andrel wrote:
> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
> [snipped warp text]
>>

>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
> 

Oi! Is that an interesting use of the word “interesting”? ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
> 

It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of “Communism”

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a sy
nonym of “Communism”

What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, except
 
one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by "the peop
le".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:54, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of 
>> “Communism”
> 
> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, 
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by 
> "the people".

In the Netherlands communism is associated with Russia and China. We had 
a communist party (now part of a larger alliance). It was closely linked 
to Moscow, very dogmatic and very surprised when it became known what 
Russian communism actually meant in practice.
Socialism is a much broader term. Our labour party (in size number 1,2 
or 3 of our political parties over the last decades) is a socialist 
party. Socialist parties are very well represented in the European 
parliament as well. The main characteristic is that they will always 
think first about what a proposal means for the working class, those 
without the money to buy political influence (or that is the theory).
In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the term 
'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of paternalism. 
They clearly don't know what they are talking about, but that is OK, 
they are Americans.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe 
>> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.
> 
> No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities.

I don't have a problem with 'should'. I do have problems with people 
implying that it is already the current state.

> But if 
> you're unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't get to 
> leech off someone else.

As a socialist ;) I should reply that quite a lot of people are unable 
to take advantage, simple because in practice they don't get the 
opportunity. It is economically sound to kill everybody with a 
disability and with an IQ of less than 80, but you can also take your 
responsibility as a society to act as an extended family and take care 
of them. You might call that leeching, I don't. In most cases it is not 
that extreme, but we feel that it is sensible to prevent people to sink 
down deep in poverty, because if they do, they and their children (ad 
infinitum?) will never contribute to society again. Besides, the one who 
is accused of leeching may be you in ten years time, struggling to feed 
your family.

> Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take 
> houses from people who own two and give them to people who are too poor 
> to buy their own, you see.

I am not aware that anybody suggested that.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:16, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to 
>> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think 
>> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
> 
> The two go together.

That is what you think ;)

>> Hmm, not sure if you would win a logical contest with that, but I 
>> understand what you mean. Or actually I don't. What type of economical 
>> system do you know that preaches absence of government control, other 
>> than extremist capitalism?
> 
> Extremist capitalism doesn't preach no government control. That would be 
> anarchy. I don't know of any capitalist who thinks having the government 
> not in control of enforcing contracts (for example) is a good thing.

I was a bit sloppy there.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 11:35, Stephen wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
>> [snipped warp text]
>>>
> 
>>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman and don't hear a word because 
>> he has such an interesting accent.
>>
> 
> Oi! Is that an interesting use of the word “interesting”? ;)
> 
Why? I really love listening to it. Trying to figure out what they do to 
their vowels and consonants. What phrases and words they use. Really 
fantastically interesting. Sorry, what were you saying?

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
> > It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US
> > propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it
> > makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman
> > and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
>
>   Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
> enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
> and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
> equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
> (after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
> mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
> regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
> are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
> point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
> which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
>
>   Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.


What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.

The key point here is nagging. "Capitalists" are tired of nagging about what
they do in the marketplace and, to echo Scrooge, say, "I wish to be left alone."
 Capitalists seek some idyllic realm where they can be free to practice their
wares (and warez), free of not only state intervention but also the actual
social and scientific consequences (ozone depletion) of what they are doing.
We don't necessarily need a world where the hand of capitalists are restrained
by the state, but we desperately need more nagging.

Socialism is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Capitalism is one sheep telling three others that fences deprive wolves of
liberty.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:08, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Well, you never know with Americans. Some seem to religiously believe 
>>> that everybody has at birth the same possibilities*.
>>
>> No, it's more like everyone should get the same opportunities.
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'should'. I do have problems with people 
> implying that it is already the current state.

Certainly. But there's a delicate balance between freedom and "should get 
the same opportunities."  We have a set of laws that cover it, and that set 
of laws are constantly being argued and refined. We have equal opportunity 
employment laws (outlawing discrimination in hiring based on a particular 
list of factors), disabled person access laws (mandating that buildings open 
to the public have to have ramps, for example), and so on.

>> But if you're unable to take advantage of the opportunity, you don't 
>> get to leech off someone else.
> 
> As a socialist ;) I should reply that quite a lot of people are unable 
> to take advantage, simple because in practice they don't get the 
> opportunity.

Note how I phrased it. They have the opportunity, but they're unable to take 
advantage of it. Nothing *external* is stopping someone with an IQ of 80 
from winning a Nobel prize. Nothing *external* is stopping someone with no 
arms from being a carpenter.

> responsibility as a society to act as an extended family and take care 
> of them. You might call that leeching, I don't. 

It depends, really. I have no problem with supporting the relatively small 
number of people who are really physically incapable of being gainfully 
employed.

I haven't any problem with public schooling. I have a problem with 
*removing* opportunities from those who *can* take advantage of them 
*because* there are people who *cannot*, you see. Which is what this thread 
started as a discussion of.

>> Everyone should be allowed to buy a house. That doesn't mean we take 
>> houses from people who own two and give them to people who are too 
>> poor to buy their own, you see.
> 
> I am not aware that anybody suggested that.

