress after 34 more years?
We're able to orbit the earth and do research, but at least at a
simplified level, that was done 40 years ago.

> >Personally, I will take now over then for medical care. I didn't have
> >to suffer through the joys of mumps like my Dad and a host of other
> >unpleasant infections like my Grandpas did. They also could have
> >probably diagnosed my one Grandpa's cancer a lot earlier and very
> >likely could have saved the other who died of a heart attack.

Exactly. Advances in health care, public health, disease prevention,
elimination of some diseases, etc. are probably the reason some of us
are here reading this.

> *shrug* Until doctors find a way to keep people from dying before 120, and find
> a way to eliminate all un-needed pain, I'm not overwhelmed with their powers.

The fact that some diseases are so well controlled and/or prevented
may be why you're alive to say this. I think most people know how to
live healthier (and perhaps longer) lives, they just refuse to do it.
And pain management has had huge improvements.

> I'm finding that for day to day life, ancient Chinese medical wisdom seems to
> be an improvement on Western medicine and the drug du'jour.

I'm not knocking that, but I'm grateful for vaccines, x-rays, and
other advances.

(snip)

> >> People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
> >> down to meet lowered expectations. Education is no longer prized.
>
> >It's just one anecdote. There is no question that there are more people
> >attending college (especially among women and minorities) and more advanced
> >degrees being awarded than ever before. You can argue all you want about
> >quality of education, but you will never be able to prove it one way or the
> >other because you can never nail down the definition of "quality."

BTW, one thing we're seeing my part of the US is that the new federal,
Bush-supported "no child left behind" testing is finding deficiencies
in schools that have tested and ranked well by other standards. IOW, I
agree that "quality" can be a slippery concept, although I hate to say
it.

>There
> >is definitely more opportunity for people to become educated if they wish
> >to today than in the 1950's. They were still fighting over racial
> >segregation and such things in the 1950's for Christ sake!

I'm old enough to have seen some of the last of the official
gov't-supported school segregation. Things are much better now. I can
remember when any non-white student in a predominately-white school
was a real rarity. And segregation was also done not just by law, but
by careful selection of districts for schools, causing de facto
segregation.

Where I live, public school kids and parents are assigned to a
district school, but have the option to apply to two other schools.
When I grew up, options like this were nonexistent. About the only
thing parents could do was move to another home in a better school's
district, which only people with $$$ could do.

I can remember when the KKK used to rent the big, fancy, city-owned
auditorium in the city where I grew up, and we'd see KKK folks in the
hoods, uniforms, etc. walking around downtown. This was a terrorist
organization, yet somehow they were allowed to hold a convention in
the best auditorium in town, built with taxpayer funds and just a few
blocks from predominately-black businesses and homes. In fact, a black
college's campus is across the street from the auditorium. No, the KKK
doesn't do this stuff any more, and now no one would allow them to use
the auditorium, I'm sure. I'm not saying racism has disappeared and
domestic terrorism has disappeared, but it's no longer accepted like
it was when I was a child.

> I'm sorry, but when I see job applications of teenagers that look like those of
> four year olds, I'm not impressed.

At least we don't have child labor in the US now, unlike many other
countries that have that and slave labor also.

> There will always be exemplary schools,
> colleges, and universities. The core education of the masses is what is
> falling down. As long as it is one person = one vote, this will create a
> population that can be easily manipulated by demagogs. (FWIW, I no longer
> believe in the one person one vote concept and believe that extra votes should
> be granted based on intelligence, income, age, and other factors.)

BTW, some countries allow all voters to have a certain number of votes
that voters can allocate as they see fit. For example, if you had 20
votes, and all you really cared about was who's elected mayor, you
could put all your votes towards a mayoral candidate and ignore the
other races, or you could put some of your votes toward several
candidates, or you could cast a vote in every single race. IOW, you
get a number of votes and you can budget them as you see fit. Also
IOW, there are really other ways to handle voting, but I don't think
they're widely used in the US.

One thing that surprises me is that the Electoral College isn't
discussed by anyone I know or written about in anything I read. After
the 2000 fiasco, I would've thought that more people would want to
move to direct, national elections.

(snip)

>The more things that a
> person uses but doesn't understand, the less self-sufficient they are.

Agree.

> Businesses and governments want people to be dependent on them to live. With
> that dependency comes loss of personal power.

Agree.

> >>Anyone with half
> >> a brain had control over at least part of his environment and part of his life
> >> in the 50s.

There was a lot of gov't spying on citizens, no Miranda rights, etc.
in the 1950's, partly out of fear of communism. Now much of that is
returning, in fear of terrorism, when there's really no evidence that
these things will hinder terrorism. (This is because very few people
understand what terrorism is and how it works. By clamping down on
ourselves and wasting resources, we don't hinder terrorism, but
instead we help terrorists achieve their goals. We hurt ourselves,
magnifying what the terrotists begin and causing unrest and dissension
among ourselves.)

> >I have no idea what you are trying to say. Just because I can't build a
> >TV from scratch doesn't mean I can't make use of it. If you are worried,
> >try pushing the power button. I've never had it decide to not shut off
> >when I did that.

In my case, I'm somewhat disturbed to realize that I've got almost no
idea of how to grow my own food, make soap, etc. and all the basic
things I need. OTOH, I'm glad that those things are so cheap that I
can afford not to know how to make them, and instead focus on my job
and leisure time.

> Give it time...
>
> >> Working conditions are not appreciably better today. Employees and low level
> >> managers are being increasingly made subject to sweatshop rules and abuse. The
> >> following phases are heard more and more: Work off the clock. Buy a cell
> >> phone so we can contact you whenever we want at a moment's notice.

The advantage of the cell phone is that you can receive calls anytime.
The disadvantage is the same.

>>>Wear this
> >> uniform, do your hair this way,

That's lessened for many people in jobs. Back in 1992, I had to wear a
suit to work daily. Now I don't even own a suit and I'm not sure if
anyone at my job does, or even owns a necktie. Casual Fridays (based
on Hawaiian bankers' "aloha Fridays") were a cheap benefit and then
the casual clothes at work expanded from there.

But if you're in a minimum-wage job, such as those described in
Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickeled and Dimed," you'll be in a uniform.

>>>repeat these phrases, vote this way.

Agree. And the ongoing creation of tax breaks for the richest US
citizens means that the rich get richer, while the poor will get
poorer. I'm confused as to why any official would want to open greater
chasms among the voters; this could be setting the rich up for
revolution and revenge by poorer folks. And the ongoing efforts to
shrink/starve/destroy the US federal gov't, by cutting taxes so that
the gov't is forced into financial crisis, baffles me also. It's
helping to force financial crises onto state gov'ts also.

Another thing that appalls me is the rush to gov't-supported gambling,
lotteries, etc. No wonder some people don't respect gov't.

> >Yea, guess you would rather be having a good ole time sweating away in
> >the coal mine or steel mill. It's not like this stuff didn't happen in the
> >50's. We just didn't have much a mass media to instantly broadcast it
> >all over the country.

I think the info was there, we just accepted these dangers.

>> Most people's work conditions are miles ahead of
> >the dangerous and unhealthy conditions that existed in the 50's in many
> >industries.

Agree.

> I wouldn't call it miles ahead. Stress is an unhealthy condition. The damaged
> lungs and limbs have been overtaken by burnout and other less visible injuries.

I'd prefer a repetitive-motion problem from overuse of a PC mouse to
being buried alive in a coal mine, sold into slavery, or any of many
past, legal practices. Reading Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in high
school made a real impression on me. Don't know if teachers still
assign that; if I were a teacher, I'd worry about being pilloried by
loudmouth conservative kooks on talk radio. (I'm old enough to
remember when at least some conservatives still believed in freedom of
thought, before the radical right outshouted everyone else.)

(snip)

> >> We haven't grown as a race. We've become more fragmented, more attracted to
> >> bright shiny objects, more tolerant of mean-spirited assholes, more resigned to
> >> business and the government arm of business ruling our lives, and less
> >> conscious of our actions. We've totally broken the barriers that prevented
> >> diseases of plants, animals and humans from running over the entire globe.
> >> We've destroyed cultures, economic systems, and ecosystems. We've replaced
> >> redundant small-scale businesses and farms with unstable mega-agriculture and
> >> patented plants and animals. We've stolen the profit of egg money from the
> >> farm wife and given it to the landlords of factory farmers. We've stolen the
> >> cultural identity of large groups of people and turned them into supplicants at
> >> fast food soda bars. We've claimed God given parts of humans as corporate
> >> bio-technology property. The "quality of life" today is no longer a
> >> philosophical concept, but a dollars and cents equation on an outdated
> >> computer owned by the government, programmed by businesses, and designed to
> >> pacify the masses.

I don't completely agree with you, but I see your point, especially
about the bright, shiny objects we pursue, then eventually find
disappointment in, and the disconnection, alienation, and lack of
responsibility. In some ways, we've improved (such as ex-husbands
being held more accountable for child support, the end of slavery and
child labor, desegregation, etc.), but in some ways we haven't.

There's way too much emphasis on selfishness and self-fulfillment at
the expense of the community, as if selfishness was a solution to
anything and we don't all have to suffer the consequences of
selfishness.

One more thought: My pastor recently pointed out that we have elected
leaders who like to talk about God, but they put their real faith and
trust in human solutions. And I'll add, then we wind up with solutions
and policies that lack ethics and morality. Some elected leaders like
to talk the talk, but they won't walk the walk.

(snip)

Chloe
July 24th 03, 10:37 PM
"baron48" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
<snip>
> > Did you think I was mourning the loss of a personal utopia? I wasn't.
I was
> > mourning the loss of freedoms, integrity, and even manners.
>
> I didn't think you were mourning the loss of it. I hope not, because
> it
> never existed. I suspect you just got old and are engaging in the
> standard, intergenerational carping. I hear the same thing from my
> Dad all the time. He got it from Grandpa, and so on...
>
> -Tom

Tom, Tom, Tom. Here all this time I thought you were going on and on about
something you had personally experienced, but now I'm getting the impression
you know the 50s only through what you've read in books or seen on film.
Please at least don't try to educate those of us who were actually there.
You'll only end up looking foolish, kind of like the guy who's a virgin but
considers himself an expert on sex because he's watched a lot of porno
movies.

Edgar S.
July 24th 03, 11:55 PM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Pat Meadows > wrote:
>
> > In the 'quality of life' column, I'd place such things as
> > enjoying a natural environment (parks, etc.)., breathing
> > unpolluted air, drinking unpolluted water, living in a quiet
> > and safe neighborhood, having access to a good public
> > library, etc.
>
> And lets not forget <time> to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

That's what gets me about the US today. A lot of cash runs thru our
fingers...but we typically no longer have the time to enjoy any of it.

lpogoda
July 25th 03, 01:30 AM
Pat Meadows wrote in message ...
>
>I wouldn't say that 'quality of life' and 'disposable
>income' are the same thing at all.
>
>In the 'quality of life' column, I'd place such things as
>enjoying a natural environment (parks, etc.)., breathing
>unpolluted air, drinking unpolluted water, living in a quiet
>and safe neighborhood, having access to a good public
>library, etc.
>
>Many of my 'quality of life' things have little or nothing
>to do with disposable income.
>
And yet, judging from many of your posts here, one of your big problems is a
relative paucity of disposable income. Who was it who said "I've been rich
and I've been poor. Rich is better."?

JoelnCaryn
July 25th 03, 02:50 AM
>> >> Now I'll have to go read de Tocqueville again. There's that bit about
>how
>> >> culture is going to degrade to the lowest common denominator without an
>> >elite
>> >> to support higher culture...
>> >
>> >Nah, save the time and effort with a simple, fun experiment.
>> >
>> >Take a look around at the audience at the next orchestral concert you
>play
>> >in, and record your observations. Then spend an evening--unaccompanied by
>> >your husband or other companions--at some hip hop club in one of the less
>> >economically advantaged parts of town. Record your observations. Report
>back
>> >to us.
>>
>> And yet, de Tocqueville thought it was a good idea *anyway*.
>
>Okay, although I'm not really sure what you mean. Thought what was a good
>idea, and why the *anyway?*
>
>I was just wondering if you might want to try coming up with some original
>observations, just like de Tocqueville did, instead of simply processing and
>reprocessing his ideas. To do that, of course, one always needs to leave
>their comfort zone, though.

De Tocqueville was coming from the position of the educated elite in an
aristocracy, a position which I hardly share, and thought that, despite the
advantages of an educated elite, it was more fair to everyone to switch over to
a democratic form of government from an aristocratic one. Which is what I was
talking about.

You might be interested to know that I periodically coach this punk band, which
plays in a lot of dives: http://www.haffo.com

As for original observations -- you don't post those on Usenet. You publish
them.

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 04:00 AM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:30:33 -0400
"lpogoda" > wrote:

>
> Pat Meadows wrote in message ...
> >
> >I wouldn't say that 'quality of life' and 'disposable
> >income' are the same thing at all.
> >
> >In the 'quality of life' column, I'd place such things as
> >enjoying a natural environment (parks, etc.)., breathing
> >unpolluted air, drinking unpolluted water, living in a quiet
> >and safe neighborhood, having access to a good public
> >library, etc.
> >
> >Many of my 'quality of life' things have little or nothing
> >to do with disposable income.
> >
> And yet, judging from many of your posts here, one of your big
> problems is a relative paucity of disposable income. Who was it who
> said "I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better."?
>
Mae West, I think.

Colt
July 25th 03, 04:09 AM
Think CAREFULLY about what the 50s were really like for women. How many
of us really want to go back to inadequately-controlled fertility and
the kinds of personal and professional straight-jackets this fertility
placed on women?

The Real Bev
July 25th 03, 04:42 AM
Colt wrote:
>
> Think CAREFULLY about what the 50s were really like for women. How many
> of us really want to go back to inadequately-controlled fertility and
> the kinds of personal and professional straight-jackets this fertility
> placed on women?

Not to mention those goddam hats and white gloves.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ===
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.

baron48
July 25th 03, 09:40 AM
wrote in message >...
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> > Personally, I will take current-day air travel,
>
> Fine. You can have my portion as well. The difference in flying in a roomy
> seat at low level in a DC3 compared to a cramped undercushioned seat flying
> above clouds is like night and day.

Definitely different, but it is unaffordable for most, much less safe,
quite noisy, and slow.

> The flying time may have been longer, but
> you were able to see where you flew.

Most people are just trying to get from point A to point B. If you
enjoy that type of flying, there are many fine charter operations
that can help.

> I won't even begin to go into the
> security measures at airports today. I haven't flown since 911 and have no
> intention of ever flying commercial airlines again.

The statistical odds of something happening are very low. You
do more dangerous stuff on a daily basis than flying on a commercial
airline. The security is about as good as it has ever been.

-Tom Greene

baron48
July 25th 03, 10:08 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Jul 2003 21:38:59 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
> <snip>
> > Tell me what you think is a "good" quality of life. It is highly
> > likely that it requires some amount of economic well-being.
> <snip>
> > Tell me one industry where working conditions are worse than in
> > the 50's. The fact that most people have moved from manual
> > labor to office/retail work should make this point obvious.
> <snip>
> > Wisdom is not necessarily attained through education though
> > wisdom and knowledge are related. We belabored that point
> > to death in another thread. There are more college educated
> > people now especially among women and minorities. You can
> > argue all day about the quality of education now and then,
> > but it is a tough thing to prove one way are the other.
> > I guess a better term would have been "more" educated
> > instead of "better" educated. Educational opportunities
> > are also much greater for the average person.
>
>
> The operative word is "quality." This word is highly subjective and
> therefore almost undefinable. There are several things it is not,
> though. It is NOT just more stuff. It is NOT a field hand coming inside
> to be a house ******. And it is NOT training for a trade rather than
> citizenship.

You didn't answer the question as usual.

-Tom

lorenzo
July 25th 03, 10:50 AM
baron48 wrote:
> Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
>
<snip>
>>The operative word is "quality." This word is highly subjective and
>>therefore almost undefinable. There are several things it is not,
>>though. It is NOT just more stuff. It is NOT a field hand coming inside
>>to be a house ******. And it is NOT training for a trade rather than
>>citizenship.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question as usual.

i hereby propose an award MAPLOW[1] giveout every week.
unfortunatley we all know who wins it most of the time.

*lorenzo*

[1] Most Amazing Punt Line Of the Week

Semi-Detached
July 25th 03, 11:47 AM
>From: (baron48)

>>
>> IIRC, women didnt have to be 30 pounds underweight to be considered
>attractive.
>
>Don't worry. Fat or thin, you still aren't going to get any.
>

Im getting more now than I did in the 50s

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 02:56 PM
On 25 Jul 2003 01:08:54 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
<snip>
> You didn't answer the question as usual.

You didn't ask a question. You made an impossible demand. If you're so
smart, then you define "quality of life". And do it scientifically,
with proof, and without a hint of subjectivity. Do it in a single
Usenet post.

