Re: war on the environment
On 11 Sep 2008 at 17:33, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > But that choice places almost all of the power in the hands of the > employer as far as deciding the terms of the agreement. The choice There are plenty of ways to ensure that while someone has the "free choice" to leave a company, they're screwed if they take it. Company Scrip (lots and LOTS of things you can do with this) Retirement income tied to company bought "options", surrendered on leaving the company Health Insurance (an American-style health insurance system leads to high prices, making it very difficult for the uninsured to gain any care) Company Towns (especially tied to informational control; make the outside world seem scary, restrict certain information and run your own "news" services) Complex usage fees (to the degree you need an "agent" program, company provided, to handle them for you. You do trust the company, right?) You're heading for effective debt peonage via company law and company scrip. For example, what happens when a company scrip is purely electronic? Every transaction is traceable, etc. Technology in a "free" market has the potential for unprecidented levels of overwatch and control of supposedly free workers. Unlike in the past, where slave labour meant unhappy, unskilled unproductive labour it's perfectly possible to envisage a "cradle to the grave" company system of indoctination and loyalty where although theoretically free to quit, you effectively have skilled, happy and productive slaves. Some people won't see that as so bad, of course. And incidentally, why do you think they'll start this in the West? I'd rather think they wouldn't, they'll start somewhere where the government's greedy enough to look away. And yes, it's a relatively long-term investment. But in thirty years, the corperate HQ could move and *then*... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I believe that how a society treats its most vulnerable is a much more > appropriate measure. How does your ideology address that? I have no ideology, unless you consider live and let live to be one. If you are asking whether I believe in helping people who cannot help themselves, I cannot give you a generalized answer, it depends on the situation. The choice is not whether to help someone or not, it is rather who out of many people or groups to help. Resources are limited and can only go so far to helping people, so the best way to help as many people as possible is to improve resources. Which is done best by free markets and free trade. > Does it sarcastically dismiss or ignore them as failures who must not > receive any economic reward, lest we reward inefficiency and ruin > everything? I'm curous, how wealthy are you and how much do you give to help those less wealthy than you? If helping others is your top priority as you imply, why not give away all of your wealth to help others and just live paycheck-to-paycheck as best you can? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > It is literally *illegal* for a publicly > > traded corporation not to take every advantage of profitable market > > strategy that it can, > > Cite please? I know of know "literal" law that requires a corporation > to maximize profit. I can only guess that you are thinking of cases > where board members are sued for negligence or fraud, but that hardly > qualifies as a "literal law to maximize profits. I think Bruce somewhat exaggerates the issue, but if you're familiar with the fiduciary obligations of a for-profit corporation to its shareholders, you surely realize that present law offers strong disincentives to engage in any activity that can't be justified as protecting or increasing shareholder value. It seems to me that you are a victim of limited statistics, relying on mere averages to justify a fantastic idealized market. For some of us, increasing the average standard of living, average productivity, etc., are not the ultimate measure of society. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that how a society treats its most vulnerable is a much more appropriate measure. How does your ideology address that? Does it sarcastically dismiss or ignore them as failures who must not receive any economic reward, lest we reward inefficiency and ruin everything? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
John Williams wrote: > > It appears that you are only using the measure of dispersion of wealth. > I mentioned two things: standard of living (which is generally an average > or median statistic) and a free society. I did not mention it, but another > measure of wealth would be how well-off are the least well-off, say the > bottom decile. Rapid improvement in that measure is also correlated with > freer markets. > > Anyway, compare the USA to the former USSR, or South Korea to North > Korea, or Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Singapore, Hong Kong and > Taiwain to China of 50 years ago. Or today's China to China of 50 > years ago. > You examples are quite assymetrical, because those pairs are in entirely different situations. If we want to argue by examples, compare Cuba to Haiti, or Vietnam to Birmania (or whatever name the current dictators use), or Angola to Liberia. Comrade Alberto Karlovski ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote: >> Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them. > > If you say so. You are obviously an expert entrepreneur. But no > doubt your skills are more useful telling people what they should do > than what they do not have the intelligence or ability to do. > >> Ask anyone who's ever tried to start a business, and all but