jontv@ksu.ksu.edu (Jon Tveite) wrote:
> Newtie always wants it both ways. He wants people off welfare, but he
> won't raise minimum wage so they can support themselves. Call me
> a bleeding heart, but people need to eat, and food costs money. There
> will always be shit jobs, and there will always be people desperate
> enough to fill them. The owners of sweatshops may be great capitalists,
> but they aren't great citizens. If you can't pay a decent wage and still
> make a profit, then you shouldn't be in business. The slaves never had
> to worry about unemployment, but their situation was hardly ideal.
>
> So what do you tell the poor--to stop eating, perhaps? It seems to me
> that Newtie's answer is this: Too bad--you should have had the foresight
> to be born middle-class.
Nicely worded! And another element: the Federal Reserve is trying to
maintain a 6.2% unemployment rate. They will raise interest rates as
they see fit to mess up the economy just enough to put people out of
work. The unemployment rate is currently -- what -- 5.7%, so the FR
is sure as heck not going to let MORE people get jobs! So the way the
Fed sees it, not enough of us are on welfare. The way Newt sees it,
you must be lazy if you're on welfare. And people think I'm paranoid
when I see an effort from on-high to screw the common man ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A New Joke
From: cdhiv@aol.com (CDH IV)
> Your argument fails because the logical extrapolation of it is to have
ONE
> retail outlet which buys EVERYTHING in INFINITE amounts. (I use
'INFINITE'
> here to mean that it buys everything that anybody produces, no matter
how
> much there is, nt in the mathematical sense). [snip]
> Since the mega retailer has no competition, they can raise prices as
often
> as they like so I doubt whether they would fall
This is not a bad argument, as far as it goes, but it does not in
fact actually disprove my argument, Im afraid. Competition is inevitable
and necessary - the WalMart debate we are engaged in is just isolating
the subject as a whole and using a single example (WalMart vs. Mom & Pop).
Simple, undeniable fact: a monopoly can only exist with governments
approval (i.e. single municipal power companies) or what Ayn Rand referred
to as legislative *fiat.* Any large conglomeration, such as you describe,
will inevitably be grossly inefficient, not the perfect solution you aver
I suggest (however indirectly) and invite smaller, more efficient
competitors. That is undoubtedly how Mr. Walton got started, he did not
create the WalMart phenomenon with the wave of a wand. Again, it serves as
an example of the veracity of my position, and to prove yours wrong
because WalMart had to compete with such already established chains as
Target, Sears, J.C. Penney, and several others (some
national, some regional) and not only Mom & Pop stores.
These stores, in order to retain their viability in the face of
competition from WalMart have had to trim out their inefficiencies, cut
prices, provide better service (from the sales floor to the credit
department), and offer more products of better quality. A shining example,
in fact, of the self-policing nature of the free market when the aggregate
of freely made choices of vast numbers of individuals are allowed to
obtain and not the fantasies of liberal central planners who fear such a
messy arrangement.
The same would apply if such a single distribution outlet were,
temporarily, to come into existence and subsequently tried to charge gouge
prices for the products it dispensed. It would take almost no time at all
for competitors to arise who would provide the same services at lower
prices (as I said above, a monopoly can only persist if entry of
competition is legally barred; an economic prohibition is impossible).
Im sorry, but although your attempt at extrapolation appears valid
on the surface, experience (from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union,
just for example) clearly demonstrates that huge, single distributorships
cannot and do not logically extend from my position. I stand corrected on
one thing, though, in a way: it appears that you do know how to
extrapolate. How unfortunate that you cannot do it well. (A little
knowledge is a dangerous thing.)
> Also, our argument also fails because this mega retailer gains the
economy of
> scale resulting in widespread unemployment in the distribution sector.
> These people then don't have any money to buy the products, even if the
> price *has* been lowered, and those remaining in employment can't buy
> enough to fill the gap.
Again, short term thinking and a lack of vision are the only possible
causes for such an idea. Has it not occurred to you that, even in the
distopic environment you describe (which we will assume for the sake of
argument is in place), the resulting economies of scale would result in
significant savings (as this single provider would have to maintain the
lowest possible prices in order to maintain the competition-free
environment? This is covered above.
The (actual) logical result of this thought experiment is that the
large amounts of free capital not being inefficiently used in retail
purchases would find other venues in which to be employed. The massive
unemployment you insist upon is highly unlikely. People who might well
have been employed in retail will simply work somewhere else.