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 03:00 PM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:50:06 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:
<snip>
> i hereby propose an award MAPLOW[1] giveout every week.
> unfortunatley we all know who wins it most of the time.
>
> *lorenzo*
>
> [1] Most Amazing Punt Line Of the Week
>

Congratulations! You just won the weekly MAST award: Most Asinine
Statement by a Twit

aace
July 25th 03, 03:24 PM
Saw this this morning thought it might fit in here.


The good life gets more elusive
Americans raise the bar on what it takes to be happy
By Andrea Coombes, CBS.Marke****ch.com
Last Update: 12:41 AM ET July 25, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Not war, terrorist attacks, nor economic strife has diminished
Americans' aspirations for the good life.

From second cars to vacation homes, consumers are bent on living well. And those kinds of
possessions are considered essential by more people even than during the boom times of the late
1990s, according to a RoperASW survey tracking consumers' definition of the good life since 1975.

Consumers "continue to want it all," said Carey Silvers, vice president of RoperASW, a market
research firm. "Even if they get knocked down a rung, they'll look to get back up as soon as
possible."

Fifty-two percent of Americans say a second car is essential to the good life, up from 43 percent
in 1999, the heyday of the economic boom, according to the survey of 2,004 adults in February.

Forty-eight percent said a vacation home would be necessary, up from 35 percent four years ago.

Even traveling abroad, despite international turmoil, gained stature in consumers' eyes between
1999 and 2003, with 47 percent of consumers considering overseas travel integral to a full life
now, up from 37 percent.

Owning a home continues its reign at the top of the list, with 89 percent saying it's a necessary
part of the good life.

Not just toys

While some might assume the American version of the good life to be comprised solely of material
goods, intangibles such as relationships and spirituality are important as well, the survey found.

Good health and a happy marriage follow home ownership on the list of top requirements, earning 87
percent and 81 percent of consumers' votes, respectively.

While owning a car pops up next, with 78 percent labeling it a necessity, having children rounds
out the top five, with 76 percent saying kids are essential to a completely happy existence.

More consumers now think an interesting job is important, with 62 percent pointing to that, up
from 53 percent in 1999.

Sixty-six percent consider free time an important facet of the good life, while 64 percent pointed
to spiritual enrichment. But that doesn't mean Americans will completely sacrifice their consumer
products: 39 percent say a home entertainment center is vital to the American dream.

Are we there yet?

Relatively unchanged is the percentage of people who feel they've attained the good life: 9
percent said they have, a number that has hovered between 6 percent and 11 percent since 1975.
Seventy-one percent feel there's a good chance they'll live the good life one day.

But Americans feel they are less successful now in attaining some intangibles than they have been
in the past.

Forty-seven percent of those surveyed said they have a happy marriage, compared to 62 percent in
1975. And 26 percent say they have an interesting job today, down from 40 percent in 1975.

Consumers, all

While American's perception of the good life is as diverse as Americans themselves, one thing
unites it: We attain our version of the dream by buying things, some say.

"Our understanding of the good life is very diverse, but in a funny way the consumer economy
offers itself to everyone as a means to achieve their own personal conception of the good life,"
said Lendol Calder, an associate professor at Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill., and author
of "Financing the American Dream: A Cultural History of Consumer Credit."

For example, he noted that for "an evangelical Christian whose passion is to be close to God,
(consumerism can) enable them to be close to God," he said, by enabling them to buy ski trips for
their kids' youth groups or Christian books and DVDs, he said.

Andrea Coombes is a reporter for CBS.Marke****ch.com in San Francisco.

July 25th 03, 04:11 PM
aace > wrote:

>Saw this this morning thought it might fit in here.
>
>
> The good life gets more elusive
> Americans raise the bar on what it takes to be happy
> By Andrea Coombes, CBS.Marke****ch.com
> Last Update: 12:41 AM ET July 25, 2003
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Not war, terrorist attacks, nor economic strife has diminished
> Americans' aspirations for the good life.

Thank you for bringing insight to the thread. That is much more helpful than
the tedious taunts I just read.

I don't agree with the idea of buying contentment. Whenever the idea is
mentioned, I smile and remember Steve Martin in "The Jerk." The scene where he
gets his name listed in the telephone directory and thinks he has made it big
shows the ever increasing desire for fame, and the scene where he loses his
girlfriend and the good life and says :

"I don't need any of this! I don't need this stuff, (pushes letters off the
desk), and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this (picks up
ashtray) and that's it and that's the only thing I need, is this. I don't need
this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the
paddle game and that's all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the
paddle game and the remote control, and that's all I need. And these matches.
The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And
this lamp. The ashtray, this paddle game and the remote control and the lamp
and that's all I need. And that's all I need too. I don't need one other thing,
not one - I need this! The paddle game, and the chair, and the remote control,
and the matches, for sure. Well what are you looking at? What do you think I
am, some kind of a jerk or something? And this! And that's all I need. The
ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair. "

July 25th 03, 04:15 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote:

>On 25 Jul 2003 00:40:25 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
><snip>
>> The statistical odds of something happening are very low. You
>> do more dangerous stuff on a daily basis than flying on a commercial
>> airline. The security is about as good as it has ever been.
>
>I think you missed his point here, Tom. The issue is not fear of
>flying, it is dread of security delays.

Yep. It was once possible to go to an airport and walk across the tarmac to
get on an airplane. The plane may have been slower, but the time going through
security and waiting for luggage was much shorter and less of a hassle. The
prop jobs were noisier though.

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 05:51 PM
On 25 Jul 2003 07:50:16 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
<snip>
> That's a retarded statement. Just becauase you were there, doesn't
> mean you were paying attention or understanding the bigger picture of
> what was going on.

We were discussing "Quality of Life," not whether or not the "bigger
picture" is understood.
Quality of life is a subjectively experienced thing.

> We almost always understand a period of time better after
> the fact. A historian doesn't have to live through a period of time
> to be an expert on it.

So, you are a historian? Even the best historians must rely on those
*who were there* to tell him what happened and how they felt about it.
Even so, he may never understand why they felt the way they do. A true
historian would be delighted to be able to query those that were
actually there and would respect what they told him. Unlike you, they
would not say "No, you are wrong about what it felt like." Only an
arrogant little twit would presume to know what another person felt.
>
> > You'll only end up looking foolish,
>
> Now there is something you could educate everyone on. You are truly
> an expert at looking foolish.

Shame on you. Your mother should have taught you better.

>
> -Tom

baron48
July 25th 03, 06:15 PM
(Semi-Detached) wrote in message >...
> >From: (baron48)
>
> >>
> >> IIRC, women didnt have to be 30 pounds underweight to be considered
> >attractive.
> >
> >Don't worry. Fat or thin, you still aren't going to get any.
> >
>
> Im getting more now than I did in the 50s

You go boy! I hear it is good for your health:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030716/ts_nm/health_masturbation_dc_6

baron48
July 25th 03, 07:58 PM
wrote in message >...
> Albert Wagner > wrote:
>
> >On 25 Jul 2003 00:40:25 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> The statistical odds of something happening are very low. You
> >> do more dangerous stuff on a daily basis than flying on a commercial
> >> airline. The security is about as good as it has ever been.
> >
> >I think you missed his point here, Tom. The issue is not fear of
> >flying, it is dread of security delays.
>
> Yep. It was once possible to go to an airport and walk across the tarmac to
> get on an airplane. The plane may have been slower, but the time going through
> security and waiting for luggage was much shorter and less of a hassle. The
> prop jobs were noisier though.

Ok, I guess I did, but I'm still not sure it is valid. An extra
hour or two to check-in and go through security is much better
than the alternative if I'm going any distance. Your vaunted
DC-3 would still be an overall longer trip if you were going
1000 miles or more even accounting for a 2 hour delay in security,
check-in, and baggage claim. It only has a top speed of around
200 miles/hour vs. 500 or so for a 737.

-Tom

Edgar S.
July 25th 03, 08:49 PM
Colt > wrote in message >...
> Think CAREFULLY about what the 50s were really like for women. How many
> of us really want to go back to inadequately-controlled fertility and
> the kinds of personal and professional straight-jackets this fertility
> placed on women?

Actually, they had tubal ligation at the time, as well as caesarean
birth. To this day, tubal ligation is the most dependable, easiest
contraception.

baron48
July 25th 03, 08:54 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 25 Jul 2003 01:08:54 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
> <snip>
> > You didn't answer the question as usual.
>
> You didn't ask a question. You made an impossible demand. If you're so
> smart, then you define "quality of life". And do it scientifically,
> with proof, and without a hint of subjectivity. Do it in a single
> Usenet post.

You made the statement:

> Economic statistics bear only a coincidental relationship to "Quality of
> Life."

I asked you to back it up. You haven't. I already know my definition
of "quality of life." I'm asking you to explain how your definition
can reconcile with the above statement.

-Tom

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 09:16 PM
On 25 Jul 2003 11:54:13 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message <snip>
> > Economic statistics bear only a coincidental relationship to
> > "Quality of Life."
>
> I asked you to back it up. You haven't. I already know my definition
> of "quality of life." I'm asking you to explain how your definition
> can reconcile with the above statement.

That's easy. Economics has no concept of "quality of life," except in
terms of more "stuff." Please read all previous posts: "Quality of
Life" is SUBJECTIVE. It is totally foreign to economic thought. It
involves values, morality, and ethics; All the things that you yourself
have declared to have no place in economic thought.

Charles Hobbs
July 25th 03, 09:37 PM
wrote:
[...]

> People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
> down to meet lowered expectations. Education is no longer prized. I'll
> provide an example: Speaking from first hand knowledge I can confidently state
> that Florida's schools are horrendous, turning out many illiterate graduates.
> There is a campaign underway here that is straight out of Ayn Rand's novels. A
> group of Florida parents are upset that their children didn't pass the new
> state competency tests that allow them to graduate to the next grade, so they
> are blaming the state government for making the tests too hard, and even
> trying to start boycotts of Florida products to force the kids being moved to
> the next grade.

California too. We developed an exit exam that every kid is supposed to
pass in order to graduate high school. But too many kids failed it, and
were to be held back. So people complained, and now the exit exam
requirement
is "suspended" for two years....
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=usa&q=california+exit+exam

Charles Hobbs
July 25th 03, 09:46 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:33:05 GMT
> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Thank you. I couldn't have said it better. Is there a word anywhere
> near "homesick" that expresses a longing for a time rather than a place?

This probably goes a bit further back than you'd like, but the sentiment
is the same: http://www.bartleby.com/233/523.html

Charles Hobbs
July 25th 03, 09:59 PM
lpogoda wrote:
[...]

>>Airplane food was edible, and didn't even cost extra.

Was it ever particularly good? I recall one particularly
ghastly meal we had on AA back in 1977....


> But the ticket cost more.

Back when I was a kid (mid 70's), just about the only trips
our family took were "back home" (to our grandparents near
Memphis). We flew from LA, and for the four (later five) of
us, the ticket costs were horrendous, so we only did that
trip every two-three years or so. I think in that whole
period 1965-1989, I did only 7-8 airline round trips.

In the past two years, I've done about that many (some business, some
pleasure). At times, it's been cheaper for me to fly from LA to the Bay
Area on Southwest, then ride the Greyhound bus or drive....

Neil
July 25th 03, 10:34 PM
(baron48) wrote in message >...
> "Chloe" > wrote in message >...
> > "baron48" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > wrote in message
> > >...

<snip>

> > Tom, Tom, Tom. Here all this time I thought you were going on and on about
> > something you had personally experienced, but now I'm getting the impression
> > you know the 50s only through what you've read in books or seen on film.
> > Please at least don't try to educate those of us who were actually there.
>
> That's a retarded statement. Just becauase you were there, doesn't mean
> you were paying attention or understanding the bigger picture of what
> was going on.

Doesn't mean he wasn't "paying attention or understanding the bigger
picture" either.

>We almost always understand a period of time better after
> the fact. A historian doesn't have to live through a period of time to
> be an expert on it.

But it certainly doesn't hurt to have personal experience either.

History is really, to some extent, a subjective thing, depending on
what lens you view past events through. For examples, Communists and
Nazis viewed history from a different perspective than you or I would.
(Sometimes when I read history, especially of events I lived throught,
I think I'm just getting the consensus/theory of current historians.)
History can be viewed in many ways and I'll add there's no substitute
for "been there, done that." That's why slave narratives, Studs
Terkel's interviews of WWII vets, and other writings from folks who
did live through events are so valuable.

> > You'll only end up looking foolish,
>
> Now there is something you could educate everyone on. You are truly
> an expert at looking foolish.

It seems silly to attack somebody who's had experiences you can't have
had. You might disagree with somebody who's "been there, done that,"
but you should respect the POV of somebody who was there and developed
a perspective on it, whether or not it's your perspective. But maybe
that's only something that comes with age! ;-)

Neil
July 25th 03, 10:56 PM
(JoelnCaryn) wrote in message >...
> >Yeah, I almost died from pneumonia and a shot of penicillin as a kid, but the
> >doctor came to the house and didn't charge a year's wages to watch over me.
>
> With '50's medical care, I'd be dead, as would my son, husband, and mother...

....and probably at least a few people reading this, whether they're
aware of it or not, due to vaccines and improved health care and
public-health measures. Or some readers might have suffered from
polio, if not for the Salk vaccine. And the list goes on and on...

> >People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
> >down to meet lowered expectations. Education is no longer prized.

When I was growing up in the 1960's, there was hardly any standardized
testing and/or accountability. Schools are much more accountable now
and it's much easier for parents to know what schools are decent.

I don't think things were like that in the 1950's, at least not in the
US. There weren't that many standardized tests back then, so they
couldn't be dumbed down, because standardized testing has become much
more common now.

> That depends on your sample, though. I value education highly, and my MIL
> didn't learn about the periodic table in high school, and my mom was told that
> she didn't have to learn chemistry because she was just a girl, and they'd pass
> her anyway... so there's some anecdotes which contradict your anecdotes.

Another example would be the many prestigious
schools/colleges/universities that simply didn't admit women at all.
And if a woman did get a college degree and needed to work, she didn't
have a "glass ceiling" to contend with; instead, she might not be
considered at all. Then add racism to the above as another barrier.

> >The technology isn't that much better now, and today it comes from overseas
> >or
> >is so miniaturized and complex that it is impossible to comprehend.
>
> I'd say it's better to have microwaves. Some technology can be considered
> goofy, or unnecessary (I think power windows in a car are unnecessary), but
> some of it saves lives and speeds research, like PCR. And I'd disagree that
> it's impossible to comprehend -- it might be harder for the man on the street
> to stare at a TV, see what's wrong with it, and fix it, though.

I might not comprehend it, but that doesn't mean it's
incomprehensible.

>Comprehension
> takes more effort. Then again, new TVs don't cost near what they used to cost.

What used to be high tech and expensive is now simple and cheap.

> > Anyone with half
> >a brain had control over at least part of his environment and part of his
> >life in the 50s.
>
> We can still cook from scratch. :-)

I think we all still do have some control over part of our
environment. Anybody in a car chooses to pollute the air and damage
their life, unfortunately.

> >Working conditions are not appreciably better today.
>
> They're a lot better for minorities and women.

Agree. And there are opportunities now that were nonexistent then. For
example, an educated black man might have had opportunities, but few
or none in white-owned businesses and organizations.

> >The "quality of life" today is no longer a
> >philosophical concept, but a dollars and cents equation on an outdated
> >computer owned by the government, programmed by businesses, and designed to
> >pacify the masses.

As the song (sarcastically) says, "Just machines that make big
decisions/Programmed by men of compassion and vision...What a
beautiful world..."

> I would argue, however, that things are more *fair* than when an elite set of
> well-paid white guys were doing well, and the women and the minorities were
> screwed sideways.

I see your point.

(snip)

IleneB
July 25th 03, 11:19 PM
In article >, Pat Meadows
> wrote:

> Henry David Thoreau certainly found peace and joy living a
> hermit's life.........

> .
> .but, IIRC, he took his laundry home for his mother to do
> and cadged meals off friends!


The rumor here (some 10 miles from Walden Pond) is that he went to
Emerson's house a whole lot for food, laundry and other things.
Emerson's mother lived quite nearby.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 25th 03, 11:24 PM
In article >, baron48
> wrote:

> Where is the documentation on how we have become more
> fragmented?
> Where is the documentation on how we have become more tolerant of
> "mean-
> spirtied assholes."


Amen. Ask any woman and any person of color in the U.S. in the 1950s
how much stress and freedom they experienced. Yes, the global
corporation/industrial complex was less developed (after all, didn't
Eisenhower name it in the first place back then?) but a lack of options
cannot be read as a lack of stress simply because change isn't
available. I'd rather live with freedom and options than accept a lack
of options.

Of course, i wish people could be equal under the law and prosperous
and the lakes would be clean *without* the downsides of globalization.
I don't think the advances I name came about *because* of the
downsides. I wish we could have penicillin *and* clean air. But I don't
rhapsodize about the past.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 25th 03, 11:33 PM
In article >, Chloe
> wrote:

> I can think of a lot of things that money has bought or
> made possible that have made me genuinely happy. Not because of simply
> possessing the things, but because of the effect of owning the things on my
> options, choices, security and freedom.