a >> very lucky >> few will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how tricky >> it is to hit a market niche > > Ah, so it is luck whether they succeed? Could be. A lot of people > probably > do not know as much as they think, so although they may have a plan, > it may actually be luck whether the plan succeeds. That sounds > familiar, > no? Kind of like people who have plans about what everyone should do > to make everything shiny and happy? > >> It's rather important to keep in mind that the USA is still running >> to >> some extent on the momentum of the wartime mobilizations of WWII and >> Vietnam, > > LOL! Cite, please. > >> I'm proposing persuasion. You seem to be confusing that with >> coercion. > > I'm glad to hear that you do not support new legislation that will > coerce people > to follow your rules. > >> Well, at least we agree that the choice being offered to much of the >> labor force isn't really a palatable one. > > No, I do not agree. Any choice is more palatable than no choice. This discussion is obviously getting neither of us anywhere. Fine, whatever, my patience with this thread has now expired. The only thing I will say at this point is that my silence does not imply agreement. "Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
By the way, another excellent economics book relevant to our discussion and requiring little background economics knowledge is "The Power of Productivity: Wealth, Poverty, and the Threat to Global Stability" by William W. Lewis. This book discusses how rules and policy affect productivity in a number of countries. Since standard of living ultimately depends on productivity, this is a key factor to study if you are interested in what helps to improve people's lives around the world. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them. If you say so. You are obviously an expert entrepreneur. But no doubt your skills are more useful telling people what they should do than what they do not have the intelligence or ability to do. > Ask anyone who's ever tried to start a business, and all but a very lucky > few will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how tricky > it is to hit a market niche Ah, so it is luck whether they succeed? Could be. A lot of people probably do not know as much as they think, so although they may have a plan, it may actually be luck whether the plan succeeds. That sounds familiar, no? Kind of like people who have plans about what everyone should do to make everything shiny and happy? > It's rather important to keep in mind that the USA is still running to > some extent on the momentum of the wartime mobilizations of WWII and > Vietnam, LOL! Cite, please. > I'm proposing persuasion. You seem to be confusing that with coercion. I'm glad to hear that you do not support new legislation that will coerce people to follow your rules. > Well, at least we agree that the choice being offered to much of the > labor force isn't really a palatable one. No, I do not agree. Any choice is more palatable than no choice. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Sep 11, 2008, at 6:27 PM, John Williams wrote: > Yes, people are too stupid and inept to improve their productivity > unless > the evil employers help them. And I see business owners going around > all the time telling their employees to reduce revenue and decrease > their productivity. If you're working a 120+ hour work week with no free time at all, it's pretty hard to do much in the way of improving your employability unless your employer makes it possible. And that's pretty close to where the labor force was in the laissez-faire days of the Industrial Revolution, and that's almost exactly where a lot of the people in the currently unregulated cheap labor markets are right now. Stupidity and ineptness have nothing at all to do with it. (It's difficult to conceive of that sort of life in our labor system where we can earn overtime for more than 40 hours per week (as a disincentive to encroach on what's generally been agreed in recent decades should be workers' free time) and get weekends off, or some approximation of that.) > Wow, it is a good thing all the potential entrepreneurs have you to > warn > them about how they can never succeed. Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them. Ask anyone who's ever tried to start a business, and all but a very lucky few will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how tricky it is to hit a market niche just right and avoid being squeezed out by major players who are doing their best to capitalize on your efforts to break open a new market sector. (Don't get me started on our byzantine 1800's era patent/intellectual property legal system.) > Anyway, compare the USA to the former USSR, or South Korea to North > Korea, > or Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwain > to China of 50 years ago. Or today's China to China of 50 years ago. It's rather important to keep in mind that the USA is still running to some extent on the momentum of the wartime mobilizations of WWII and Vietnam, which both had anomalous effects on the economy -- growth economies cannot grow without limit, and war has historically been the reset button that tends to start the growth cycle over at least to some extent -- and if we had started out in our pre-WWII economic state (and managed to stay out of WWII *and* avoid being occupied by Germany and Japan), and run our markets without any regulation at all, we would not be in anywhere near the economic state we're in now and our standard of living would be far worse. But war-mobilization effects aside, our economy is not even close to a completely