Of course, this scenario is neither desirable nor feasible so I wont
waste any more of my time on it.
> In this country, the Government decided that the high welfare payout was
> causing the recession, to they reduced unemployment payments by 20%.
[sob story and tale of urban woe deleted]
Sounds like they weaned your parasites from the teat too rapidly.
However, as the New Zealand dollar is currently one of the strongest
currencies in the world, you should not be complaining too harshly. You
gain on both counts (and the facts are undoubtedly synergistic).
> OK, Fascist,
Now youre getting nasty.
> You sound like an ivory tower fascist friedmanite to me.
Ive left this particular folly to the last but Im going to enjoy it
the most, I assure you. Liberals love to sling the word Fascist around,
and I love it when you do because it gives me another opportunity to
expose the breadth of your ignorance.
Under a Fascist regime the means of production remain in private
hands while the totalitarian government determines what actually gets
produced. How this equates to Capitalism and the free market ideas of
Milton Friedman (you got me there, partner) I have never deduced. But, as
the word itself is so evocative rhetorically, and few people care to
educate themselves in the intricacies of economics sufficiently to
discover the contradictory nature of the accusation, it works for you.
Makes you feel better? Saying Im a Nazi? Does it?
As it happens, the Western world is rapidly devolving into a de facto
fascist regime, a fact I have been decrying for years (I was published to
this effect over four years ago). Sorry, but it has been the policies
supported on your side of the aisle that have led to this state of
affairs, not mine.
[Addendum: having read Philip's response to this and some of the
reactions, I cannot escape the necessity to point out that I _am_ using
the proper meanings of these words, not the vernacular. Philip is correct,
as I have, however briefly, demonstrated here. Liberals are closer to
Fascism, and create de facto Fascism when their policies are enacted,
because they regulate businesses to the hilt (i.e. determine production
priorities) but do not nationalize those businesses. It is the pejorative
usage (i.e. daily slapping around) of Fascist that was directed at me,
whether you like it or not, you've got stronger grip on the real thing, my
friends on the Left.]
Having vivisected as I promised I would (and held my tongue for the
most part (lest I give you any more excuses to avoid the issue), Ill let
the following quotation from P.J. ORourke stand in place of anything
further on this point:
I have often been called a Nazi, and, although it is unfair. I dont
let it bother me. I dont let it bother me for a simple reason. No one has
_ever_ had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by
someone dressed as a liberal. -_Give War A Chance_, 1992.
Cordially,
C. Dodd Harris IV | "None are more hopelessly enslaved
cdhiv@aol.com | than those who falsely believe they
San Diego, CA | are free." - Goethe
Careful what you say, I might work for the government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A New Joke
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)
In article <3hqfb0$g58@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cdhiv@aol.com (CDH IV) wrote:
> > Since the mega retailer has no competition, they can raise prices as often
> > as they like so I doubt whether they would fall
>
> Simple, undeniable fact: a monopoly can only exist with governments
> approval (i.e. single municipal power companies)
Funny, monopolies used to exist when the US government took a laissez-faire
approach. Monopolies without any governmental intrusion at all!
> Any large conglomeration, such as you describe,
> will inevitably be grossly inefficient, not the perfect solution you aver
> I suggest (however indirectly) and invite smaller, more efficient
> competitors.
Smaller competitors may be more *efficient*, but they can't usually beat
the prices of the conglomerate. (Did you not point out that the lower
prices of the big business are a good thing? Then you yourself are
saying that WalMart does have better prices than MaPaCo.)
> That is undoubtedly how Mr. Walton got started, he did not
> create the WalMart phenomenon with the wave of a wand. Again, it serves as
> an example of the veracity of my position, and to prove yours wrong
> because WalMart had to compete with such already established chains as
> Target, Sears, J.C. Penney, and several others (some
> national, some regional) and not only Mom & Pop stores.
Agreed, Sam Walton showed that it *is* possible to rise to the top from
nothing. Doesn't happen often, but under the right conditions, it can.
As I said ages ago, WalMart is an American success story. But as for
J.C.Penny, they don't really have the same sort of focus as WalMart so
I'm not sure how much Sam had to compete against them. (I've never seen
a Target so I can't talk about them.)