Exactly. There is some point where more money doesn't equal more
security/freedom/etc. I had that point briefly when I was 23, given my
income and what I thought was financial security ($500 in the bank, a
car that ran, and an affordable rental). More money certainly would
have bought me nothing then. However, when I tossed my security aside
for a failed adventure in living, I found not having a job, living in a
dump, and being surrounded by dangerous people absolutely unsatistying.

I certainly see that advertising gets into people's heads so they think
of many things as necessary to security or self-image or whatever (the
job of advertising, after all). Those people will genuinely believe
that they *need* a Lexus to feel good. Of course, once they get the
Lexus, you'd think the reality would make an impression.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 25th 03, 11:35 PM
In article >, baron48
> wrote:

> but the rich pay the vast majority of personal income
> and are picking up a larger and larger share of SS taxes

I thought Social Security taxation maxed out at about $80K of income,
and people earning more aren't taxed more? The rich (over that $80K)
aren't picking up anything more of Soc. Security taxation.

Ilene B

Charles Hobbs
July 25th 03, 11:52 PM
Edgar S. wrote:

> Doctors are seeing more ppl... but most of their wage gets sucked up
> in taxation and insurance payments.

.....also school loans...

Colt
July 26th 03, 12:29 AM
Charles Hobbs wrote:
>
> Edgar S. wrote:
>
> > Doctors are seeing more ppl... but most of their wage gets sucked up
> > in taxation and insurance payments.
>
> ....also school loans...


Absolutely ridiculous statements. Except for pediatricians, family
practitioners, and psychiatrists, the average MD makes a hell of a lot
of money. And even the afore-named specialties average over $100,000 in
wages (that's AFTER expenses) per year. Most surgeons (the ones griping
the loudest about the cost of malpractice insurance) are filthy rich.
Save your empathy for people who actually need it.

July 26th 03, 01:48 AM
Charles Hobbs > wrote:

>There's been research on driverless cars since the 50's....I'm not
>quite convinced that replacing the drivers with computers, programmers and
>electrical engineers that would be necessary to make such a system work,
>would be necessarily safer and/or cheaper.

The point is that the infrastructure suppliers and those invested in current
technology have made it difficult for these options to be explored. The
problem isn't new. Railroads had to be divested of air travel by governmental
intervention to allow that industry to develop. The role of GM in killing mass
transit is well known. Controlled individual fast transit with minimal real
estate footprint is long overdue.

>>> I expected lakes to be full of clean water instead of milfoil,
>>>lamprey, and phosphorus.
>
>Can you even buy soap with phosphorus anymore? People realized the
>damage it was causing, and got it banned.

Curiously, some lakes are still showing very high phosphorus levels. I'm not
sure what the reason is. The milfoil invasion is introduction of a foreign
plant into a habitat because of poor foresight governing imports.

>>> I expected men on the moon and mars.
>
>You could learn more about why we haven't gone back to the moon in
>one of the space groups. Mars on the other hand....it's a six-month
>one way trip, where the astronauts would have to be sustained and
>protected from radiation and other hazards. We (both the US and Europe)
>are working toward a manned Mars trip, but it's a non-trivial exercise.
>
>Let us not forget that space is still a very dangerous place, much as
>the open seas were back in the earlier centuries. Think "Mutiny on the
>Bounty", or "The Mayflower" more than "Carnival Cruises".

Agree. We still need to get to Mars before the naysayers say it has no value
and is too dangerous. I'm reminded that people are now being kept out of
public pools on sweltering days because lightning detection devices indicate
the _possibility_ of strikes on perfectly clear days.

>>> (FWIW, I no longer
>>>believe in the one person one vote concept and believe that extra votes should
>>>be granted based on intelligence, income, age, and other factors.)

>Besides, how would you measure intelligence? This is a real slippery slope
>to a big can of worms here.

I agree that the political fallout would be massive. The alternative that we
have is that those skilled at manipulating the voting idiots get to have
control. I think that choice is bad enough that we should wade into the
screaming masses of Jerry Springer rejects and start handing out tests.

>I think we were always fragemented to some extent. However, most of the
>voices that have not been so readily heard in the past are making themselves
>more self-evident. This isn't just about relatively large groups (e.g.
>racial minorities and such) but could be simply people having different
>ideas. For example, the UFO people who might have been simply ignored
>in the 50's, now have a web page, and a radio talk show, and who
>knows what other means of communication too.

There is that balancing action again. The U.S. depends on the idea of a
melting pot (as has any uber-government outside of Nazi Germany) to keep
cultural identity and group identity a minor distracting factor. When groups
organize and gain power (civil rights in the 60s, Cuban Americans in the 90s,
etc.) then government has to bend and change. As each group gets power, it
encourages other groups to do the same. Since many people identify themselves
by their membership in a group, and have difficulty juggling more than a couple
of groups, fragmentation results. In some cases, it results in civil war. In
other cases it can freeze and de-power the government or lead to (violent or
non-violent) revolution.

>The environmental degradations have always been with us, although, again
>we're in general, becoming more aware of it. What to do about them, however
>can be a fiery debate as well. For example, no-one likes a big factory
>belching smoke because the company is too cheap to install emissions
>controls. But these same people who complain about the factory aren't
>about to give up their cars and start riding bikes around either--
>personal convenience wins again.

The factory just moves off shore :-)
The personal goals vs. the global goals are often in conflict. It can be
argued that the least damaging thing that humanity could do is commit mass
suicide. Personal goals seem to be at odds with that solution.

>Personally, I think we're *less* tolerant of "mean spirited folks", or
>at least some types of them. Remember all those segregationalists
>"standing in the schoolhouse door"? Compare that with what happened to
>Trent Lott a few months back? That sort of racism, while it still
>exists in places, is not considered acceptable by the vast majority of
>people.

Interesting example. The easy retort is, "Yeah, but why was he re-elected all
these years?" The southern politicians with their epiphanies of multi-cultural
conversion during the 1960s impress me as much as the saintly protestations of
children who realize the cookie jar will be off-limits if they continue to call
mom "bitch."

The lack of tolerance seems to be greatest when there is something to be gained
by being intolerant. Chainsaw Al was lionized for despicable actions
destroying companies and employee jobs, and only pilloried when it was
discovered that his chainsaw was cutting the investments of his supporters
(Providing a good dose of karmic relief to some ex-employees).

>On the other hand, our entertainment values *have gotten a lot coarser,
>with lots more sex and violence on TV, in movies etc. (And this is just
>in the US; in Europe and Japan, they've had nudity on TV for years!)

Canada has had some nudity on TV for years as well. The violence and
debasement in U.S. programming not only reflects the "values" of our society,
but encourages even more of the same, both on TV and in real life.

>>>Making changes in a society with rigid intellectual property
>>>rights can be next to impossible. Much of the speed of the computer revolution
>>>was possible only because the courts ruled that Compaq's reverse engineering of
>>>IBMs code was legal. The digital millennium copyright act now makes such
>>>activities a federal crime.
>>
>>
>> Possibly true, but having a society with little intellectual property
>> rights will result in little intellectual property being created. As
>> with many things, there is a balance.

>Granted, I think in the case of IP, the balance has really swung too far
>in favor of the producers. You don't want to live in a society where you
>get billed for, say, singing in the shower. (Think I'm joking? Remember
>the famous ASCAP/Girl Scouts case a few years back?)
>
>And now the RIAA is coming against the file sharers with everything from
>threats of jail, to computer hacking. Now obviously, producers ought to
>compensated for what they produce. But can't we all work this out so
>that everyone walks away with something? (perhaps a negotiated fee with
>the ISP's instead of suing everybody in sight).

The RIAA reminds me of a disgruntled mob boss. As I remember, goons were a
common method of encouragement for businesses to pay ASCAP and other industry
"fees" during the 50s. Some of the biggest, ugliest guys in suits I've ever
seen were visitors to radio stations and stores with music playing.

At the same time the strong arm tactics are being used on the users, the
contracts that are offered the bulk of the artists deny them basic fair
recompense.

Intellectual properties rights are highly over-rated. Splash some cold water
on your face. DOS wasn't invented by Bill Gates. The true creators got diddly
squat and probably would have ended up offering the software free to everyone.
The SCO bull**** is a replay of the same idea taken from a slightly different
angle. Intellectual property rights are _slowing_ the creation and dispersion
of new ideas, and the greatest rewards are often given to the most aggressive
and least principled exploiter.

Charles Hobbs
July 26th 03, 04:15 AM
wrote:
> Charles Hobbs > wrote:
>
>
>>There's been research on driverless cars since the 50's....I'm not
>>quite convinced that replacing the drivers with computers, programmers and
>>electrical engineers that would be necessary to make such a system work,
>>would be necessarily safer and/or cheaper.
>
>
> The point is that the infrastructure suppliers and those invested in current
> technology have made it difficult for these options to be explored. The
> problem isn't new. Railroads had to be divested of air travel by governmental
> intervention to allow that industry to develop. The role of GM in killing mass
> transit is well known.

....and overblown. (It loves to get thrown around by people that romanticize
the old trolley systems, though). Swing by misc.transport.urban-transit or
visit http://www.erha.org/plot.htm for a little more background



> Controlled individual fast transit with minimal real
> estate footprint is long overdue.

"Minimal" does not mean "invisible", though. Lots of people
object (rightly or wrongly) to new rail systems (or any changes)
in their precious neighborhoods: http://www.savecambie.org/

>
>
>>>>I expected lakes to be full of clean water instead of milfoil,
>>>>lamprey, and phosphorus.
>>>
>>Can you even buy soap with phosphorus anymore? People realized the
>>damage it was causing, and got it banned.
>
>
> Curiously, some lakes are still showing very high phosphorus levels. I'm not
> sure what the reason is.

Agricultural runoff?

> The milfoil invasion is introduction of a foreign
> plant into a habitat because of poor foresight governing imports.

With all the boats and planes flying from all over the world, this is
a big problem. Remember SARS? Will Ebola be next?

>
>
[...]
>
>>>>(FWIW, I no longer
>>>>believe in the one person one vote concept and believe that extra votes should
>>>>be granted based on intelligence, income, age, and other factors.)
>>>
>
>>Besides, how would you measure intelligence? This is a real slippery slope
>>to a big can of worms here.
>
>
> I agree that the political fallout would be massive. The alternative that we
> have is that those skilled at manipulating the voting idiots get to have
> control. I think that choice is bad enough that we should wade into the
> screaming masses of Jerry Springer rejects and start handing out tests.

Replace "Jerry Springer" with "Al Sharpton". Stand back. No, in fact, run.


>
>
>>I think we were always fragemented to some extent. However, most of the
>>voices that have not been so readily heard in the past are making themselves
>>more self-evident. This isn't just about relatively large groups (e.g.
>>racial minorities and such) but could be simply people having different
>>ideas. For example, the UFO people who might have been simply ignored
>>in the 50's, now have a web page, and a radio talk show, and who
>>knows what other means of communication too.
>
>
> There is that balancing action again. The U.S. depends on the idea of a
> melting pot (as has any uber-government outside of Nazi Germany) to keep
> cultural identity and group identity a minor distracting factor. When groups
> organize and gain power (civil rights in the 60s, Cuban Americans in the 90s,
> etc.) then government has to bend and change. As each group gets power, it
> encourages other groups to do the same. Since many people identify themselves
> by their membership in a group, and have difficulty juggling more than a couple
> of groups, fragmentation results. In some cases, it results in civil war. In
> other cases it can freeze and de-power the government or lead to (violent or
> non-violent) revolution.

So far in the US, it's led to occasional gridlock in the Legislatures,
and the occasional violent protest/riot. But there always seems to be
a tacit understanding, that we as Americans are really more alike than
different anyway; that probably what keeps us from splitting apart
Northern Ireland style.



>
>
>>The environmental degradations have always been with us, although, again
>>we're in general, becoming more aware of it. What to do about them, however
>>can be a fiery debate as well. For example, no-one likes a big factory
>>belching smoke because the company is too cheap to install emissions
>>controls. But these same people who complain about the factory aren't
>>about to give up their cars and start riding bikes around either--
>>personal convenience wins again.
>
>
> The factory just moves off shore :-)

Or across the border.

> The personal goals vs. the global goals are often in conflict. It can be
> argued that the least damaging thing that humanity could do is commit mass
> suicide. Personal goals seem to be at odds with that solution.

Yeah, but since that's not going to happen, we will have to apply solutions
to our problems that take the warts-and-all human nature into account...


>
>
>>Personally, I think we're *less* tolerant of "mean spirited folks", or
>>at least some types of them. Remember all those segregationalists
>>"standing in the schoolhouse door"? Compare that with what happened to
>>Trent Lott a few months back? That sort of racism, while it still
>>exists in places, is not considered acceptable by the vast majority of
>>people.
>
>
> Interesting example. The easy retort is, "Yeah, but why was he re-elected all
> these years?"

Who was running against him? Maybe he was unchallenged. Without the history
off all the campaigns before me, I cannot answer "why".


> The southern politicians with their epiphanies of multi-cultural
> conversion during the 1960s impress me as much as the saintly protestations of
> children who realize the cookie jar will be off-limits if they continue to call
> mom "bitch."

Not to necessarily defend them, but I'm not particularly impressed with the
history of the Northern cities (particularly around the Great Lakes
area) either in this regard....


>


> The lack of tolerance seems to be greatest when there is something to be gained
> by being intolerant. Chainsaw Al was lionized for despicable actions
> destroying companies and employee jobs,

By *whom*? Certainly not the people who lost jobs, or the cities and towns
that had plants closed. Maybe there was some rah-rah piece in Forbes or WSJ,
but those are hardly representative of the public at large.

> and only pilloried when it was
> discovered that his chainsaw was cutting the investments of his supporters
> (Providing a good dose of karmic relief to some ex-employees).
>
>
>>On the other hand, our entertainment values *have gotten a lot coarser,
>>with lots more sex and violence on TV, in movies etc. (And this is just
>>in the US; in Europe and Japan, they've had nudity on TV for years!)
>
>
> Canada has had some nudity on TV for years as well. The violence and
> debasement in U.S. programming not only reflects the "values" of our society,
> but encourages even more of the same, both on TV and in real life.

Japan supposedly has some really violent TV, comic books ("manga") and
other media, and they seem to have a relatively calm society (although there
are places where the not-so-calm "underbelly" is showing there as well).


>>>>Making changes in a society with rigid intellectual property
>>>>rights can be next to impossible. Much of the speed of the computer revolution
>>>>was possible only because the courts ruled that Compaq's reverse engineering of
>>>>IBMs code was legal. The digital millennium copyright act now makes such
>>>>activities a federal crime.
>>>
>>>
>>>Possibly true, but having a society with little intellectual property
>>>rights will result in little intellectual property being created. As
>>>with many things, there is a balance.
>>
>
>>Granted, I think in the case of IP, the balance has really swung too far
>>in favor of the producers. You don't want to live in a society where you
>>get billed for, say, singing in the shower. (Think I'm joking? Remember
>>the famous ASCAP/Girl Scouts case a few years back?)
>>
>>And now the RIAA is coming against the file sharers with everything from
>>threats of jail, to computer hacking. Now obviously, producers ought to
>>compensated for what they produce. But can't we all work this out so
>>that everyone walks away with something? (perhaps a negotiated fee with
>>the ISP's instead of suing everybody in sight).
>
>
> The RIAA reminds me of a disgruntled mob boss. As I remember, goons were a
> common method of encouragement for businesses to pay ASCAP and other industry
> "fees" during the 50s. Some of the biggest, ugliest guys in suits I've ever
> seen were visitors to radio stations and stores with music playing.
>
> At the same time the strong arm tactics are being used on the users, the
> contracts that are offered the bulk of the artists deny them basic fair
> recompense.

I'm not disagreeing with you that RIAA/ASCAP/et. al.. are *******s. But...

>
> Intellectual properties rights are highly over-rated. Splash some cold water
> on your face.

I'm not convinced that ripping out the entire IP system is necessarily
the way to go.

Lecher9000
July 26th 03, 04:35 PM
>In some states the ONLY grounds for divorce was adultery. Fathers
>were put in the County workhouse for failure to support their
>families.

Sounds much better than today's divorce and child support laws that encourage
the stay-at-home moms to leave hubby when they are bored, because they get his
assets and his child support payments, and she doesn't have to give ANY reason
for this immoral act other than "irreconcilable differences".

L

lpogoda
July 26th 03, 05:38 PM
wrote in message >...
>IleneB > wrote:
>
>>But I don't rhapsodize about the past.
>
>I don't think I was rhapsodizing the past as much as pointing out that we
made
>a bunch of mistakes along the way to the present. If anything, I am of the
>opinion that Baron is rhapsodizing the present.
>
>I still think that there is a substantial "quality of life" issue in having
a
>future that looks promising.

I suppose there is, but one of the reasons the future looked promising was
because the present was, by today's standards anyway, somewhat bleak.