No. It was an example of extremism in the other direction.

I think a middle ground is reasonable, in this and most things. The problem 
with stereotypes of Americans is that you only hear, for the most part, the 
extreme ends of the spectrum, because of the economics and politics of 
getting people fired up. If you're already happy with the middle-ground we 
have, you don't get on the radio and try to work people up to support it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:16, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I know that almost everybody wants themselves and their loved ones to 
>>> live longer. That does not imply that all these people also think 
>>> everybody should pass that time wearing digital watches.
>>
>> The two go together.
> 
> That is what you think ;)

Of course I'm talking figuratively. You don't get more food and longer 
lifespans without things like artificial fertilizer, genetically engineered 
crops, and MRI machines.

And I'm not sure that everyone wants themselves and their loved ones to live 
longer. Certainly many religions preach that it's a good thing to be dead, 
and religions that utterly reject material wealth (like extreme monks of 
various religions) also tend to be stereotyped as not dying.

Of course, in practice, folks generally are uncomfortable with death, 
regardless of what they claim to believe religiously.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> The key point here is nagging. "Capitalists" are tired of nagging about what
> they do in the marketplace and, to echo Scrooge, say, "I wish to be left alone."

I think capitalism works if you can impose the costs of externalities and 
distribute them to those it costs. If you could actually charge companies 
making Freon with the costs of the damage caused by the ozone hole, you 
could make that work.

It just so happens that government regulations on stuff like that (say, 
"carbon tax") is how that gets implemented. Of course the people making 
money would rather not pay that cost.

And capitalism really only works perfectly in a perfect-knowledge world. I 
would rather have building inspectors making sure buildings are safe than to 
have to do that myself with every building I go into. There are some 
"tragedy of the commons" type problems where it really is more efficient to 
have something like that enforced by force rather than the market, because 
it's much cheaper overall.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the term 
> 'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of paternalism. 

It doesn't seem that way to an American.

You're talking about the political differences. There doesn't seem to be 
much *economic* difference, except in the way the government manages to take 
the capital to be redistributed.

I think the Americans are talking about economics and you're talking about 
government forms.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 13:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> In short: to Europeans the difference is huge. Americans using the 
>> term 'socialism' are generally regarded with a friendly sort of 
>> paternalism. 
> 
> It doesn't seem that way to an American.
> 
> You're talking about the political differences. There doesn't seem to be 
> much *economic* difference, except in the way the government manages to 
> take the capital to be redistributed.
> 
> I think the Americans are talking about economics and you're talking 
> about government forms.
> 

Might be. I wouldn't know if there is a standard definition of socialism 
that everybody agrees to, but for me the economic policies of socialism 
are conceptually hard to separate from the economic policies of our 
socialists. Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a 
socialist economics is, but that is just one source.

The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant 
role. So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or 
should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;) Or would you want 
me to refer to all Christians and neo-conservatives in the states as 
Mormons?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 11:35, Stephen wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
>>> [snipped warp text]
>>>>
>>
>>>  It is just like talking to a Scotsman and don't hear a word because 
>>> he has such an interesting accent.
>>>
>>
>> Oi! Is that an interesting use of the word “interesting”? ;)
>>
> Why? I really love listening to it. Trying to figure out what they do to 
> their vowels and consonants. What phrases and words they use. Really 
> fantastically interesting. Sorry, what were you saying?

LOL ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of 
>> “Communism”
> 
> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, 
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by 
> "the people".
> 

Yes but the devil is in the difference. :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a 
> socialist economics is, but that is just one source.

There are lots of definitions, since enforcing economics is part of 
government, so the two get confused a lot.  I usually look at multiple 
definitions for words like that. Try googling "define:socialism"

> The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant 
> role. 

It depends on what you mean by "socialist party". It's true we wind up with 
only two parties primarily represented, but the policies of those two 
parties change over time.

> So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or 
> should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;) 

I'm not. On the other hand, I don't think you can pick one definition and 
say it's the "right" definition, either.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And there isn't any "pure" communism, either. Even in the depths of the 
> "communist" part of China's history, you still had to pay for food and pay 
> to use the subway. You'd think something like the subway, where carrying an 
> additional rider is practically free given you've already invested in the 
> capital of building the thing, would be free under communism.  Show me a 
> communism that doesn't have a currency before you tell me it's "pure 
> communism". :-)

  Curiously, there are many capitalist countries (ok, those countries
probably don't call themselves "capitalist" because of the negative
connotations, but as said, that doesn't change the fact) where there
*are* lots of public services which don't cost anything (well, not in
cash at least; of course they are funded by taxes). And I'm not talking
just about public libraries and such, but in some cities eg. public
transporation is free. (This actually makes a lot of sense especially
nowadays because free public transportation induces reduction of car
driving, which reduces pollution.)

  Of course there's also an opposing view to that, which also has its
merits. It's a well-known fact that the economy of a country prospers
when there's a lot of money traffic. The more people consume, the more
they get and spend money, the better the economy. High taxes and free or
low-cost services, however, stagnate the economy because money doesn't move.
If a large quantity of money goes directly from employers to the government
in the form of taxes, never going through the hands of employees, that doesn't
help economy much.