And agreed, WalMart will eventually reach a point of inefficiency where
they are no longer at the top. It happened to Sear's and WalMart
stepped in; it will happen to WalMart and someone else will step in. But
that doesn't change the fact that there is almost always someone in the
"big leagues" who is efficient/low-priced enough to make it tough for
small business to compete. Small business thrives where there are no
large competitors but it typically withers in the shadow of the big boys.
> These stores, in order to retain their viability in the face of
> competition from WalMart have had to trim out their inefficiencies, cut
> prices, provide better service (from the sales floor to the credit
> department), and offer more products of better quality. A shining example,
> in fact, of the self-policing nature of the free market when the aggregate
> of freely made choices of vast numbers of individuals are allowed to
> obtain and not the fantasies of liberal central planners who fear such a
> messy arrangement.
Sorry, but as you point out elsewhere (with your literal definition of
Fascism), government intervention is very much a reality in business
these days. So you can't claim "self-policing nature of the free market"
since the market is not really free. Anti-trust legislation, for example,
broke up the telephone company so that competitors could enter the picture.
> Im sorry, but although your attempt at extrapolation appears valid
> on the surface, experience (from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union,
> just for example) clearly demonstrates that huge, single distributorships
> cannot and do not logically extend from my position.
But history does show that, left to its own devices, the market *does*
birth monopolies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: A short varied rant (was Re: A New Joke)
From: clavis@phantom.com (J. Victor Stark)
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.kibology,alt.feminism.individualism,alt.elvis.king,alt.slack,al
t.2600,alt.religion.subgenius
Philip L. Peterson (plp@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote:
: How about the fact that unenployment among black teenagers was about the
: same as that among white teenagers until mininum wages laws came along,
: or the fact that unemployment of socially marginalized groups is
: inversely proportional to how (relitivly) high the mininum wage is set at.
: Or how about this: Why the fuck should the government have the right
: to tell me how much I have to pay someone who works for me?
The reason the government orders us to pay at least a certain amount
might be the same reason it maintains a standing army. We have a national
defense and spend billyuns of dollars we don't have every year because
there are other countries out there who might want what we've got, and
might try to come and get it, and they've got bazookas and planes and
things that individuals with shotguns and Molotovs aren't going to be
able to defend against. We have a minimum wage because big business
amount to quite a similar phenomenon: a huge, unified (competition my
ass) conglomerate of rich and almost-rich conspiring to steal all our
money and all our strength and all our time and all our Slack. We can't
fight them as individuals, because they aren't fighting as individuals.
If I meet, say, Bill Bastard, a CEO for Vague & Nausea, a
multi-billion-dollar frammitz manufacturer, in a bar. For three hours,
the guy insults me to my face, pinches my girlfriend's ass and steals my
drinks while I'm not looking. I get fed up and paste the sumbitch. What
does he do? Find out who I am and sue me for 8 million dollars. He has
the money to hire Joe Smith, Ace Lawyer to the Stars, and bankrupt me and
insinuate that my girlfriend was a hooker. My life is ruined because I
gave a guy what, as an individual, he deserved. (That's assuming the guy
doesn't
a. Hire thugs to beat me up
b. Get me fired from my job and blacklisted
c. Malign me in the press
d. God only knows what else
If big biz thought it could get away with it (and, believe me, it DOES),
it would pay its workers 5 cents an hour without benefits. The government
periodically remembers that the programming its propaganda machine has
inserted into our brains includes basic dogma like "MONEY IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING" and "MAKE AS MUCH MONEY TODAY AS POSSIBLE"... is it any
wonder that "family values" have gone down the fucking toilet? It has
nothing to do with TV or sex or violence: it's because parents are too
busy working to be able to spend any time with their kids, and so, like
ghetto kids learning from drug dealers, other kids learn from the
handy-dandy electric baby-sitter known as the TELEVISION.
What does TV teach?
1. Being rich is better than being middle or lower class.
2. Being beautiful is better than being average or ugly.
3. Intelligence is nerdy; nerdy is deserving of ridicule.
4. Get as much as you can for yourself and fuck everyone else.
5. Bad guys are ugly; good guys are gorgeous.
6.......
And so on.