My maternal grandfather got off the boat in New York city at the age of 20
or so with literally fifty cents in his pocket, not knowing a word of
English and six whole weeks of formal education during the height of world
war one in Europe. Did the future look promising to him? How could it have
not?

He and my grandmother had a total of six kids. The first two died in the
flu epidemic of 1918. My parents spent their childhoods in the 1920's.
Economic times were good, but Prohibition fostered lawlessness on a national
scale not seen before. They hit their teens in time for the Great
Depression. I'll bet the future looked better than the present to them at
that point. They hit their early adulthood just in time for World War Two.
Those who went abroad dreamed of the future when the war would be over.
Those who stayed home made good money at wartime jobs but couldn't spend it,
they dreamed of a future without rationing and restrictions.

When the war was over it was followed by a sharp recession and Korea.
Finally, in the 1950's, for the first time in over a generation, there was a
period when average people could look forward to the future as being better
than the past and present, and actually have that turn out to be true.

Today, we can look forward to a future that includes the real eradication of
disease, not just its suppression, through biotechnology, a future where
everyone all over the world has enough to eat, decent housing, education,
medical care, a future that includes space exploration, a clean environment,
a sustainable civilization. Oh, it's not certain, anymore than it was
certain Nazism and Communism and their ilk would end up on the "scrap heap
of history" instead of taking over the world. It'll be an enormous job
bringing all that about, there will be risks in the attempt, and not only
might the human race might fail to live up to the task but its achievement
will undoubtedly engender a whole new raft of problems we can't even think
of today. But if you fail to see promise in the future, it's more a result
of your values and lack of imagination than it's an objective assessment of
the present.

IleneB
July 26th 03, 05:52 PM
> People are NOT better educated today. Standardized testing has been dumbed
> > down to meet lowered expectations.

How about the idea that, in the past, people who weren't doing well in
school simply dropped out and got a job in some factory or working in
the fields or something? I believe that, in 1941, only half of those
accepted into the military by the draft (U.S.) had finished high
school. If that other half had been pulled through high school, there
would probably be quite a failure rate, from causes of poverty, teen
childraising/marriage, learning disabilities, and so on.

I do think that the advent of TV (and video games and other visual
media) has greatly added to the lack of basic skills in all kinds of
people. Visual "information" isn't learning, it's imprinting. And
surely some of someone's "screen time" would have been used in reading
at least a little.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 26th 03, 05:59 PM
In article >, Ed Clarke
> wrote:

> I know
> what I was getting paid, and what he probably was getting paid. He
> was able to make the payments on the car for a few months, but could
> not buy gas...

One of my coworkers (a mental health assistant with a working wife and
two kids) was obsessing the other night over wanting to buy a
Mitsubishi Montero SUV, easily $30K. He and his wife have one car. She
uses public transportation for her job, and he works nights about 8
miles from his home. He tried to say he "needs an SUV" because he
drives his mother to the airport a lot "and you know how those Haitians
drag a lot of luggage back home." He tried to say it's a safer car
"because you're up high." He finally was able to admit (after
significant prodding) that he just thinks it's cool and he'd feel cool
driving it. I then pointed out how many hours he'd have to work *under
my license* for some $14/hour all night long to drive that land yacht
eight miles to the job to pay for the car...

Ilene b

Albert Wagner
July 26th 03, 06:29 PM
On 26 Jul 2003 08:43:21 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
<snip>
> > That's easy. Economics has no concept of "quality of life," except
> > in terms of more "stuff." Please read all previous posts: "Quality
> > of Life" is SUBJECTIVE.
>
> So can you (and I'm referring specifically to Albert Wagner) have a
> good "quality" of life without medical care, enough food, decent
> shelter, entertainment, hobbies, travel, etc...

Food, shelter, and clothing (or fur) of course. Medical care if needed
and affordable. "Entertainment, hobbies, travel, etc.?" Nice, but not
required. I think that you have still missed the point. You apparently
see quality of life as requiring only material goods. Yet, human
history virtually screams that humans highly value intangibles that
cannot be bought or sold in the market place.

> > It is totally foreign to economic thought. It
> > involves values, morality, and ethics; All the things that you
> > yourself have declared to have no place in economic thought.
>
> I have? Perhaps you will point to exactly where I stated that.

Sorry, I don't have the time to compensate for your poor memory and
recordkeeping.

> Those are all very much a part of economic thought. Economic
> theory is all based on the assumption of people acting in an ethical
> way.

LOL. Show me ANY portion of "economic theory" where ethical behaviour is
the basis of profit. What an idiot! Self interest is only "ethical" in
the writings of Ann Ryand.

Don K
July 26th 03, 06:47 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...
> I do think that the advent of TV (and video games and other visual
> media) has greatly added to the lack of basic skills in all kinds of
> people. Visual "information" isn't learning, it's imprinting. And
> surely some of someone's "screen time" would have been used in reading
> at least a little.

Visual information is not some evil thing.
Humans are programmed to learn through visualization.
It is difficult to understand certain abstract concepts
without visualizing them in some form.

Try reading a geometry textbook without referring to the
illustrations.

60 years ago, comic books were being blamed for the decline
of civilization as we knew it. Before that, paperback novels
were the villains.

As time goes on, things change, but there's no reason to
conclude that the technology change is bad.

Don

IleneB
July 26th 03, 07:31 PM
In article >, Don K
> wrote:

> As time goes on, things change, but there's no reason to
> conclude that the technology change is bad.

What I meant was that the visual information of television and video
games is not valuable, or at least not worth its overall detriments.
Certainly it has its place, as you mention say, in geometry. But I
haven't seen a lot of geometry on network TV or PlayStation.

I guess I read Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments for the Elimination of
Television" at a formative age.

Ilene B

lpogoda
July 27th 03, 01:42 AM
wrote in message
>...
>"lpogoda" > wrote:
>
>>Today, we can look forward to a future that includes the real eradication
of
>>disease, not just its suppression,
>
>I'm not holding my breath. SARS apparently has a reservoir in wild animals
and
>may be cyclical in nature. Unless all wild animals are treated, it can
recur.
>AIDS now has some seriously drug resistant strains. Prions are, by some
>accounts, nearly indestructible and very itsy bitsy tiny things. Some
diseases
>may be eradicated, like smallpox, and used as terror weapons against an
>unprotected population. If the "conquering" of the americas taught us
>anything, it is that the group that is familiar with the worst diseases has
an
>advantage. Even a cursory study of biology shows that when there is a
large
>population of any animal, opportunistic bugs tend to reduce that
population.

ANY familiarity with modern history would tell you that in the last 50 years
or so some 70 or more new infectious diseases have shown up. Such was
probably always the case, it's the nature of evolutionary biology. Unlike
the situation in, oh England in the 1500's f'instance, so far these modern
plagues have been largely contained.

Besides, the point isn't that disease exists, or that new ones will or won't
continually crop up, it's that they can be contained, controlled, prevented,
cured.

>
>>through biotechnology, a future where
>>everyone all over the world has enough to eat,
>
>...of patented grains and vegetables that are designed to not reproduce,
thus
>making farmers slaves of the biotech companies.

What a load of crap. It beats me how willfully blind some people can be.
There is enough food NOW, without genetic manipulation of plants or animals
beyone the traditional kind of selective breeding and hybridization, to feed
everyone on Earth. The problem isn't one of production, it's one of
distribution, and sometimes of politics - famine is a nasty policy
instrument in some of the long-running wars in some corners of the world.

Those who are unknowingly
>sensitive to the spliced foodstuffs are SOL. The whole idea of a world
with
>"enough to eat" is simplistic. Remember Somalia? People starved because
of
>political unrest, not from lack of food from donor countries.


Yeah, exactly. Which kind of blows your genetic biotech slaves junk away.
It's possible to see a future without hunger. It's possible to work toward
it. The future could be bright and shiny.


>>decent housing, education,
>>medical care,
>
>For those who can afford it. For those who can't...


While it's a mathematical threorem that it's impossible to guarantee that
everyone gets even a minimal share of the necessities of life, the converse
is not - it is not inevitable that there must be crowds of ignorant people,
starving in the cold and dark.

>>a future that includes space exploration,
>
>Maybe.
>
>>a clean environment,
>
>Surprisingly, this one may be the most likely. This is the one area that
has
>made great progress in the U.S. since the burning rivers of the 50s. Now
if
>only other countries that took industry (like India) will follow suit.
>
>>a sustainable civilization.
>
>So far, civilization has been sustainable in most areas, the Aztec and
Mayan
>civilizations excepted.
>
>> Oh, it's not certain, anymore than it was
>>certain Nazism and Communism and their ilk would end up on the "scrap heap
>>of history" instead of taking over the world. It'll be an enormous job
>>bringing all that about, there will be risks in the attempt, and not only
>>might the human race might fail to live up to the task but its achievement
>>will undoubtedly engender a whole new raft of problems we can't even think
>>of today. But if you fail to see promise in the future, it's more a
result
>>of your values and lack of imagination than it's an objective assessment
of
>>the present.
>
><chuckle> I think I have more imagination than most people, and I've been
>reasonably good at predicting. I don't expect total gloom and doom and a
>messiah. I expect the current trends to continue until there is a breaking
>point. Whether that will be another pandemic, a global retrenching like
Japan
>and some latin american countries have endured, or something entirely
unforseen
>is beyond my powers of observation. I anticipate 2012 as an interesting
year.
>By then, things should come to a head.

Yawn. Things were supposed to "come to a head" long before now. "Silent
Spring", "The Population Bomb", "The Report of the Club of Rome". If a
hopeful future is part of the quality of life, and you're determined to
maintain that the quality of life has declined, I guess you have no choice
but to look to a gloom and doom sort of future.

JoelnCaryn
July 27th 03, 02:05 AM
>> As time goes on, things change, but there's no reason to
>> conclude that the technology change is bad.
>
>What I meant was that the visual information of television and video
>games is not valuable, or at least not worth its overall detriments.
>Certainly it has its place, as you mention say, in geometry. But I
>haven't seen a lot of geometry on network TV or PlayStation.
>
>I guess I read Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments for the Elimination of
>Television" at a formative age.

What's that Onion headline -- something like "TV Builds Valuable Looking
Skills"...

JoelnCaryn
July 27th 03, 02:07 AM
>>a sustainable civilization.
>
>So far, civilization has been sustainable in most areas, the Aztec and Mayan
>civilizations excepted.

I'd amend that to "most desert civilizations". Chaco Canyon, etc.

July 27th 03, 02:51 AM
<Jason> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:58:19 -0400, Pat Meadows >
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:47:00 -0700, Old_Timer wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:42:44 GMT, wrote:
> >>
> (baron48) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Personally, I will take current-day air travel,
> >>>
> >>>Fine. You can have my portion as well. The difference in flying in a
roomy
> >>>seat at low level in a DC3 compared to a cramped undercushioned seat
flying
> >>>above clouds is like night and day. The flying time may have been
longer, but
> >>>you were able to see where you flew. I won't even begin to go into the
> >>>security measures at airports today. I haven't flown since 911 and
have no
> >>>intention of ever flying commercial airlines again.
> >>
> >>If you want room to move around, time is not of the essence and you
> >>want to enjoy the view, try the train.
> >>
> >
> >Some of the long-distance trains (the few that still exist)
> >are quite cheap too.
> >
> >Pat
>
> Glad that you mentioned price, Pat. Go to www.amtrak.com and click
> on Savings and Promotions. You will find some real bargains. This
> page changes regularly so check back frequently if in the mood for
> travel.
>
> Old_Timer


Huh . . . $345 for a round trip ticket from Dallas to Cincinnatti . . .
Cheaper than the airplanes, I think . . .
--Tock

lorenzo
July 27th 03, 09:48 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> That's easy. Economics has no concept of "quality of life," except in
> terms of more "stuff." Please read all previous posts: "Quality of
> Life" is SUBJECTIVE. It is totally foreign to economic thought. It
> involves values, morality, and ethics;

wow ! morality ? ethics ? values ?

has it occured to you the kind of things that you are mentioning above
does not involve you throwing insults at every possible poster ?

and what about your crappy idea of "equal wealth distribution" ?
how ethical/moral is that you are to be even willing to receive
(albeit thru begging) the hard earned money of people who earned
thru their own efforts ?

and are these moral/ethical/value system local to USA ?
how came moving jobs offshore to poverty stricken countries
seem to cause such a bitchy reaction in you ?

those who talk about morals/ethics/values on public forums
fall into two categories: either they are loosers who lost
in the competitive market economy hence turning into bitter
philosophers, or hipocrites..

*lorenzo*

July 27th 03, 03:38 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote:


>ANY familiarity with modern history would tell you that in the last 50 years
>or so some 70 or more new infectious diseases have shown up. Such was
>probably always the case, it's the nature of evolutionary biology. Unlike
>the situation in, oh England in the 1500's f'instance, so far these modern
>plagues have been largely contained.

>Besides, the point isn't that disease exists, or that new ones will or won't
>continually crop up, it's that they can be contained, controlled, prevented,
>cured.

Contained only works under certain circumstances. HIV was not something that
could be "contained." Onset was slow, and by the time the disease was
understood containment was impossible. You missed the point that no one has a
clue how to deal with prions except keeping people from eating the nervous
system of ruminants.

>>
>>>through biotechnology, a future where
>>>everyone all over the world has enough to eat,
>>
>>...of patented grains and vegetables that are designed to not reproduce, thus
>>making farmers slaves of the biotech companies.
>
>What a load of crap. It beats me how willfully blind some people can be.
>There is enough food NOW, without genetic manipulation of plants or animals
>beyone the traditional kind of selective breeding and hybridization, to feed
>everyone on Earth. The problem isn't one of production, it's one of
>distribution, and sometimes of politics - famine is a nasty policy
>instrument in some of the long-running wars in some corners of the world.

Politics includes policies that offer protection for patents on basic
foodstuffs. Call me radical, but until we tell biotech companies that they can
take their patents for wheat, rice and corn and toss them in the garbage, the
poorest are at risk. BTW, that load of crap is a saleable product.
<http://bridge.ecn.purdue.edu/~alleman/w3-class/456/article/milorganite.html>

>>The whole idea of a world with "enough to eat" is simplistic.
>>Remember Somalia? People starved because of
>>political unrest, not from lack of food from donor countries.
>
>
>Yeah, exactly. Which kind of blows your genetic biotech slaves junk away.
>It's possible to see a future without hunger.

<satire mode>Just like we have a present with free medical care for all?
</satire mode>

Industry wants control. Industry will engage in protectionism, lobbying, and
regulation to drive out competitors. When subsistence agriculture and industry
clash, industry wins. On a limited scale, you can see that now. Farmers whose
seeds were accidentally cross pollinated by bio-tech grains have been told to
destroy their crops or risk lawsuits. Florida citrus growers successfully
demanded the cutting of millions of residential citrus trees because of a
disease that could spread and reduce the yields in the commercial groves. The
fourth amendment was trampled in the rush to cut trees. That same industry is
about to be decimated by the WTO when U.S. tariffs on Brazilian oranges are
declared illegal. I won't even start on the demise of family farms.

Biotech and globalization places our food supply solidly in corporate hands.
Anyone who follows the markets at all is aware that many, if not most companies
are aiming for short term profits and to hell with the future. This is a
stupid combination.

>While it's a mathematical threorem that it's impossible to guarantee that
>everyone gets even a minimal share of the necessities of life, the converse
>is not - it is not inevitable that there must be crowds of ignorant people,
>starving in the cold and dark.

It may not be a mathematical theorem, but political and economic realities
pretty much assure it anyway.

>Yawn. Things were supposed to "come to a head" long before now. "Silent
>Spring", "The Population Bomb", "The Report of the Club of Rome". If a
>hopeful future is part of the quality of life, and you're determined to
>maintain that the quality of life has declined, I guess you have no choice
>but to look to a gloom and doom sort of future.

If you are tired, get some sleep. While you have been sleeping I've gone from
being able to pick free grapefruit from my backyard tree to having to look at
smaller inferior ones priced at $1.50 in the local store. I've seen the tomato
fields disappear from the Homestead area because they can be farmed at less
expense in Mexico. <satire mode> Oddly enough </satire mode> I've also seen
the price of tomatoes reach ridiculous prices in the stores. I've watched as
gums and other profit extenders have become part of such basic products as
cottage cheese, yogurt, and ice cream. Corporate handling of foodstuffs is as
much of a fraud as Nazi "wood flour." Go on and sleep. Hope that you can
still afford grass soup in your rosey future.

July 27th 03, 04:41 PM
In article >,
(Neil) wrote:

> At least we don't have child labor in the US now, unlike many other
> countries that have that and slave labor also.

You mean, we don't _openly_ have child labor. There most certainly are
children--LOTS of them, generally recently arrived undocumented
immigrants--working for less than minimum wage in my area. You can
often see them operating leaf blowers, working at nonunion construction
sites or cleaning pools and houses as day laborers. The state and local
governments are well aware of it and do nothing.