unregulated free market, and to me, that's a good thing, as far as it goes. The leak in that system is still the fact that the USA's fair- labor standards are somewhat unilateral in the global economy, and until those standards are accepted on a much wider scale, we're basically held hostage by the countries who are willing to subject their people to grossly unfair labor conditions to make a quick buck. >> What I'm proposing is putting pressure >> on the safe-harbor countries that currently *don't* regulate labor to >> establish strong enough fair labor laws that they're no longer as >> attractive an alternative to doing business with US workers. > > Ah, not satisfied with being king of a country, you want to be king > of the world! Everyone must do as you desire! I'm proposing persuasion. You seem to be confusing that with coercion. >> but if the best choice I have is to either >> accept the employment terms the worst offenders offer, or not be able >> to work at all because a fair wage is priced out of the market, that >> choice kind of sucks, and I'd like a better one, thank you. > > Me too. The best way I have seen to promote rapid growth in living > standards > is free markets and free trade. China and (to a lesser extent) India > are making > rapid progress since liberalizing their economies (India still has a > ways to go). > Most of Africa, not so much. But that cannot be blamed solely on > lack of free > markets, there are other factors at work (Bernstein's book above > touches on > some of those). Well, at least we agree that the choice being offered to much of the labor force isn't really a palatable one. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on the means to negotiating a more satisfying range of choices. I don't see any real progress coming until everyone on earth in the labor force really is free to seek fair and reasonable employment -- as long as there are at least some who are at the mercy of governments (or lack thereof) who find it more profitable to throw them under the bus, that's where the work will go. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > As long > as there's an unregulated-labor pool outside that scope, organized > labor is fighting a losing battle because it is still ultimately only > pricing itself out of the market. Seems the obvious solution is to not price oneself out of the market, then. Accept the market price, or find a way to provide something else of greater value at a higher price. > But your statement assumes that the labor transaction is a direct one > between the employer and the worker, and that both have equal power in > the negotiation of the terms of that transaction. No. I only assume that both parties have the choice whether or not to enter into the employment agreement. > when there are no constraints at all, wages drop to almost nothing, > work hours expand to fill every bit of every day that's not spent > sleeping or eating (and encroach aggressively on those at every > opportunity), opportunities to advance completely disappear, and > management attitudes approch that of "if you don't like it, you can > leave". I assume you mean that this happens to the least productive employees. Obviously it cannot happen to everyone. > Workers can choose whether they want to accept the job or > not, sure, but that's not much of a choice if that's all that's > offered One can always choose another job, or to work for oneself. > What I'm getting at is that > there's more to this equation than the bottom line, and while laissez- > faire economies are generally very profitable for the wealthiest 1-2% > of the population (who become far wealthier when they pay almost > nothing in labor costs for what they can turn around and sell at > wholesale or even retail prices), the effects are ultimately self- > destructive to the society as a whole Historically, there has been a high correlation between free markets and vastly increased standards of living and freer societies. Perhaps you mean that a completely free society would have the problems you mention, because otherwise your statement is at odds with history. > "work every waking hour of your life until you drop dead in > your tracks, for just barely enough money to keep you alive, or quit > the job and starve to death", is not a choice I'd offer my worst enemy. You'd rather take away their choice and force them to starve to death? Seriously, what alternative do you offer? Are you seriously suggesting that putting restrictions on Americans from hiring non-Americans is going to give the person you describe a third, better choice? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > O-kay. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a few deep relaxing > breaths . . . ? > Why fscking bother? The world will end anyway, and we are all going to Hell. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > it is not a question of putting > a foreign worker out of a job. there is no reason why their government can > not > generate a strong economy to employ their own workers, especially in nations > that are wealthy in natural resources. What exactly did you mean about putting Americans out of jobs? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
