On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 01:44:46PM +, Ken Brown wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Ah yes, forgot about that -- the fancy condo right smack in the downtown
historic district used to be a while city block of historic buildings people
wanted to save, and, in fact, there were developers
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Ah yes, forgot about that -- the fancy condo right smack in the downtown
historic district used to be a while city block of historic buildings people
wanted to save, and, in fact, there were developers with money who wanted to
restore them, but the city, for some
At 09:44 AM 03/14/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Marx was primarily an economist, and a lot of what he had to say bore
listening to.
I had to read that twice, because my reaction to reading Das Kapital
was that it was not only spectacularly boring, but spectacularly clueless
as well.
The Labor
James Donald wrote...
On 11 Mar 2003 at 9:35, Tyler Durden wrote:
Does it mean that such observations are invalid just because
Marx predicted them?
Actually, I didn't write that, though I quoted it.
Marx was both untruthful, and spectacularly in error.
Marx was primarily an economist, and a
The difference between private property owners doing this, and
the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private property
owners are NOT going to agree on anything.
This presumes the existence of significant amount of (at least
potentially) competing private owners - then it is valid argument.
Tyler Durden wrote:
Actually, I am dimly aware of this. From the little I've been able to
glean, there is a very slow, steady progress in the 'science' of
economics/econometrics.
By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real
science is that it is becoming usable by
At 10:19 PM -0600 on 3/9/03, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real
science is that it is becoming usable by engineers;
Well, finance, anyway, where it is possible to calculate some risk.
You can't calculate prices, though. You
Comie fantasy.
That theory is Marx's monopoly capitalism. Commies have been
loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously
themselves.
Open your eyes and look around yourself. Take any bigger, established
market -
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real
science is that it is becoming usable by engineers;
Well, finance, anyway, where it is possible to calculate some risk.
You can't calculate prices, though. You discover them.
For commodities, if
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 07:55 PM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a
real science is that it is becoming usable by engineers;
Well, finance, anyway, where it is possible to calculate some risk.
You can't
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 02:44:44AM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery
store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now
assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only
those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more
--
James A. Donald:
The difference between private property owners doing this,
and the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private
property owners are NOT going to agree on anything.
On 9 Mar 2003 at 8:36, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
This presumes the existence of significant amount of
At 07:04 AM 3/11/03 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
Comie fantasy.
That theory is Marx's monopoly capitalism. Commies have been
loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously
themselves.
Open your eyes and look around
PROTECTED]
To: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Give cheese to france?
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:04:11 +0100 (CET)
Comie fantasy.
That theory is Marx's monopoly capitalism. Commies have been
loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
though
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:00:48 -0800, you wrote:
--
On 8 Mar 2003 at 2:44, Anonymous wrote:
But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery
store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now
assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only
those people
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever
T-shirt you want in a mall
The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever
T-shirt you want in a mall
The better way to frame the question: May a private property
Harmon Seaver wrote:
The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should be, as a
general rule, yes
Absolutely yes, except for the fact that malls have invited the public in,
Are you saying that if I invite people to a
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:44:44 -0500, you wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever
T-shirt you want in a mall
The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
legally
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:15:52 -0800, you wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 06:21 AM, An Metet wrote:
I've been hearing liberals bleat about the actions of the cops and
mall security.
Their civil rights were violated!
They have free speech!
The mall is a public accomodation!
Property
--
On 8 Mar 2003 at 2:44, Anonymous wrote:
But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery
store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now
assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only
those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation
to
Read some of the sources. Few of you social democrats here have done so.
Poo-poo on such sources. I can't believe that someone supposedly trined in
physics really believes such sources to be of a huge amount of value.
I know I'll take heat for the following statement (deservedly--I admit it's
At 12:56 PM 03/06/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Are you sure there weren't TIFs involved in building the mall? The
mall here
in Oshkosh (now defunct, turned into offices) was build with city money, the
newest upscale condo being built downtown is mostly TIF money, likewise the
newest big
On Thursday 06 March 2003 22:21, Tim May wrote:
snip Tim's message, all of which I agree with *
* Except I think he made a typo: he wrote shooing but I suspect he
meant shooting.
Ditto, completely. Tim, you bring the matches and I'll get the gas.
(Now, when I find myself in complete agreement
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:52 -0800, you wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Besides, the publicity has been great. I was told that after it made
news, 150 women wearing
the same T-shirts showed up at the mall. The security guards locked
themselves in
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:06:28PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 12:56 PM 03/06/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Are you sure there weren't TIFs involved in building the mall? The
mall here
in Oshkosh (now defunct, turned into offices) was build with city money,
the
newest upscale
On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Besides, the publicity has been great. I was told that after it made
news, 150 women wearing
the same T-shirts showed up at the mall. The security guards locked
themselves in their offices.
Probably messed their pants, too.
If
On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 06:21 AM, An Metet wrote:
I've been hearing liberals bleat about the actions of the cops and
mall security.
Their civil rights were violated!
They have free speech!
The mall is a public accomodation!
Property rights don't trump personal rights!
These fuckards really
Actually shooting 150 visitors would be hell on business. Damn, your pesky tenants
will probably object strenuously if you simply shooed 150 potential (opinionated)
customers.
Stalin the Chinese tried the shooting route, the fallout wasn't cool.
Fortunately the market apparently has responses
the hell that actually means).
-TD
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Give cheese to france?
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:52 -0800
On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Besides, the publicity has been great. I was told that after it made
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:06PM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
Gottlieb says, We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:33:11AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 10:58 PM 3/5/03 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
Steve is right. Free speech is tested by wearing Fuck the Army
t-shirts [1]
in public places, not Peace while in some private
At 12:56 PM 3/6/03 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:33:11AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
However malls generally don't take state money, the flow is in the
other direction. My house's yard, the whole neighborhood was
approved, licensed, regulated, zoned by all
At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
Gottlieb says, We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
believe that protects the freedom to speak. How is Constitutionally-
protected freedom of speech imperiled when an
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
Gottlieb says, We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
believe that protects the freedom to speak. How is
35 matches
Mail list logo