Albert Wagner
July 27th 03, 05:19 PM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:48:36 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > That's easy. Economics has no concept of "quality of life," except
> > in terms of more "stuff." Please read all previous posts: "Quality
> > of Life" is SUBJECTIVE. It is totally foreign to economic thought.
> > It involves values, morality, and ethics;
>
> wow ! morality ? ethics ? values ?
>
> has it occured to you the kind of things that you are mentioning above
> does not involve you throwing insults at every possible poster ?

Search the archives for "Prisoner's Dilemma" and read carefully. It is
not unethical to return tit for tat.

>
> and what about your crappy idea of "equal wealth distribution" ?

Not MY crappy idea. (You really love building straw men to attack).
Equity in wealth distribution IS NOT the same thing as "equal wealth
distribution." Equity is simple fairness.

> how ethical/moral is that you are to be even willing to receive
> (albeit thru begging) the hard earned money of people who earned
> thru their own efforts ?

Straw man #2. I don't beg. I have never defaulted on a debt. I have
never received anything that I didn't pay for. If you are going to
attack morality, ethics and values, why don't you at least try an
argument that is logically valid. It still may not be sound, but at
least it is a start.

>
> and are these moral/ethical/value system local to USA ?

No. They are common to cultures all through history.

> how came moving jobs offshore to poverty stricken countries
> seem to cause such a bitchy reaction in you ?

Equity.

>
> those who talk about morals/ethics/values on public forums
> fall into two categories: either they are loosers who lost
> in the competitive market economy hence turning into bitter
> philosophers, or hipocrites..

LOL. There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who
categorize all people into two groups and those who don't.

>
> *lorenzo*
>

Victor Smith
July 27th 03, 07:10 PM
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 06:20:10 GMT, Charles Hobbs >
wrote:
>
>> OTOH, he may qualify as one of chickpea's idiot voters, and
>> suck it up like a true "patriot."
>> I have a feeling that "America" is overdue for a rather disruptive
>> paradigm shift involving "tacit understandings."
>
>Who knows. We may *still* have to go through our Fourth Turning
>(as horrid as it was, maybe 9/11 wasn't it....)

I hadn't heard of "Fourth Turning", but read up a bit. Thanks.
A turning runs a course of years (20), so 9/11 won't qualify.
Below is a cutting from
http://www.daveblackonline.com/shall_we_quit_the_culture_war.htm
which quotes from The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy (New York:
Broadway, 1997).
I think the quotes are relevant to my more ambiguous comments about
"we as Americans" , "patriots", and "tacit understandings."
I don't have a crystal ball into the future, but the present is pretty
ugly in my eyes in some important respects.
OTOH, I just cooked some brats and chicken on the Weber, and
popped a couple beers, and man, that's some good stuff.

--Vic


--- the] new mood and its jarring new problems will provide a natural
end point for the Unraveling-era decline in civic confidence. In the
pre-Crisis years, fears about the flimsiness in the social contract
will have been subliminal but rising. As the Crisis catalyzes, these
fears will rush to the surface, jagged and exposed. Distrustful of
some things, individuals will feel that their survival requires them
to distrust more things. This behavior could cascade into a sudden
downward spiral, an implosion of societal trust (pp. 274-75).

Before long, America’s old civic order will seem ruined beyond repair.
People will feel like a magnet has passed over society’s disk drive,
blanking out the social contract, wiping out old deals, clearing the
books of vast unpayable promises to which people had once felt
entitled. The economy could reach a trough that may look to be the
start of a depression. With American weaknesses newly exposed, foreign
dangers could erupt (p. 278). ---

Neil
July 27th 03, 09:08 PM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Neil) wrote:
>
> > At least we don't have child labor in the US now, unlike many other
> > countries that have that and slave labor also.
>
> You mean, we don't _openly_ have child labor.

What I meant was that in the US, we don't legally have child labor.

> There most certainly are
> children

How old?

>--LOTS of them, generally recently arrived undocumented
> immigrants--working for less than minimum wage in my area. You can
> often see them operating leaf blowers, working at nonunion construction
> sites or cleaning pools and houses as day laborers. The state and local
> governments are well aware of it and do nothing.

Other than jobs like pet sitting, mowing yards, etc. I don't think
I've seen any kids (that is, kids who look under 16 to me) with jobs
locally.

Albert Wagner
July 27th 03, 09:19 PM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:20:22 -0700
Dennis > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:19:44 -0500, Albert Wagner >
> wrote:
<snip>
> >Search the archives for "Prisoner's Dilemma" and read carefully. It
> >is not unethical to return tit for tat.
>
> Babbled yourself into a corner again, didn't you Al? First you say
> that "values, morality, and ethics" is "is totally foreign to economic
> thought", then you use a classical element of economic thought to
> defend your behavior as not unethical. Typical.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is not the propery of economists. If it belongs
to anybody it is game theorists. Perhaps I should have been clearer: I
am actually refering to the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma a la Axelrod.
Axelrod proves by simulation techniques that: "Mutual cooperation can
emerge in a world of egoists without central control, by starting with a
cluster of individuals who rely on
reciprocity."

So, apparently it is you who babbled yourself into a corner.

>
> And, BTW, isn't the brand of ethical behavior you profess to favor
> supposed to be based on "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor
> as thyself" ?

For myself, yes. For you and others, no. The ethics I advocate
publicly is actually the consensus ethics of our culture: justice,
fairness, etc. as is commonly understood, and just as commonly denied by
economists.

Elaine Jackson
July 27th 03, 09:45 PM
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:48:36 -0700
>lorenzo > wrote:
> how came moving jobs offshore to poverty stricken countries
> seem to cause such a bitchy reaction in you ?

Altho I'm not the o.p., Albert Wagner, I worried that you may not be the
obvious shill you seem to be, and that there is the possibility that you
actually believe there is some reasonable way to view the impoverishment of
American citizens as a process mysteriously beneficial to American citizens.
Please explain, if you can. Take pains not to be "bitchy", since that
matters to you. Thanks.

lorenzo
July 28th 03, 01:01 AM
Elaine Jackson wrote:

> Altho I'm not the o.p., Albert Wagner, I worried that you may not be the
> obvious shill you seem to be, and that there is the possibility that you
> actually believe there is some reasonable way to view the impoverishment of
> American citizens as a process mysteriously beneficial to American citizens.

job migration has always happened: apparal mfg, electronics, automobile
components, hardware design/processing have migrated never to comeback
in last 30+ years. the latest is software design/developement..
that too has been going on since last 20 years but the quantity was not
significant (eg: motorola, texas instruments, hp etc in last 20 years)
or it may not have been relavant as US economy was growing.

i cannot fathom the assumption of an individual that she is
*entitled* to hold the job irrespective of the business realities,
and somehow govt should protect their jobs irrespective of business
decisions. in reality it does not work. look at germany: you cannot
layoff people so easily, so what do businesses do ? 1) they never
hire to the fullest capacity so almost all the businesses are
short staffed, and they hire contractors to get over the temporal
staffing needs. result? : high unemployment rate. 2) german firms
go overseas: BMW in SC, SAP in USA, umpteen german companies
in china/india.

Slowly, the jobs needing higher level of skills are migrating out
of US never to comeback. is it new ? no. study the migration pattern
and you'll realise this is just one of the latest. if India/China
are ready to absorb very highly skilled jobs (Operating System design,
RF/Microwave design, chip design from scratch, etc) even they start
moving out. Businesses must be so screwed up to ripoff the investors
if they are willing to pay $60k-$80k per job which can be accomplished
at $25k per annum elsewhere...

One way to make induhviduals' job secure is to work in a protective
ecomony where no business have to compete against anothers producing
products more efficiently. haven't we been thru this smoot-hawley
stuff before ?

Another way would be that the induhvidual take charge, update
skill set continuously to be in market, be innovative, etc.
OMG, is this what my gubmint wants me to do ? i'm so stressed up.
all i want to do is get a high school degree with no knowledge
of geography or get a generic computer undergrad who knows
to program in c++/java etc. ok dude, you may be better off than your
grandpa, but there are tons of your kind in china/india. so, dude,
go ahead, get ready to get kicked out, whine on the usenet, be a
bitter old man, and hope to get "equal wealth" one day instead of
learning to suck it all up and move on to US army or Brunei.

There is yet another way we could *hope* to solve the problem:
use morals, ethics, patriotism and start pounding out systematic
attacks on immigrants to go home, businesses to stop migrating jobs,
etc. btw who are immigrants ? anyone after me ? unless i'm an anasazi,
hopi etc, everyone is immigrant here. your Irish great grandpa had an accent,
my Italian grandpa had an accent, so we are lucky someone did that dirty
migration job for us that these hardworking indians/chinese are doing
for their kids now. stop immigration ? my arse sir ! even if you stop
immigration, you cannot stop job migration unless lots of us become
moronic again like smoot-hawley. and even if govt prevents businesses
to stop job migration, would it be a long term success ? will businesses
take that kinda BS from govt ? oh, this you-are-immigrant, i'm-native syndrome
is not specific to whole usa anymore: californians don't want east-coasters,
oregonians don't want californians, in isreal sephardi-askenazi,
in taiwan: old-new immigrant, there is no end to this kinda crap in sight.

Whether you are equal wealth mongering moralist beggar, or a link-rat
(akin to pack rat in url collection/publishing of how many jobs are
migrating on a daily basis) mastering the art of FUD (fear, uncertainty,
doubt), we donot need your myopic, mean, moronic kind anymore. pack your
retirement-ware and head out to Brunei.

In essence, get on with the system, or change the system, or get the hell
outta here. stop whining for christos' sake.

*lorenzo*

July 28th 03, 01:41 AM
lorenzo > wrote:

>haven't we been thru this smoot-hawley stuff before ?

Check your dates. Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the great depression, it was a too
late reaction to the factors leading to it. To paraphrase your gripe, do we
have to go through this stuff again? An across the board 10% tariff on
imported goods and exported jobs would reduce taxes and promote growth within
the country. It would mean getting out of the WTO job drainpipe that only
benefits the do-nothing manipulators.

Face it, the bottom line of the capitalist goal is to get the greatest reward
for the least amount of effort, risk, and investment. Building an economy on
that is like building a balanced meal where the most important part is dessert.

lorenzo
July 28th 03, 02:06 AM
wrote:

> Check your dates. Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the great depression, it was a too
> late reaction to the factors leading to it.

reread my post. i did not make a claim that SH caused GD.
it caused traffic barriers which other countries retaliated with.

> An across the board 10% tariff on
> imported goods and exported jobs would reduce taxes and promote growth within
> the country.

its not guaranteed. prove it how it is guaranteed to work ? you are
assuming that production price difference between us/import is around 10%..
it may still be lot more cheaper to produce outside and sell it here.
also, guess who pays higher prices for *supposedly* made-with-pride-in-usa
products ? i'm not willing to btw.

> Face it, the bottom line of the capitalist goal is to get the greatest reward
> for the least amount of effort, risk, and investment.

so, non-capitalists look for greatest rewards for greatest amount of
investment, effort, risk ? what is your point here ? please back it up
with examples of how non-capitalist systems work ?

*lorenzo*

lorenzo
July 28th 03, 02:29 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Search the archives for "Prisoner's Dilemma" and read carefully. It is
> not unethical to return tit for tat.

how about punting ? what kind of dilemma/ethics does that fit in ?!

if its not unethical to return tit for tat, then what is problem with
capitalist system which rewards based the effort of labor ?

>>and what about your crappy idea of "equal wealth distribution" ?
>
>
> Not MY crappy idea. (You really love building straw men to attack).

thats right. you are the straw man i'm trying to counter.

you really have no concept of objective/rational thinking.
everytime someone corners you, you'll run to take shelter under
ethics/morality/valuee/subjective-behavior umbrella. you love to
take shelter under them as it gives you plenty of room to be
vague without making any credible statements at all and
prolonging the time it takes to prove you wrong.

>>how came moving jobs offshore to poverty stricken countries
>>seem to cause such a bitchy reaction in you ?
>
>
> Equity.

equity in what ? businesses want to do what is best for them.
what they think is more profitable. what is wrong with that ?
why are businesses obligated to you ?

> LOL. There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who
> categorize all people into two groups and those who don't.

punting again !

*lorenzo*

leslie
July 28th 03, 05:11 AM
lorenzo ) wrote:
:
: Another way would be that the induhvidual take charge, update
: skill set continuously to be in market, be innovative, etc.
: OMG, is this what my gubmint wants me to do ? i'm so stressed up.
: all i want to do is get a high school degree with no knowledge
: of geography or get a generic computer undergrad who knows
: to program in c++/java etc.
:

And work for the SAME or LOWER wages and benefits as someone in Vietnam,
Ghana, India, Communist China, et.al.

And under the same environmental and working conditions, including
child labor; e.g.:

http://www.indianchild.com/child_labor_india.htm
Child Labor India

"...The government has made efforts to prohibit child labor by enacting
Child labor laws in India including the 1986 Child Labor (Prohibition
and Regulation) Act that stated that children under fourteen years of
age could not be employed in hazardous occupations. This act also
attempted to regulate working conditions in the jobs that it
permitted, and put greater emphasis on health and safety standards.

However, due to cultural and economic factors, these goals remain
difficult to meet. For instance, the act does nothing to protect
children who perform domestic or unreported labor, which is very
common in India. In almost all Indian industries girls are
unrecognized laborers because they are seen as helpers and not
workers. Therefore, girls are therefore not protected by the law.
Children are often exploited and deprived of their rights in India,
and until further measures are taken, many Indian children will
continue to live in poverty..."


http://www.corpwatchindia.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4023
CorpWatchIndia.org - Issues - Agriculture - Articles -
Monsanto , Unilever Use Child Labor in India


--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

lorenzo
July 28th 03, 05:56 AM
leslie wrote:

> However, due to cultural and economic factors, these goals remain
> difficult to meet. For instance, the act does nothing to protect
> children who perform domestic or unreported labor, which is very
> common in India. In almost all Indian industries girls are
> unrecognized laborers because they are seen as helpers and not
> workers. Therefore, girls are therefore not protected by the law.
> Children are often exploited and deprived of their rights in India,
> and until further measures are taken, many Indian children will
> continue to live in poverty..."

there are certain issues that every country finds it difficult to
abolish inspite of good effort from the govt. i was talking
about the high tech job migration, and show me where you found
relavant link that talks about the child labor in said market ?

as someone previously mentioned, there is child labor in USA too,
but not in mainstream though. same may be true with india:
i.e in industries like argiculture, home labor market, govt
would have done a really bad job of enforcing their rules.
I think they are better off than they were in 1960s.

We, being the super power, have succeeded in doing zilch to
eradicate teen-drugs, limit AMA's incessant lobby to rent seek
the medical activity, eradicate illegal immigration, and tons of other
stuff. our own justice system is filled with filth and you expect India
to be perfect. what a moron. if India/China/Srilanka are as developed
as USA/WestEurope, then why would they move jobs there ?

Busineses would prolly would not touch child labor if there is enuff
enforcement, but seems like it may not be the case in india. who knows,
when economy booms in India, there will be better enforcement.

btw, whats your goddamn point w.r.t my origianl post ? is it that
there are tons of child java/c++ programmers out there ? say something
of your own instead of cut-n-paste mr. link-rat. your only expertise
so far has been to create FUD (fear uncertainty, doubt).

even if you spend the rest of your useless life to post a labrynth of
URLs, anyone with a basic capacity to think can see thru your FUD crap.

*lorenzo*

Albert Wagner
July 28th 03, 02:49 PM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:42:29 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > The Prisoner's Dilemma is not the propery of economists.
>
> nitpicking again. OP was pointing you as to how you
> switch stances between economics/morality based on
> your convenience.

How can you tell? You understand neither.

Albert Wagner
July 28th 03, 03:09 PM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:29:11 -0700
lorenzo > wrote:
<snip>
> you really have no concept of objective/rational thinking.
> everytime someone corners you, you'll run to take shelter under
> ethics/morality/valuee/subjective-behavior umbrella. you love to
> take shelter under them as it gives you plenty of room to be
> vague without making any credible statements at all and
> prolonging the time it takes to prove you wrong.

I'm glad to see you squealing like a stuck pig everytime someone points
out the inequities in laissez-faire capitalism. Once more: (1) economic
systems should serve people not the other way around, (2) my mission is
to point out that laissez-faire capicalism is basicly immoral. (3) No
amout of squealing by pigs alters the fact that the majority in our
culture have a well defined sense of morality and ethics.
<snip>
> equity in what ?

For starters, equity in distribution of labor's output.

> businesses want to do what is best for them.
> what they think is more profitable. what is wrong with that ?

Nothing, if you recognize no god but profit; A great deal, if people
matter more to you than the profits of capitalists. That you have to
ask this question makes my point by highlighting the differences between
people who think like you and the rest of civilization.

> why are businesses obligated to you ?

see above.

<snip>

Dennis
July 28th 03, 07:17 PM
On 28 Jul 2003 09:49:44 -0700, (baron48) wrote:

>It is in most peoples' self-interest to act ethically and morally.
>If it were not, the World would be a very different place.