The only thing that can save you is tF(*&YHW#$N0&YG$t7g856hpsa
[NO CARRIER]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A short varied rant (was Re: A New Joke)
From: plp@coho.halcyon.com (Philip L. Peterson)
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.kibology,alt.feminism.individualism,alt.elvis.king,alt.slack,al
t.2600,alt.religion.subgenius
J. Victor Stark (clavis@phantom.com) wrote:
: If I meet, say, Bill Bastard, a CEO for Vague & Nausea, a
: multi-billion-dollar frammitz manufacturer, in a bar. For three hours,
: the guy insults me to my face, pinches my girlfriend's ass and steals my
: drinks while I'm not looking. I get fed up and paste the sumbitch. What
: does he do? Find out who I am and sue me for 8 million dollars. He has
: the money to hire Joe Smith, Ace Lawyer to the Stars, and bankrupt me and
: insinuate that my girlfriend was a hooker. My life is ruined because I
: gave a guy what, as an individual, he deserved. (That's assuming the guy
: doesn't
Serves you right for hangin out in bars for hours on end. If he steals
enough of your drints eventually you will sober up enough to notice, and
call the cops on him. Your girl friend should then sue for sexual
harassament make a couple of hundred thou, and start up a compeating
frammitz manufacturing company, and drive Bill out of business. Unless
you girlfriend actually is a hooker.
: a. Hire thugs to beat me up
: b. Get me fired from my job and blacklisted
: c. Malign me in the press
: d. God only knows what else
Do you actually hear about billionaires hanging out in the bars you
frequent? Besides, unless their name is Kennedy most of them are too
busy making money to hang out in a bar for three hours pinching your
girlfriends butt (and wouldn't it be her place to object if she found it
unpleasant?)
: If big biz thought it could get away with it (and, believe me, it DOES),
: it would pay its workers 5 cents an hour without benefits. The government
: periodically remembers that the programming its propaganda machine has
: inserted into our brains includes basic dogma like "MONEY IS THE MOST
: IMPORTANT THING" and "MAKE AS MUCH MONEY TODAY AS POSSIBLE"... is it any
: wonder that "family values" have gone down the fucking toilet? It has
: nothing to do with TV or sex or violence: it's because parents are too
: busy working to be able to spend any time with their kids, and so, like
: ghetto kids learning from drug dealers, other kids learn from the
: handy-dandy electric baby-sitter known as the TELEVISION.
Wait a second, do you really say the following statements in the same
paragraph "It has nothing to do with TV..." and "...other kids learn
from the handy-dandy electric baby-sitter known as the television." At
least spread your inconsistencies out so they are not so obvious.
: What does TV teach?
: 1. Being rich is better than being middle or lower class.
Sounds accurate to me. At lease I'd rather be rich.
: 2. Being beautiful is better than being average or ugly.
Sounds accurate to me. At least I'd rather be beautiful.
: 3. Intelligence is nerdy; nerdy is deserving of ridicule.
: 4. Get as much as you can for yourself and fuck everyone else.
: 5. Bad guys are ugly; good guys are gorgeous.
I must not watch the same programs as you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A short varied rant (was Re: A New Joke)
From: i.stang@metronet.com (Rev. Ivan Stang)
Hey Phil, which cable channel are you watching? It sounds pretty cool and
groovy and liberal-biased. We sure as hell don't get it in Dallas, even
with 87 channels. And since you know so much about how great it is to be
rich, would you tell us all about it? And all that stuff about being
beautiful, why don't you share that with us, too? I went to a private
school full of rich, beautiful people, but they must not have been the
same kind that you hang out with, because most of the ones I knew were and
are still FUCKED UP BEYOND THE IMAGININGS EVEN OF GENIUSES.In other words,
they were just regular neurotic folks trying to act like they know the
score, signifying like wise bigshots, but somehow managing to strike we
"little people" as VACANT, VAPID ASSHOLES. Can you be a little more
specific in your efforts to steer us all in the RIGHT direction?
--
nd $1 for free information. PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A short varied rant (was Re: A New Joke)
From: clavis@phantom.com (J. Victor Stark)
Hi. It's me, the Grand Clavister of NYC. Actually, I was doing, as the
subj. line says, a short varied rant. I was, among other things, listing
some of the evil messages that TV sticks inna our heads. I guess the
other guy was being "irreverent" (yuk, yuk).
Please don't hate him, Stang: instead, burn him, with a big hot poker.
Which reminds me of a joke so dirty I'm ashamed I thought of it myself...
Clavis
Hurting the poor and dumb for about 5 minutes now...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original file name: JOKE.TXT
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.