At 05:35 PM Wednesday 9/10/2008, John Williams wrote: >Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Feel free to return to whatever you were doing before I jumped in. > >Thank you, your highness! O-kay. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a few deep relaxing breaths . . . ? Put The Mouse Down Slowly And Step Away From The Keyboard Before Someone Gets Hurt Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Feel free to return to whatever you were doing before I jumped in. Thank you, your highness! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Perhaps you didn't understand. "Begging the question" is a logical > problem > > with an argument. > > Perhaps. Or perhaps it begs the question, why do you think your opinion is > more useful than the law and consensual agreement between others, your > highness? > Feel free to return to whatever you were doing before I jumped in. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Perhaps you didn't understand. "Begging the question" is a logical problem > with an argument. Perhaps. Or perhaps it begs the question, why do you think your opinion is more useful than the law and consensual agreement between others, your highness? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > That begs the question of what should be legal, so it is not a useful > > argument. > > Rigghhht. So much less useful than it should be whatever you say it > should > be, your highness. Perhaps you didn't understand. "Begging the question" is a logical problem with an argument. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:36 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > you can not assume that all "consensual deals" are "fair", and should be > allowed > > without any regulation. > > Yes, I can. If it is legal and consensual, then you have no right to impose > your > opinions on others. That begs the question of what should be legal, so it is not a useful argument. Slavery and other activities in which ones gives up one's rights can be consensual, but not legal. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you can not assume that all "consensual deals" are "fair", and should be > allowed > without any regulation. Yes, I can. If it is legal and consensual, then you have no right to impose your opinions on others. > exploit resources and labor in > undeveloped countries, put americans out of work, Good thing you know what is good for those stupid foreigners better than they do. And we wouldn't want some poor foreigner to get a job at the expense of an American now, would we? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Because that's what I hear when I read that the free market is *the* way. > But you have backed off from the definite. ;-) Backed off? The discussion you referenced was about how I (or Jon, or someone else) would choose to allocate resources. _The_ way _I_ would do it is a free market. And I said it was the way (I would choose) to _efficiently_ allocate resources. I don't know about "appropriate". People want a lot of things, and the free market is the most efficient way I know of to supply those things to people who want them. I make no judgement about whether it is "appropriate". I do make judgements about what is fair -- I consider consensual deals fair, and barring people from consensual deals to be unfair. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:09 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > *The" way? Or *a* way? > > A way. The best way I've seen. But if you know of a better way, > I'd certainly be interested. > > > There is no objective measure for appropriate distribution of > > resources, so it is a fallacy to argue that free markets distribute > > resources appropriately. > > If you know such an argument is fallacious, why would you make it or > think someone else is making it? > Because that's what I hear when I read that the free market is *the* way. But you have backed off from the definite. ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *The" way? Or *a* way? A way. The best way I've seen. But if you know of a better way, I'd certainly be interested. > Surely it is generally accepted that the free market fails sometimes. Surely. How could an emergent system be perfect? > Otherwise we wouldn't have anti-trust laws. That is debatable. Many economists contend that many anti-trust laws are mistaken. But I don't mean to dispute that there are market failures. I think the best examples of market failures are those where the costs of pursuing a project do not all accrue to those who are pursuing the project, as I've mentioned before. > It fails when competition is > inherently inefficient, such as in portions of public utility systems. I think you are referring to what economists call a "natural monopoly", such as the situation for a water company (where it is extremely inefficient to have more than one set of water pipes serving a community). I agree that this is an example where free-market competition is unlikely to result in a more efficient solution. > It seems to fail when goods and services exhibit "network effects" that yield > increasing returns (which anti-trust laws have been used to mitigate). That is less clear to me. Where one set of network effects can occur, there may be others that can occur. > There is no objective measure for appropriate distribution of > resources, so it is a fallacy to argue that free markets distribute > resources appropriately. If you know such an argument is fallacious, why would you make it or think someone else is making it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > The free market is the way to efficiently allocate resources, and cash > returns > provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You disagreed, but > have > still not offered an alternative. *The" way? Or *a* way? Surely it is generally accepted that the free market fails sometimes. Otherwise we wouldn't have anti-trust laws. It fails when competition is inherently inefficient, such as in portions of public utility systems. It seems to fail when goods and services exhibit "network effects" that yield increasing returns (which anti-trust laws have been used to mitigate). I find myself very bothered by what I see as tautological statements about free markets -- that because they are free markets, they are inherently good. There is no objective measure for appropriate distribution of resources, so it is a fallacy to argue that free markets distribute resources appropriately. Isn't the main argument for free free market economies that they seem to strike a balance between individual and social needs and desires... a balance that has no objective measure, either. Nick Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> How much carbon is released into the atmosphere from a >> cremation? > > Ah, so you got the context, but you missed the irony!~) > Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but I expect it is more > energy efficient than cryonics, or to bury bodies in expensive > caskets that are not bio-degradable... > Unless you pile the bodies and burn them all in an anthropothermic power plant. Then, bodies become biofuel, which is carbon-neutral. Of course, probably it would be more efficient _not_ to burn them, but to gaseify them to syngas and then Fischer-Tropsch them to diesel (heating oil, gasoil - name varies by country). Darth Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The invisible hand is as much a belief as invisible pink unicorns. The > 'free market' is just the composite action of people who are mostly > very stupid and ignorant. Hmmm, I thought that was obvious enough to go without saying, but apparently not. The "invisible hand" is not real. It is symbolic. In the same way that evolution describes a random process governed by natural selection. There is no hand any more than there is an intelligent designer. But some people find it easier to think of it that way. It is a crutch. Better not to use it, but if you really need it, probably better than nothing. What is real are the results of a free(ish) market. It is observable. It seems to allocate resources in a way that results in progress in efficiently supplying what people demand while resulting in fewer violent disputes than the alternatives. Interestingly, while the people are "mostly" ignorant, there are a few experts, and they are dominant in setting the prices for the goods and services in which they are expert. There is an excellent description of the process in Russell Roberts science-fiction book "The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity". You can read the first two chapters at: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8733.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On 10 Sep 2008, at 01:04, John Williams wrote: > > The free market is the way to efficiently allocate resources, and > cash returns > provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You disagreed, > but have > still not offered an alternative. The invisible hand is as much a belief as invisible pink unicorns. The 'free market' is just the composite action of people who are mostly very stupid and ignorant. Economic Religion Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > When did I say, "individuals may own ANY amount of property"? I think that > owning 10 houses (like the McCains) is way too much, but one house per family > is > about right, but that is only my opinion. My forty acres is in French Gulch, > California and I have kept it pristine and out of the greedy hands of > developers > who would love to buy me out and sub-divide it. I will build on it only > after I > sell my home in Eureka, California. So, the answer is, owning as much as Jon, good, owning more than Jon, bad. Obviously, the solution is for anyone who owns more than Jon to give half the excess to Jon, thus eliminating the problem. Or everyone could divide all the property equally. I like that one better. Jon owns more than I do, and I want my share! > In what context? The free market is the way to efficiently allocate resources, and cash returns provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You disagreed, but have still not offered an alternative. > As for allocating resources, I am a democratic socialist and believe in > things > like a living wage, equitable distribution of wealth, limitations on profit > gouging, fair trade, affirmative action, equal opportunity, equal justice, > free > education based on merit, etc. I don't believe it is right to exploit labor, > or > non-renewable vanishing resources, to increase demand, etc. I would prefer > industry to create jobs in recycling, conservation, single payer health > providers, education that is relevant, affordable housing, healthy food > production, etc. I could go on, but that is feeding into your tactic of > asking > questions that have no easy answer. That way you put your opponent on the > defensive and avoid having to provide your own answers how to allocate > resources, etc. Actually, those are beliefs, not ways of accomplishing something, such as allocating resources. Which is why you have trouble with the question, to which there IS an easy answer. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Isn't cremation is better for the environment; "ashes to ashes"?
How much carbon is released into the atmosphere from a cremation?
> I will be delighted to answer your
> questions when you are able to state them in context...
The problem is that I am apparently too dense to understand your
context ("you don't get it, John"). Feel free to fill in the context:
1) How much property is "way too much"? You said that individuals
may own any amount of property, but that corporations can have
too much. How much is too much? What is to be done about it?