This is the part that folks like old Al have such a hard time
grasping. They just assume that everyone would act as poorly as they
fear they would themselves given the freedom.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 28th 03, 09:32 PM
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:42:51 GMT, wrote:

>Dennis > wrote:
>
>>On 28 Jul 2003 09:49:44 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>>
>>>It is in most peoples' self-interest to act ethically and morally.
>>>If it were not, the World would be a very different place.
>>
>>This is the part that folks like old Al have such a hard time
>>grasping. They just assume that everyone would act as poorly as they
>>fear they would themselves given the freedom.
>>
>>the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
>
>An examination of the Federalist Papers will show that this is exactly what the
>framers of the U.S. Constitution did. By assuming the worst in people, and
>installing checks and balances, they hoped to prevent the federal government
>from becoming corrupt and only serving the interest of a few. How well they
>succeeded is debatable. Those old politicians understood human nature.

You are talking about limits and controls on a select few -- those who
are attracted to the power of governing. Not a big surprize that we
find so many of that group misbehaving. I was referring to the
population as a whole. All of my neighbors and friends are
reasonable, ethical people and I trust them to varying degrees.
Likewise my coworkers, the people who run the hardware store and the
folks I buy my gas from. The list goes on and on. By comparison, the
list of people that I flat out don't trust is pretty short. The rest,
I give the benefit of the doubt, but as Tom points out, things would
come to a grinding halt if most of them didn't exhibit at least some
basic level of ethics.

Perhaps your views are skewed by conditions in your area?

>Perhaps old Al might not be so far off.

He's so far off that he doesn't even register on the scale. He does
do a good job of saying stupid things to make fun of, though.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

baron48
July 28th 03, 11:25 PM
wrote in message >...
> Dennis > wrote:
>
> >On 28 Jul 2003 09:49:44 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
> >
> >>It is in most peoples' self-interest to act ethically and morally.
> >>If it were not, the World would be a very different place.
> >
> >This is the part that folks like old Al have such a hard time
> >grasping. They just assume that everyone would act as poorly as they
> >fear they would themselves given the freedom.
> >
> >the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
>
> An examination of the Federalist Papers will show that this is exactly what the
> framers of the U.S. Constitution did. By assuming the worst in people, and
> installing checks and balances, they hoped to prevent the federal government
> from becoming corrupt and only serving the interest of a few.

Most of the "rights" granted in the Constitution only applied to a
small minority of the people at the time of its creation. IOW, it
was set up to serve the interests of a select few.

> How well they
> succeeded is debatable.

Things have changed quite a bit, too. The government has some
very different responsibilities than it did at that time and the
demographics of the country are radically different.

> Those old politicians understood human nature.
> Perhaps old Al might not be so far off.

Al seems to think that this "bad" side of human nature only applies
to a select group of people, when it actually applies to all.

-Tom

baron48
July 28th 03, 11:54 PM
Pat Meadows wrote in message ...
>
>I wouldn't say that 'quality of life' and 'disposable
>income' are the same thing at all.
>
>In the 'quality of life' column, I'd place such things as
>enjoying a natural environment (parks, etc.)., breathing
>unpolluted air, drinking unpolluted water, living in a quiet
>and safe neighborhood, having access to a good public
>library, etc.

But related. A society with limited "disposable income"
typically won't be building and maintaining public libraries.
Clean air, clean water and quiet neighborhoods will typically
be low on the priority list of a poor community.

-Tom

July 28th 03, 11:54 PM
Dennis > wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:42:51 GMT, wrote:
>
>>Dennis > wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Jul 2003 09:49:44 -0700, (baron48) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is in most peoples' self-interest to act ethically and morally.
>>>>If it were not, the World would be a very different place.
>>>
>>>This is the part that folks like old Al have such a hard time
>>>grasping. They just assume that everyone would act as poorly as they
>>>fear they would themselves given the freedom.
>>>
>>>the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
>>
>>An examination of the Federalist Papers will show that this is exactly what the
>>framers of the U.S. Constitution did. By assuming the worst in people, and
>>installing checks and balances, they hoped to prevent the federal government
>>from becoming corrupt and only serving the interest of a few. How well they
>>succeeded is debatable. Those old politicians understood human nature.
>
>You are talking about limits and controls on a select few -- those who
>are attracted to the power of governing. Not a big surprize that we
>find so many of that group misbehaving. I was referring to the
>population as a whole. All of my neighbors and friends are
>reasonable, ethical people and I trust them to varying degrees.
>Likewise my coworkers, the people who run the hardware store and the
>folks I buy my gas from. The list goes on and on. By comparison, the
>list of people that I flat out don't trust is pretty short. The rest,
>I give the benefit of the doubt, but as Tom points out, things would
>come to a grinding halt if most of them didn't exhibit at least some
>basic level of ethics.
>
>Perhaps your views are skewed by conditions in your area?
>
>>Perhaps old Al might not be so far off.
>
>He's so far off that he doesn't even register on the scale. He does
>do a good job of saying stupid things to make fun of, though.
>
>the Dennis formerly known as (evil)

Tom stated: "Economic theory is all based on the assumption of people acting in
an ethical way."

His statement is a gloss at best. There is a slim congruency between economics
and the ethics of social contractarians, but modern economic theory is more
accurately based on the historically expected results of manipulating such
economic factors as trade, manufacture, law, and labor. Tom's assumption of
ethical behavior (however that may be defined) is only feasible when there is
the strength of a system of laws supporting the economic theory du' jour and a
government willing to properly and fairly enforce those laws. His assumption
fails to recognize that people who act without the burden of a sense of ethics
have the advantage of more flexible and more numerous strategies than those who
follow any code of conduct.

Globalization is only possible because there is a set of uber-laws that
countries must follow to be allowed into the global trade club. As more
countries become involved, it becomes harder for the hold-out countries to
maintain trading partners and sound economies. Once a country has joined the
global cadre, it finds itself being governed more and more by economists
working for businesses involved in global trade and less and less by
politicians concerned with the welfare of citizens.

On your micro-level of "who do you trust?" among neighbors, your assumptions
that are based upon a stable economy (read assured employment and fair wages)
that will not be there if there is substantial economic crisis. A thin
clothesline may work fine for holding a few pounds of clothes, but don't try
rappelling down a cliff on that same single strand of rope. Your good neighbor
with a few extra bucks in his pocket may likewise suddenly snap when he is
strung-out over the cliff of off-shoring and loses his job, home, and family.

Take a closer look at what globalization has done to the people of smaller
countries around the world, including Kenya, Ethiopia, Bolivia, etc. In a
word, it becomes obvious that the economists don't give a **** about the
individuals within a country or the immediate effects of economic policy upon
their lives.

Starvation in the sub-saharan region of Africa was exacerbated by heavy-handed
economic demands of globalization. Dissent and tribal antagonisms boiled to
the surface. Neighbors that had lived in relatively peaceful co-existance for
years became warring enemies. In short, reasonable people can become
unreasonable when under extreme stress, and globalization creates stress.

The concepts of minimal government (which you seem to hold dear) and
globalization are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a minimal government
that still controls trade according to the dictates of a multi-national body.

Tom's other statement:
>>>>It is in most peoples' self-interest to act ethically and morally.
>>>>If it were not, the World would be a very different place.

makes a similar assumption, that the governments, economists, and businesses of
the world act using his set of ethics and morals. The more you learn about the
real world of government and business, the more you realize just how amoral and
subject to graft this world is.

It is in most peoples' best interest to act in a manner that is congruent with
the prevailing leadership and system of thought, _even if that system is
unethical and immoral_. A muslim woman would not be acting in her own best
interest if she walked around topless, as is common on some French beaches. A
French man would have difficulty if he went around cutting off the hands of
thieves as is common in muslim countries. People in the west have enough
difficulty determining what is ethical behavior within the western world.
Trying to impose an outside set of ethics and morality onto other cultures and
then claiming that it is in the best interest of a member of that culture to
act according to that set of rules is a clear case of overreaching cultural
colonialism. As such, it is likely to be paid lip service, but otherwise
ignored.

In short, Tom's argument holds water about as securely as a paper cup in a
hurricane.

lorenzo
July 29th 03, 03:22 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> I'm glad to see you squealing like a stuck pig everytime someone points
> out the inequities in laissez-faire capitalism. Once more: (1) economic
> systems should serve people not the other way around

all economic systems serve people. it has not occured to you
that capitalism does favor people who are talented,
not "equal wealth" mongering do-nothing beggars like you. you and
your lets-dumb-down-everyone-so-we-can-all-share-equal-wealth
did not build american wealth.

>>equity in what ?
>
>
> For starters, equity in distribution of labor's output.

what are stock options, ESPP, performance related
pay rises and bonuses ? having never worked you prolly
never know any of these. go back to your books and
bemoan all you wish.

what happens when the labor's output not relavant anymore ?
or falls below the industry's expected output ? how about
when the company can find a better worker for lower cost ?
is the labor pool global or have to be local ?

> Nothing, if you recognize no god but profit; A great deal, if people
> matter more to you than the profits of capitalists.

people who contribute to the system have always benifited in capitalism.
its just that you never had a clue in life as to how to make a difference.
your endless bemoaning of others wealth are ample proofs.

> That you have to
> ask this question makes my point by highlighting the differences between
> people who think like you and the rest of civilization.

people like me built wealth. people like you just grew bitterly old.

*lorenzo*

A.J. Rivett
July 29th 03, 07:16 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
>
> I suppose there is, but one of the reasons the future looked promising was
> because the present was, by today's standards anyway, somewhat bleak.

You are analyzing different decades. I think we were talking about
the 50's and maybe te 60s.
>
> My maternal grandfather got off the boat in New York city at the age of 20
> or so with literally fifty cents in his pocket, not knowing a word of
> English and six whole weeks of formal education during the height of world
> war one in Europe. Did the future look promising to him? How could it have
> not?
>
Sure. When you are in the pits anything is an improvement.


> Today, we can look forward to a future that includes the real eradication of
> disease, not just its suppression, through biotechnology,

No, I don't think so. The nasty reality is that we are running out of
ways to deal with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria as a result
of indiscriminate use of antibiotics. The globalization of disease
means that problems that previously may have been regional will spread
quickly across the world, resisting quarantine efforts....for example
SARS, AIDS, MERSA, flesh-eating disease, ebola, tuberculosis, West
Nile Virus, and so on.

a future where
> everyone all over the world has enough to eat, decent housing, education,
> medical care, a future that includes space exploration, a clean environment,
> a sustainable civilization.

I live between two Great Lakes that are becoming increasingly polluted
to the point that there is no viable commercial fishery in either one
any longer. All of the beaches are closed by the middle of the summer
and this is only in the last 15 years despite the International Joint
Commission and various commitments by American and Canadian
governments. Perhaps I am overly pessimistic, but I see anything but
a clean environment in the future.


I see medical care that is becoming too expensive for increasing
numbers of Americans, and an unsustainable public health system in
Canada. I see drug companies and doctors who make as much money as
fast as they can with little consideration to public health.

Oh, it's not certain, anymore than it was
> certain Nazism and Communism and their ilk would end up on the "scrap heap
> of history" instead of taking over the world. It'll be an enormous job
> bringing all that about, there will be risks in the attempt, and not only
> might the human race might fail to live up to the task but its achievement
> will undoubtedly engender a whole new raft of problems we can't even think
> of today. But if you fail to see promise in the future, it's more a result
> of your values and lack of imagination than it's an objective assessment of
> the present.

I would love to see promise in the future, and occasionally I see
evidence of those who are truly trying to better the world, but on
balance I see a greater concentration of wealth amongst fewer
individuals and what was the middle class scrambling to keep or regain
a standard of living that is slipping away. This without regard to
the effect upon fellow citizens, the environment or coworkers.

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an objective assessment of
the present. It is too complex for me to state unequivocally that my
vision is the correct one, but it is certainly the way it feels to me.

The individual who stated that there is a greater tolerance for
mean-spirited assholes is right, I suspect. I don't blame individuals
for becoming assholes. There is a lot of competition in the world and
in the workplace. Survival of the fittest is often interpreted to
mean survival of the nastiest. Television programs lionize the tough
uncompromising boss and seem to suggest that those who achieve by
pushing others very, very hard are only doing what they must to get
the job done properly, decency be damned.

I would love to be an optimist but all I see is too many people
grabbing as much as they can as fast as they can and holding onto it
for grim death.

Please feel free to tell me I am wrong. I'd love to feel more
positive about the future than I feel right now.

A.J. Rivett

Victor Smith
July 29th 03, 07:31 AM
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:22:10 -0700, lorenzo >
wrote:

>Albert Wagner wrote:
>
>> For starters, equity in distribution of labor's output.
>
>what are stock options, ESPP, performance related
>pay rises and bonuses ? having never worked you prolly
>never know any of these. go back to your books and
>bemoan all you wish.
>
Why don't you just come out and say "Hey, I'm a yuppie, and don't
know didley squat about the meaning of labor beyond pushing a pencil
or a mouse?"
Might as well do that instead of saying the same thing by spouting a
million cliches picked up from Forbes.
Save yourself some labor, and clear the air.
Equating stock options with labor. Jesus H. Christ.

>what happens when the labor's output not relavant anymore ?

Uh, you mean like when people decide they really don't need
a fork, or spoon or washing machine, or auto, or electricity?
Or do you mean when people decide they really don't need the
fruits of *your* labor? What is that, BTW?
Come on. Brag a little. You appear to be a real accomplished
producer in the marketplace of labor.
Man, I'd hate to suffer the lowered standard of my "quality of life"
if *you* left the labor market. Bet I'd be hurting some real bad.

>or falls below the industry's expected output ? how about
>when the company can find a better worker for lower cost ?
>is the labor pool global or have to be local ?
>
You're sounding pretty erudite. Like that putz Greenspan.
Lots-o-bull****, signifying nothing. But the most important force
in the economy, nonetheless - they say.
But hell, since I'm doing a refi, how about dropping some interest
rates? Maybe 50 basis points.
Can you do that for me?
You'd help me and boost the economy in one swell foop.
Feather in your cap, and I'd appreciate it.

>> Nothing, if you recognize no god but profit; A great deal, if people
>> matter more to you than the profits of capitalists.
>
>people who contribute to the system have always benifited in capitalism.
>its just that you never had a clue in life as to how to make a difference.
>your endless bemoaning of others wealth are ample proofs.
>
Say, I bet you're right up there with Bill Gates, if not Bill hisself
just having some harmless fun here in MCFL, and encouraging the troops
to produce at the same time.
Whatta guy.

> > That you have to
> > ask this question makes my point by highlighting the differences between
> > people who think like you and the rest of civilization.
>
>people like me built wealth. people like you just grew bitterly old.
>
Built wealth. I like that. You're very, very impressive.
I thank my lucky stars for the likes of guys like you, out there busy
creating wealth for us all. Making stock options available and such.
Tell you the truth though, between you and the alcoholic laborer who
patches my streets, or the illegal Mexican picking my apples, or the
Chinaman forging a sledgehammer for me, you lose.
Their labor is more valuable to me.
But you're probably more important in the big scheme of things, since
you're out there creating wealth. Yup.
And maybe you can do that 50 basis points for me.
Keep up the good work.

Regards,

--Vic

lorenzo
July 29th 03, 09:10 AM
Victor Smith wrote:

> Save yourself some labor, and clear the air.
> Equating stock options with labor. Jesus H. Christ.

Oh Dear Lord of Labor Welfare, would you please get off your
welfare mantra (politicians know how to use it wisely already),
and pump some thoughts of your own instead of getting your
panties all bunched up to what i said ?

btw:

1. wealthy and frugal doesn't have to be orthogonal.

2. to embrace capitalism you don't have to be wealthy. you just needs to be
a rational individual. i never created any wealth, but that does not mean
i've not seen those who created it. i believe in market situation
paying me based on my skills, rather than your goddamn union or
hight tower grande école.

3. even if i never get rich, i'll still hold beliefs as it pertains to
risk/reward and talent/opportunity. if there is a talent that
shines/acquires wealth, what is my problem ? i wonder how they pay
film actors in your scheme of things ? same for super-actor and a
****ty one because they work the same hours ? and same pay for the
owner of the private business who makes/breaks the business and
that 9-5 office executive she hired ?

4. ever wonder why there is a lack of entrepreneurial spirit in western
europian welfare states like denmark, sweden etc ? if i work more,
most of my new earnings goes to slackers. so why bother ? ever wonder why
welfare states have such high unemployment rates ? if its profitable to
stay home why work ? oh, those countries are holding up, but who is
paying thru their nose ?

5. ever wonder how we became most powerful economy ? (psst: see pt. 4)
show me a country with an etnic mix as diverse as USA that is still
holding up as powerful economically ?

6. those who get PO with capitalism: you have choices of going to
welfare states, countries ruled by kingdom, or even military
dictatorship like pakistan. why bitch here ?

7. for Jesus F. Christ's sake stop appealing to pity. you looks stupid
while you are at it.

like i said before: get on with the program, or change it, or get the
hell out of here. USA does not need your types here. we don't give
a **** to your ilk, in case you are wondering still.

have a good night of dreaming about that 50 basis points on your refi.

