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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
you can not assume that all consensual
deals are fair, and should be
allowed without any regulation.
Jon
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
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
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!
h... what goes around comes around...
___
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
You might have problems with the part where you bury
yourself
Good point. I doubt there would be a shortage of volunteers
to help me with the problem, however. We will bury you.
Isn't cremation is better for the environment; ashes to ashes?
Sarcasm is the lingua franca of the
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
Isn't cremation is better for the environment;
ashes to ashes?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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! :)
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!
___
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
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.
off
it can be said 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.
both then, alberto
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
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
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
(imagine that the Black Death had wiped out 99%
of Afro-Eurasia) and the natives hadn't acquired
gunpowder, how could
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
___
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
okay, but man didn't start kicking ass until after recorded history...
jon
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
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
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...
i think it is already too late,
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
on the
environment will not help, and on balance, will probably
cause harm.
it can be said that the human race has been at war with the environment since
the agricultural revolution, but it only started to become a serious problem in
the last century. it will become much, much worse in this century. some
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
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
56 matches
Mail list logo