2) You said that cash returns and efficiency is a poor way to allocate
resources in a free market. How would you allocate resources?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > h... what goes around comes around... No, that would be x*x + y*y = 1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You're saying that what you wrote earlier doesn't come up to the level of > B.S.? Now you're twisting my words. Straighten up and try a linear curve fit! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
At 02:34 PM Monday 9/8/2008, John Williams wrote: > Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > You obviously have B.S. in statistics. > >You obviously are overestimating me. You're saying that what you wrote earlier doesn't come up to the level of B.S.? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > it's not just about population demographics; it is about large carbon > footprints > due to capitalism, greed, and materialism. western populations are probably > one > of the worse offenders, but the asian countries are rapidly catching up with > our > model. more and more people are starting to curb their voracious appetites, > largely due to economic conditions. corporations that feed the greed are > also Good point. I updated my equation to include the exogenous materialism variable, and a square root voraciability scaling factor. I believe it increased the accuracy of the model by at least 13.9%. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You obviously have B.S. in statistics. You obviously are overestimating me. Try a non-linear curve fit. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
At 09:19 PM Wednesday 9/3/2008, John Williams wrote: > Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > i think it is already too late, considering humanity's greed, and lack of > > foresight. > >Could be. I had a heck of a time getting a statistically significant >r-squared with a 4th order curve fit to the modified Malthus >equation, particularly with the stiffness of the inverse-greed parameter. You obviously have B.S. in statistics. No Mention Made Above Of College Degrees Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > i think it is already too late, considering humanity's greed, and lack of > foresight. Could be. I had a heck of a time getting a statistically significant r-squared with a 4th order curve fit to the modified Malthus equation, particularly with the stiffness of the inverse-greed parameter. After all, Malthus wasn't far off, really, in galactic time scales. He'd probably say that it was within the margin of error. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, that certainly explains a lot. Where did you find the evidence for > this opinion? Here and there on the web, and my own calculations. Hopefully I didn't move the decimal the wrong way. If we only have 0.05 years, then I need to get a few things done... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
John Williams wrote: > Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> it will become much, much worse in this century. some >> estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then >> the >> problem will correct itself... >> > > I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 years. > > > Oh, wait, I just checked my work, and I seem to have dropped a couple zeros. > That > should be 500 years. Sorry. > Well, that certainly explains a lot. Where did you find the evidence for this opinion? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -- Churchill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
On 04/09/2008, at 6:19 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Ok, but, above, you only list the _preys_. Where are the big > predators? > There ain't no big predators in North America except Man. Puma, several bear species, wolves, alligators... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > it can be said that the human race has been at war with the environment > since the agricultural revolution, The environment was trying to eat us long before the dawn of history. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> I think it began much earlier, as soon as the >> hunter-gatherers >> learned that they could mass-murder their predators, and >> raised to the top of the food chain. > > both then, alberto, but when did the population of hunter gathers > reach the level when it had a serious impact on predator > populations? should we include using fire and other hunting tactics > to cause extinction among the wooly mammoths, giant moas, etc. the > native americans killed a lot of buffalo stampeding them over cliffs, > but it wasn't until bill cody that they were driven to the brink of > extinction. same with the whales, in the 19th century. jon > Ok, but, above, you only list the _preys_. Where are the big predators? There ain't no big predators in North America except Man. Even if the West didn't invade America (say, imagine that the Black Death had wiped out 99% of Afro-Eurasia), and even if the natives hadn't acquired gunpowder, how could the prey population survive Man? Sooner or later, intelligent hunting would turn the prey population upside down, with an un-natural selection. Self-uplift is impossible Maru Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > it can be said that the human race has been at war with the > environment since the agricultural revolution, > I think it began much earlier, as soon as the hunter-gatherers learned that they could mass-murder their predators, and raised to the top of the food chain. In one of the Uplift books, the Galactics say that self-uplift is impossible because as soon as a species gains enough brainpower to become pre-sentient, it wages (and wins) a war on the environment, effectively destroying the planet and itself. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > it will become much, much worse in this century. some > estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then > the > problem will correct itself... I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 years. Oh, wait, I just checked my work, and I seem to have dropped a couple zeros. That should be 500 years. Sorry. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