*lorenzo*

A.J. Rivett
July 29th 03, 04:23 PM
lorenzo > wrote in message >...

>
> 2. to embrace capitalism you don't have to be wealthy. you just needs to be
> a rational individual. i never created any wealth, but that does not mean
> i've not seen those who created it. i believe in market situation
> paying me based on my skills, rather than your goddamn union or
> hight tower grande école.

What do you do for a living? There aren't many who are not somehow
fixed into a wage category by virtue of convention, union, guild,
professional association or some other criterion that relates not to
one's true value.
>

>
> 4. ever wonder why there is a lack of entrepreneurial spirit in western
> europian welfare states like denmark, sweden etc ? if i work more,
> most of my new earnings goes to slackers. so why bother ? ever wonder why
> welfare states have such high unemployment rates ? if its profitable to
> stay home why work ? oh, those countries are holding up, but who is
> paying thru their nose ?

Those countries are doing better than just holding up. Ever been to
Europe?
>
> 5. ever wonder how we became most powerful economy ? (psst: see pt. 4)
> show me a country with an etnic mix as diverse as USA that is still
> holding up as powerful economically ?

The U.S. economy isn't doing that well right now.
>
> 6. those who get PO with capitalism: you have choices of going to
> welfare states, countries ruled by kingdom, or even military
> dictatorship like pakistan. why bitch here ?

This is the usenet and as such, people (like myself) are posting from
a country that fits your description of a welfare state.

And we're not *bitching*, we're having a discussion, aren't we?


>
> 7. for Jesus F. Christ's sake stop appealing to pity. you looks stupid
> while you are at it.

It is easy to insult people from the safety of your home computer,
isn't it?
>
> like i said before: get on with the program, or change it, or get the
> hell out of here. USA does not need your types here. we don't give
> a **** to your ilk, in case you are wondering still.

Do you consider yourself the official spokesperson of your country?
Have you not considered that democracy involves the interplay of
different ideas? Why do you resort to insults and angry retorts when
someone disagrees with you?


A.J. Rivett

lorenzo
July 29th 03, 05:43 PM
A.J. Rivett wrote:

> Why do you resort to insults and angry retorts when
> someone disagrees with you?

ok, friend, regd. the style of my messages: yes i should've known better.
i'll work on it. even adding couple smilies just in case ;-)

*lorenzo*

lorenzo
July 30th 03, 04:27 AM
Victor Smith wrote:

> Shoulda just said that in the first place, instead of wasting my time
> with all that political stuff.

attaboy ! i did not invite you here.. you started drooling all over me
without contributing stuff to topic in hand that i was posting,
and when i tried reply on topic (with an insult combo), and you say i
waste you time ?!

why don't you cool your bedroom, so, for a change your
IQ above room temprature ?

> You've outlived your usefulness to me.

never cliamed i'm here to amuse you. get over it.

> I guessed you wouldn't come through, but took a shot anyway, because
> besides being frugal, (and at the risk of being immodest) I fancy
> myself as somewhat of an entrepreneur.

yup ! a great entrepreneur at that ! you employ illegal aliens from
mehico to pick your apples, and dance here nekkid, weeping for the
tech jobs going off-shore ! how much do you pay those apple-pickers ?
an apple a day ? that should sub their medical insurance as the fruits
of their labor should keep the doctors away ! way to go lord of labor empathy !

btw, how are your farm subsidies coming along ?
hmm..enjoy it while it lasts, and while you are at it,
keep your goodamn mouth shut, so it doesn't stink for us.

*lorenzo*

July 30th 03, 07:27 AM
lorenzo > wrote:

>keep your goodamn mouth shut, so it doesn't stink for us.

Sorry, I had been following along, but I just lost all interest in anything you
have to say. As I've suggested before, such statements can be eloquently
responded to by an opponent with a simple "You Lose."

I'll spell out my disappointment for you and the others involved in this
exchange, in the hope that you all may become a little more skilled at
presenting a point of view and a little less enamored with finger pooping upon
your keyboards and flushing it to usenet.

Argumentum ad hominem; abusive is a technique that is designed to throw an
untrained debate opponent into defensive mode and distract him from the subject
of the debate. It isn't good form in debating even when polite, and is most
often the mark of a novice, coarse, or unprepared debater. Such attacks add
nothing of substance and are a general waste of time for people that are
reading or hearing the debate.

Why do people on usenet continue with ad hominem attacks? I can think of four
reasons: 1. Ignorance, 2. Blind unreasoning anger, 3. A misguided idea that
such attacks are devastating, and 4. An attempt to be cute. Of these, only the
fourth has any possible merit. There is a sub-class of AAH;A used in show
debates that can be entertaining and invigorating under certain circumstances.
This is repartee, and when it is used all attempts at serious debate are set
aside and sharpened barbs traded that are barely (but almost always) within the
realm of good manners.

Good repartee is much more difficult than it would appear, and is very rare.
Such repartee is brutally fast and directed, and success depends on flipping
and twisting words like rapier parries in a duel. The more common clumsy
attempts at repartee are boorish, ill-mannered, and lead participants to
invectives and (the ultimate low point when fisticuffs are not involved)
invective obscenities, such as the one seen above.

Daytime television has glorified the ill-mannered and out of control, with
shows such as Springer and the various Judge shows wallowing in unrepentant
direct personal attacks, both at and from the intellectually deficient. Radio
is no better, with the hysterics thrown on as a mantle by Limbaugh, designed to
titillate the intolerant. While these shows may be entertaining to some, they
do not foster good conversation or debating skills.

You can learn about the usenet rules of engagement at sites like this one:
<http://members.aol.com/MacedonPg/tmaod.htm>

lorenzo
July 30th 03, 08:10 AM
wrote:

> I'll spell out my disappointment for you and the others involved in this
> exchange, in the hope that you all may become a little more skilled at
> presenting a point of view

will try. thanks for your timely post.

*lorenzo*

July 30th 03, 06:01 PM
(baron48) wrote:

>A government (especially a democratic government) has a tough
>time enforcing laws that a large number of people do not wish to follow

Agree, this is one reason why there are modifications to most pure democracies
to prevent absolute rule by the majority. People (even large groups of people)
don't always act in the best interests of themselves or the group.
Representative governments and slow lawmaking processes temper the excesses of
the moment.

>and an even tougher time doing things "properly and fairly."

Agree here as well. Properly and fairly often turns out to alienate the
extremists and leave even the moderates grumbling.

> The market is much better at enforcing ethics in economic dealings.

This is incorrect. A simple example: Five companies start at the same time
building the same product, each is located on a small island with a small
workforce.

Company A makes a superior product that costs more than the others. Company B
makes an inexpensive inferior product. Company C isn't focused on the product
at all, but upon making money for the stockholders. Company D is focused on
making money for the CEO. Company E is an average company that makes an
average product and tries to balance the reasons for its existence.

Now examine the ethics of unregulated capitalism.
Company A finds it has a limited market for quality products, and because of
poor sales has to increase its price even more, spiraling the loss of customers
and making it go belly up or seek a buyer. The townspeople suffer.

Company B sells a lot of inferior product and ignores the complaints of
customers even when product safety is involved. Some customers die because of
the bad design and quality, but since this is unregulated market capitalism,
there are no laws to prevent further deaths, and corporate lawyers turn away
the lawsuits by individuals. The company does well and the local community
prospers.

Company C quickly realizes the costs of manufacture would be cheaper by using
slaves and prisoners in Atlanta. The stockholders become rich, but the local
community has no income and becomes poverty stricken, creating theft, riots,
and starvation and forcing the stockholders to move or build walled communities
with guards.

Company D works similarly to company C, but the CEO and CFO cook the books and
take the money from the stockholders. Because there is no regulation, they get
away with it, cover their tracks, and the company is left bankrupt. They leave
the island and let the workers and stockholders die off in the natural process
of survival of the fittest.

Company E seems to be successful, and works for a while, but companies B and C
have been growing. Company C stockholders sell out to company B, accepting
partial payment in stock. (Company B has already purchased company A at fire
sale prices to eliminate competition.) Company B then floods the market and
engages in monopolistic predatory practices. Again, these practices are
unregulated, so company E is forced out of business. At this point, the
stockholders of company C perform a hostile takeover of company B and hire the
CEO and CFO from company D. The CEO and CFO repeat their performance at
company B and use the funds to purchase it outright. One of them then kills
the other in an argument over money. Everyone ends up broke except the CEO.

The ethics of the unregulated marketplace promote the most aggressive and least
principled person at the expense of everyone else. The manufacture of widgets
is only a minor side issue in the transfers of money and power. If you are an
egomaniac that likes to take chances, such an environment can be stimulating
until the smarter and more deceptive competitor steals all your money and
power. If, OTOH, you are attempting to raise a family, care for a loved one,
or build a secure nest egg, such games are not in your best interest.

>Being ethical almost always wins out in the long-term.

Wrong. See above. Also, read about the leaders of history.

>First, most
>politicians show little or no concern for the welfare of citizens
>unless forced to. Politicians have been screwing up countries
>long before "globalization."

Agree. Politicians are subject to the siren calls of money, power, and lust.
In countries where the rule of law doesn't keep them in check, dictatorships
can easily happen.

>Most countries that get in trouble
>with globalization are the result of their own governments'
>mismanagement and incompetence than any outside influence.

This is an unfounded statement that requires proof. Some heavy duty plodding
through books is required, and I challenge you to cite an authoritative source
as backup.

>Second, a number of countries have benefited quite nicely from
>"globalization." There's no way East Asia and India could have
>developed their economies as quickly as they did without foreign
>capital. This has resulted in a historically large reduction in
>World poverty.

China is the country that has made the greatest gains. It did not play by the
rules of globalization and because of its willingness to default on loans,
manipulate trade barriers, and refuse oversight it is becoming the economic
powerhouse of the world.

>How do you think a "stable economy" is created?

By avoiding totally unrestricted free trade.

>These are not the basis for a "stable economy." Mao Zedong would
>be proud of you though.

*shrug* Inflammatory AH statement. Yo' mama. :-)

>Again, the problems in these countries look mostly self-imposed. The
>Ethiopia-Eritrea War was strictly home-brewed. Kenya and Bolivia are
>certainly not models of responsible government.
>
>> Starvation in the sub-saharan region of Africa was exacerbated by heavy-handed
>> economic demands of globalization.
>
>Doubtful. Most of the benefits of globalization were never realized
>because the countries' leaders were thoroughly corrupt. Starvation,
>poverty, etc... are not new to Africa.

Incorrect, as pointed out in "Globalization an its Discontents" Jos. Stiglitz.

>More likely, they were driven to it by corruption within their own
>government. Globalization didn't create goverments dominated by
>minority tribes in these countries. If anything, globalization should
>be viewed as a stabilizing force.

There is no doubt that there are corrupt governments. The WTO has even fewer
controls than most governments to prevent corruption. I wonder...

>> The concepts of minimal government (which you seem to hold dear) and
>> globalization are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a minimal government
>> that still controls trade according to the dictates of a multi-national body.

>How much of the government is dedicated to international trade?

You miss the point. It requires a governing body of some sort to regulate
trade. Globalization will not eliminate that.

>It is usually the interplay between government and business where most
>of the corruption occurs. Politics is where morality and ethics are
>no longer practiced. As long as the economy is viewed as a political
>football, then this will spill over into business also.

I mostly agree with this.

>> It is in most peoples' best interest to act in a manner that is congruent with
>> the prevailing leadership and system of thought, _even if that system is
>> unethical and immoral_.

>No, it is not. There are many historical examples that show the
>huge disasters that befell nations and peoples who have acted as
>you said.

We'll have to disagree here. There are other examples of unethical nations and
people prospering. (Spain in the Americas, etc.)

>> A muslim woman would not be acting in her own best
>> interest if she walked around topless,
>> as is common on some French beaches.
>
>Probably not, but continuing to allow herself to be treated as
>inferior will be in neither her interest or the interest of the
>nation she is a part of.

Speaking out would undoubtedly shorten her life. You are nibbling at the edges
of one of the more famous philosophical debates.


>No one is imposing anything. Globalization hasn't been the complete
>failure that you hoped it would be. Most countries come to it willingly
>because they see benefits in it.

More accurately, they see disaster if they don't join the crowd.

>Money talks, suckers walk. If people derive benefits from it, it
>will be paid more than lip service.

And that money would go to which group?...

>Uh huh. Your strawmen seem a little gravity challenged.

Back at'cha :-)

IleneB
July 30th 03, 09:14 PM
In article >, Lecher9000
> wrote:

> At least we had some control of our
> borders then, and a sense of what it was to be an American, and not have to
> move every 5 years, away from a decaying neighborhood.

I gather people often moved every 5-7 years (still the national
average) because, on a white collar level, their companies moved them.
And people often moved "up" because they had equity in their
(appreciating) houses, not because their neighborhood was decaying.
Yes, people flooded out of the old cities for many reasons, not the
least being an increase in personal auto ownership and development like
Levittown, which hadn't existed before. Also the structure of mortgages
changed. Used to be that one had to have cash or something like 50%
down. The VA changed all that for many households.

My parents left their decaying neighborhood (and it was) of West Philly
for the brand new developments of south Jersey, financed by my father's
military service and car ownership. Neither existed widely before the
war.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 30th 03, 09:20 PM
In article >, baron48
> wrote:

> continuing to allow herself to be treated as
> inferior will be in neither her interest or the interest of the
> nation she is a part of.

Which is one reason why the Arab countries are as "backward" as they
are, ignoring about 50% of their intellectual human capital. One of the
Catch-22s of being in an inferior position is that the person is
unlikely to be *able* to change position even knowing its not in her
best interest to remain there. That's what makes it inferior! Now, if
the powers in the country also realize it, there's some hope.

I know Afghanistn is an extreme example, and not an Arab Muslim
country, but the woman in the new Ministry for Women resigned because
of death threats. And so Afghanistan will remain a ******** for all the
miserable people in it except the warlords.

Ilene B

Vic
July 30th 03, 10:48 PM
An Outcry:

I am just furious at the fact that I see so many fresh college
students and professional programers on the streets job-less, because
companies not only send work-out to other countries, but bring people
from other countries to do the work an American can do! Keep in mind,
because of our current economy, these American programers are willinmg
to accept the salary of many of these off-shore-brought-to-the-us
programers. For pete sake, if your in this country, you shoudl at
least try your best to support it! What do we do? CROSS-POST this to
other newsgroups so people everywhere know we Americans need to take a
stand.

baron48
July 31st 03, 01:03 AM
wrote in message >...
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> >A government (especially a democratic government) has a tough
> >time enforcing laws that a large number of people do not wish to follow
>
> Agree, this is one reason why there are modifications to most pure democracies
> to prevent absolute rule by the majority.

Not really. There are safeguards, but even the Constitution can
be changed by a sufficient majority. The "rights" of minority groups
are really only guaranteed by the the morality and ethics of the
majority. There's nothing to prevent a Constitutional amendment
legalizing slavery except that the majority of people find it morally
repulsive.

> People (even large groups of people)
> don't always act in the best interests of themselves or the group.

People generally act in what they perceive is their best interests
at any particular moment. No one can read the future, so no one
can say for sure that any particular course of action is going to
"best" in the long run and what is "best" may differ between the
group and the individual.

> Representative governments and slow lawmaking processes temper the excesses of
> the moment.

True, but they can become dangerously out of touch with the people
they are supposed to represent as times change, but laws don't.


> >and an even tougher time doing things "properly and fairly."
>
> Agree here as well. Properly and fairly often turns out to alienate the
> extremists and leave even the moderates grumbling.

"Properly" and "fairly" are tough words to even define. Ususally,
they end up with some compromise that doesn't address the problem
they were orginally trying to solve.

>
> > The market is much better at enforcing ethics in economic dealings.
>
> This is incorrect. A simple example: Five companies start at the same time
> building the same product, each is located on a small island with a small
> workforce.
>
> Company A makes a superior product that costs more than the others. Company B
> makes an inexpensive inferior product. Company C isn't focused on the product
> at all, but upon making money for the stockholders. Company D is focused on
> making money for the CEO. Company E is an average company that makes an
> average product and tries to balance the reasons for its existence.
>
> Now examine the ethics of unregulated capitalism.
> Company A finds it has a limited market for quality products, and because of
> poor sales has to increase its price even more, spiraling the loss of customers
> and making it go belly up or seek a buyer. The townspeople suffer.
>
> Company B sells a lot of inferior product and ignores the complaints of
> customers even when product safety is involved. Some customers die because of
> the bad design and quality, but since this is unregulated market capitalism,
> there are no laws to prevent further deaths, and corporate lawyers turn away
> the lawsuits by individuals. The company does well and the local community
> prospers.
>
> Company C quickly realizes the costs of manufacture would be cheaper by using
> slaves and prisoners in Atlanta. The stockholders become rich, but the local
> community has no income and becomes poverty stricken, creating theft, riots,
> and starvation and forcing the stockholders to move or build walled communities
> with guards.
>
> Company D works similarly to company C, but the CEO and CFO cook the books and
> take the money from the stockholders. Because there is no regulation, they get
> away with it, cover their tracks, and the company is left bankrupt. They leave
> the island and let the workers and stockholders die off in the natural process
> of survival of the fittest.
>
> Company E seems to be successful, and works for a while, but companies B and C
> have been growing. Company C stockholders sell out to company B, accepting
> partial payment in stock. (Company B has already purchased company A at fire
> sale prices to eliminate competition.) Company B then floods the market and
> engages in monopolistic predatory practices. Again, these practices are
> unregulated, so company E is forced out of business. At this point, the
> stockholders of company C perform a hostile takeover of company B and hire the
> CEO and CFO from company D. The CEO and CFO repeat their performance at
> company B and use the funds to purchase it outright. One of them then kills
> the other in an argument over money. Everyone ends up broke except the CEO.

You left out a few things. People like quality and are willing to pay
for it. Witness Japanese cars vs. American. Company A can still do
quite well. People don't buy things that are even rumored to be unsafe,
so company B probably doesn't make it. Class action lawsuits hasten
their demise. Company C would find prisoner and slave labor less
efficient than paid labor, so they would either change or go under.
Company D's stockholders lose because they are foolish and didn't
keep an eye on things. New companies come in and fill the void
that was left by company D. The rest of the story doesn't happen.

>
> The ethics of the unregulated marketplace promote the most aggressive and least
> principled person at the expense of everyone else.

Not true. The market is very good at deciding what and how much
of things are produced. Inferior products are weeded out. Consumers
are not just passive victims of market forces.

The government's job is to make sure that markets are open and
transparent as possible. Heavily regulated industries have for the
most part been a disaster for consumers and the businesses themselves.

The manufacture of widgets
> is only a minor side issue in the transfers of money and power.

There are no transfers of money or power if you can't produce a good
widget.

> If you are an
> egomaniac that likes to take chances, such an environment can be stimulating
> until the smarter and more deceptive competitor steals all your money and
> power. If, OTOH, you are attempting to raise a family, care for a loved one,
> or build a secure nest egg, such games are not in your best interest.

Open, transparent markets are best for all involved. They result
in more economic activity which equates to more jobs and more wealth.
It is regulation and control that allow poor quality products to
continue to exist. The old AT&T was probably a great place to work
if you could get in there, but they held up technological progress
and ripped off consumers for decades. Now, there are many more telecom
jobs, long distance rates are a tiny fraction of what they were,
and the technology has advanced dramatically. This is better for
all involved except for the old AT&T employees who might of had
to retrain and/or find a new job and the management that now has
to figure out ways to stay competitive.

>
> >Being ethical almost always wins out in the long-term.
>
> Wrong. See above. Also, read about the leaders of history.

I should've added except in politics.

> >First, most
> >politicians show little or no concern for the welfare of citizens
> >unless forced to. Politicians have been screwing up countries
> >long before "globalization."
>
> Agree. Politicians are subject to the siren calls of money, power, and lust.
> In countries where the rule of law doesn't keep them in check, dictatorships
> can easily happen.
>
> >Most countries that get in trouble
> >with globalization are the result of their own governments'
> >mismanagement and incompetence than any outside influence.
>
> This is an unfounded statement that requires proof.

Heavy debt, lack of transparency in markets, ill-conceived currency
and banking policies are all the hallmarks of countries that got in
trouble in Asia and Latin America.

> Some heavy duty plodding
> through books is required, and I challenge you to cite an authoritative source
> as backup.

Try google. This stuff has been hashed over enough that it can
now be considered common knowledge.

>
> >Second, a number of countries have benefited quite nicely from
> >"globalization." There's no way East Asia and India could have
> >developed their economies as quickly as they did without foreign
> >capital. This has resulted in a historically large reduction in
> >World poverty.
>
> China is the country that has made the greatest gains. It did not play by the
> rules of globalization and because of its willingness to default on loans,
> manipulate trade barriers, and refuse oversight it is becoming the economic
> powerhouse of the world.

It's joining the WTO. I don't think the items you mention are the
only reasons for its success. It's a long way from being the "economic
powerhouse of the world", too.

>
> >How do you think a "stable economy" is created?
>
> By avoiding totally unrestricted free trade.

I think there is more to it than that.

>
> >These are not the basis for a "stable economy." Mao Zedong would
> >be proud of you though.
>
> *shrug* Inflammatory AH statement. Yo' mama. :-)

Not meant to be. Mao did very much what you said. Assured employment
and "fair" wages. The results were rather disappointing.

>
> >Again, the problems in these countries look mostly self-imposed. The
> >Ethiopia-Eritrea War was strictly home-brewed. Kenya and Bolivia are
> >certainly not models of responsible government.
> >
> >> Starvation in the sub-saharan region of Africa was exacerbated by heavy-handed
> >> economic demands of globalization.
> >
> >Doubtful. Most of the benefits of globalization were never realized
> >because the countries' leaders were thoroughly corrupt. Starvation,
> >poverty, etc... are not new to Africa.
>
> Incorrect, as pointed out in "Globalization an its Discontents" Jos. Stiglitz.

Really? When does he consider "globalization" to have started? I've
been hearing about starvation and poverty in Africa as long as I
have been alive. Probably was going on long before that, too.

>
> >More likely, they were driven to it by corruption within their own
> >government. Globalization didn't create goverments dominated by
> >minority tribes in these countries. If anything, globalization should
> >be viewed as a stabilizing force.
>
> There is no doubt that there are corrupt governments. The WTO has even fewer
> controls than most governments to prevent corruption. I wonder...

It has much less power, too. You can easily reduce the effects of
corruption by reducing the power of a government.

>
> >> The concepts of minimal government (which you seem to hold dear) and
> >> globalization are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a minimal government
> >> that still controls trade according to the dictates of a multi-national body.
>
> >How much of the government is dedicated to international trade?
>
> You miss the point. It requires a governing body of some sort to regulate
> trade. Globalization will not eliminate that.

True, but I don't see why it needs more than a minimal government.
It certainly doesn't need the massive bureaucratic machine that
the US Federal Government has become.

>
> >It is usually the interplay between government and business where most
> >of the corruption occurs. Politics is where morality and ethics are
> >no longer practiced. As long as the economy is viewed as a political
> >football, then this will spill over into business also.
>
> I mostly agree with this.
>
> >> It is in most peoples' best interest to act in a manner that is congruent with
> >> the prevailing leadership and system of thought, _even if that system is
> >> unethical and immoral_.
>
> >No, it is not. There are many historical examples that show the
> >huge disasters that befell nations and peoples who have acted as
> >you said.
>
> We'll have to disagree here. There are other examples of unethical nations and
> people prospering. (Spain in the Americas, etc.)

They probably thought they were acting ethically. They faded
pretty quickly after the initial exploitation of the Western
hemisphere.

>
> >> A muslim woman would not be acting in her own best
> >> interest if she walked around topless,
> >> as is common on some French beaches.
> >
> >Probably not, but continuing to allow herself to be treated as
> >inferior will be in neither her interest or the interest of the
> >nation she is a part of.
>
> Speaking out would undoubtedly shorten her life.

Maybe, but there are other forms of protest. There have been
dramatic changes in the status of women over the last century,
even in Muslim countries.

> You are nibbling at the edges
> of one of the more famous philosophical debates.
>
>
> >No one is imposing anything. Globalization hasn't been the complete
> >failure that you hoped it would be. Most countries come to it willingly
> >because they see benefits in it.
>
> More accurately, they see disaster if they don't join the crowd.

Governments have to deliver economic progress now a days. This
is what the people demand.

>
> >Money talks, suckers walk. If people derive benefits from it, it
> >will be paid more than lip service.
>
> And that money would go to which group?...

A Chinese peasant just wants better than what he has now.

-Tom

Don Klipstein
July 31st 03, 02:06 AM
In >, baron48 wrote in
part:
wrote in >

>> This is incorrect. A simple example: Five companies start at the same time
>> building the same product, each is located on a small island with a small
>> workforce.
>>
>> Company A makes a superior product that costs more than the others. Company B
>> makes an inexpensive inferior product. Company C isn't focused on the product
>> at all, but upon making money for the stockholders. Company D is focused on
>> making money for the CEO. Company E is an average company that makes an
>> average product and tries to balance the reasons for its existence.
>>
>> Now examine the ethics of unregulated capitalism.
>> Company A finds it has a limited market for quality products, and because of
>> poor sales has to increase its price even more, spiraling the loss of customers
>> and making it go belly up or seek a buyer. The townspeople suffer.
>>
>> Company B sells a lot of inferior product and ignores the complaints of
>> customers even when product safety is involved. Some customers die because of
>> the bad design and quality, but since this is unregulated market capitalism,
>> there are no laws to prevent further deaths, and corporate lawyers turn away
>> the lawsuits by individuals. The company does well and the local community
>> prospers.
>>
>> Company C quickly realizes the costs of manufacture would be cheaper by using
>> slaves and prisoners in Atlanta. The stockholders become rich, but the local
>> community has no income and becomes poverty stricken, creating theft, riots,
>> and starvation and forcing the stockholders to move or build walled communities
>> with guards.
>>
>> Company D works similarly to company C, but the CEO and CFO cook the books and
>> take the money from the stockholders. Because there is no regulation, they get
>> away with it, cover their tracks, and the company is left bankrupt. They leave
>> the island and let the workers and stockholders die off in the natural process
>> of survival of the fittest.
>>
>> Company E seems to be successful, and works for a while, but companies B and C
>> have been growing. Company C stockholders sell out to company B, accepting
>> partial payment in stock. (Company B has already purchased company A at fire
>> sale prices to eliminate competition.) Company B then floods the market and
>> engages in monopolistic predatory practices. Again, these practices are
>> unregulated, so company E is forced out of business. At this point, the
>> stockholders of company C perform a hostile takeover of company B and hire the
>> CEO and CFO from company D. The CEO and CFO repeat their performance at
>> company B and use the funds to purchase it outright. One of them then kills
>> the other in an argument over money. Everyone ends up broke except the CEO.
>
>You left out a few things. People like quality and are willing to pay
>for it. Witness Japanese cars vs. American. Company A can still do
>quite well. People don't buy things that are even rumored to be unsafe,
>so company B probably doesn't make it. Class action lawsuits hasten
>their demise.

I don't see lack of safety slowing sales as much as it should. Witness
booming sales of weight-loss supplements containing ephedra! And
carmakers not putting in airbags until forced to do so by government
mandate!
And as for quality, sorry - not everyone can afford it. Wal Mart
employees with a 28 hour workweek (counting only the hours they get paid
for, while they work a few more than that per week) can't always afford
quality but need the product. Same for people trying to make a living at
chain fast food joints at $6.50 or $7 an hour.

> Company C would find prisoner and slave labor less
>efficient than paid labor, so they would either change or go under.

I see all too well that many companies will not pay for good labor. I
have seen enough fast food joints where the workers have less than half
the productivity that I can easily accomplish. What would such a good
worker earn there - 50 cents or a dollar an hour more and the resentment
of coworkers who feel their Luddite attitudes are justified? No way to
earn a good living by doing good work except by being promoted to
management? Oh, no wonder why everyone wants to be a chief and few
want to be braves!
The KFC 2 blocks from me often has a 20 minute wait because the manager
gets an incentive to minimize payroll. Their nearest competitor always
has "Out of Order" signs on their restrooms.

>Company D's stockholders lose because they are foolish and didn't
>keep an eye on things. New companies come in and fill the void
>that was left by company D. The rest of the story doesn't happen.

Void is usually filled by existing companies that got away with doing
whatever they did to succeed. New companies are usually bought out by
established companies that snap up competitors, unless they succumb to Wal
Mart whose lower prices are in part due to them getting away with making
their workers put in some time off the clock.

>> The ethics of the unregulated marketplace promote the most aggressive and least
>> principled person at the expense of everyone else.
>
>Not true. The market is very good at deciding what and how much
>of things are produced. Inferior products are weeded out.

> Consumers are not just passive victims of market forces.

Then how do you explain dollar stores selling 3-packs of 100 watt
lightbulbs that each produce 1100 lumens of light for $1 while K-Mart
sells 4-packs of 75 watt lightbulbs that each produce 1190 lumens from 75
watts for 88 cents?
What about off-brand lightbulbs with inflated light output claims (I saw
this several years ago) - how many people have access to the truth when
lightbulbs have inflated claims of light output?

- Don Klipstein )

SoCalMike
July 31st 03, 02:46 AM
> I don't see lack of safety slowing sales as much as it should. Witness
> booming sales of weight-loss supplements containing ephedra! And

im sure it works for some people. some people it doesnt. its basically
legalized (for now) speed, and some people have a low tolerance for it. some
abuse it.

me? ive tried one brand, and it seemed to work. id take one pill for
breakfast, along with an aspirin, a multi-vitamin, and a huge mug o coffee.
that would tide me over til i could get home after work for a late lunch.

> carmakers not putting in airbags until forced to do so by government
> mandate!

chrysler started in 89, 5 years before they were required to.

> And as for quality, sorry - not everyone can afford it. Wal Mart
> employees with a 28 hour workweek (counting only the hours they get paid
> for, while they work a few more than that per week) can't always afford
> quality but need the product. Same for people trying to make a living at
> chain fast food joints at $6.50 or $7 an hour.
>
> > Company C would find prisoner and slave labor less
> >efficient than paid labor, so they would either change or go under.
>
> I see all too well that many companies will not pay for good labor. I
> have seen enough fast food joints where the workers have less than half
> the productivity that I can easily accomplish. What would such a good

i guess they figure the pay cant get any lower, so why give a ****? they can
always go next door to kentacohut, and make the same amount.

> worker earn there - 50 cents or a dollar an hour more and the resentment
> of coworkers who feel their Luddite attitudes are justified? No way to
> earn a good living by doing good work except by being promoted to
> management? Oh, no wonder why everyone wants to be a chief and few
> want to be braves!
> The KFC 2 blocks from me often has a 20 minute wait because the manager
> gets an incentive to minimize payroll. Their nearest competitor always
> has "Out of Order" signs on their restrooms.
>
> >Company D's stockholders lose because they are foolish and didn't
> >keep an eye on things. New companies come in and fill the void
> >that was left by company D. The rest of the story doesn't happen.
>
> Void is usually filled by existing companies that got away with doing
> whatever they did to succeed. New companies are usually bought out by
> established companies that snap up competitors, unless they succumb to Wal
> Mart whose lower prices are in part due to them getting away with making
> their workers put in some time off the clock.
>
> >> The ethics of the unregulated marketplace promote the most aggressive
and least
> >> principled person at the expense of everyone else.
> >
> >Not true. The market is very good at deciding what and how much
> >of things are produced. Inferior products are weeded out.
>
> > Consumers are not just passive victims of market forces.
>
> Then how do you explain dollar stores selling 3-packs of 100 watt
> lightbulbs that each produce 1100 lumens of light for $1 while K-Mart
> sells 4-packs of 75 watt lightbulbs that each produce 1190 lumens from 75
> watts for 88 cents?

not everything at the dollar store is worth a dollar. ive found dollar store
light bulbs, soap, trash bags, toilet paper, etc pretty lacking, which is
why i go to sams or costco. every once in a while i do find something neat,
tho... and they have 12 packs of condoms for a buck. and film for a buck a
roll.

> What about off-brand lightbulbs with inflated light output claims (I saw
> this several years ago) - how many people have access to the truth when
> lightbulbs have inflated claims of light output?
>
> - Don Klipstein )
>

Victor Smith
July 31st 03, 03:18 AM
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:46:55 GMT, "SoCalMike"
> wrote:


>not everything at the dollar store is worth a dollar. ive found dollar store
>light bulbs, soap, trash bags, toilet paper, etc pretty lacking, which is
>why i go to sams or costco. every once in a while i do find something neat,
>tho... and they have 12 packs of condoms for a buck. and film for a buck a
>roll.
>
Never buy Ajax condoms or Acme film. You just don't know what will
develop.

--Vic

Mark
August 1st 03, 10:27 AM
(Vic) wrote in message >...
> An Outcry:
>
> I am just furious at the fact that I see so many fresh college
> students and professional programers on the streets job-less, because
> companies not only send work-out to other countries, but bring people
> from other countries to do the work an American can do! Keep in mind,
> because of our current economy, these American programers are willinmg
> to accept the salary of many of these off-shore-brought-to-the-us
> programers. For pete sake, if your in this country, you shoudl at
> least try your best to support it! What do we do? CROSS-POST this to
> other newsgroups so people everywhere know we Americans need to take a
> stand.

Don't be furious, there are many foreigners on H1 who can't find a
company to sponser them so they're being forced to return to the
Motherland. You can get a great deal on a used car now.. I've seen
many ads titled "leaving country, must sell". I was looking a car for
one of my gf's, that's how I know about this. I've spoken to several
people in this predicament.

Mark

Google