  Of course it makes sense that there is no silver bullet to economy either.
No extreme form of economy can work, and one has to always find a good
balance.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.

  I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
a long time.

  You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
comparison I have ever heard in my life.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   You are equating capitalism with racism? 

No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of 
poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving. 
Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases, 
"sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place. 
It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the 
sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.

It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff 
going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se, 
but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is 
prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether 
it be in china, africa, or whatever).

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> 
>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
> 
>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.

That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
I heard in a long time.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   You are equating capitalism with racism? 

> No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of 
> poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving. 
> Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases, 
> "sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place. 
> It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the 
> sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.

> It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff 
> going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se, 
> but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is 
> prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether 
> it be in china, africa, or whatever).

  I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> > gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> > 
> >   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> > a long time.
> > 
> >   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> > comparison I have ever heard in my life.

> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
> I heard in a long time.

  And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
I have heard in a long time.

  You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
situation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> > in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> > dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> > pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> > marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> > the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
> > chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>
>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
>
>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>


No, I'm saying there is a faulty naiveté to think that "blind capitalism" gets
us all happy free comfortable, or as many as can possibly ever be happy and
comfortable.  Capitalism, the market mechanism, tends to produce what the
consumers want.  The consumers are corrupted by sin.  Sometimes they either
openly want bad things or they out of ignorance don't realize that something is
bad until it's nearly too late (CFC's, CO2).

Without the nagging, the marketplace has in history done things like give us
black-free lunch counters. The Jew-free business block. Or Hummers.  My solution
is more and more nagging of what choices people are making.  Reminding them of
the externalities, holding them accountable to standards whether they like it or
not.

And nonviolent use of the soapbox in the public square to inform persons of the
negative externalities of their actions is what the capitalists call socialism.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
> with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."

Oh, OK. You realize it wasn't *that* long ago in the USA that such things 
were mandated, and somewhat later disallowed, yes? Near enough in time that 
there's some people around who really would want to have such a thing 
available?  I read it as just one example of things regulated by the 
government that wouldn't be regulated under a completely free market, and 
that might very well show up in that situation.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
> > with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."

> Oh, OK. You realize it wasn't *that* long ago in the USA that such things 
> were mandated, and somewhat later disallowed, yes? Near enough in time that 
> there's some people around who really would want to have such a thing 
> available?  I read it as just one example of things regulated by the 
> government that wouldn't be regulated under a completely free market, and 
> that might very well show up in that situation.

  I realize that, and I'm not defending it. I don't think capitalism implies
such discrimination, and it was not because of capitalism per se that there
was (and is) discrimination in the US (or in other countries).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> No, I'm saying there is a faulty naivet? to think that "blind capitalism" gets
> us all happy free comfortable, or as many as can possibly ever be happy and
> comfortable.

  Maybe, but from what I see, it seems to be the economic system which works
best overall. It has its drawbacks, of course (such as big gaps between rich
and poor), but overall it's more beneficial than most other economic systems.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I realize that, and I'm not defending it. 

Right.

> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination, 

No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's 
legal, it'll happen.  I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
> 
> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
> 

Seeing that in the USA, the "government" is "of, by, and buy" the
people, they must be the same thing, right? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a 
synonym of
>>> “Communism”
>> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar,
>> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by

>> "the people".
>>
> 
> Seeing that in the USA, the "government" is "of, by, and buy" the
> people, they must be the same thing, right? ;-)

That was kind of my point. Hence the question. Once again, please do not 

interpret my asking a question as my implying an answer. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination, 

> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's 
> legal, it'll happen.  I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.

  I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.

  If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
communism do the same?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination, 
> 
>> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's 
>> legal, it'll happen.  I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
> 
>   I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.

You're confusing "causes" with "permits".  There's already racial 
discrimination. By removing all controls on how you may conduct business, 
some people will preferentially patronize businesses that discriminate 
against those they don't like.

It's sort of like how freedom of speech doesn't cause anti-government radio 
stations. It just permits them in ways that a country with heavy censorship 
does not.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>> a long time.
>>>
>>>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> 
>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
>> I heard in a long time.
> 
>   And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> I have heard in a long time.
> 
>   You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> situation.
> 

It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed 
gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is 
completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first 
place.
Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the 
chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before 
that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of 
context and attack that. Third and most importantly, gregjohn said 
simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and 
unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and 
racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly, 
have happened). Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things 
racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man 
argument.
In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context, 
distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw 
man I would say.
I am sure you meant something different and more intelligent, but this 
is what appeared in this news group, sorry.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
> > No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
> > legal, it'll happen.  I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
>   I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
>
>   If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
> communism do the same?
>

  My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.

I've praised Capitalism a few times now by saying it's the best system for
giving  people what they want. Sometimes they want bad things, like to be able
to smoke in restaurants where children are present. As for the American South,
some discrimination was foisted upon those without hate by the state; more often
those with hate used the marketplace to press for discrimination. Civil rights
activists like Millard Fuller wrote of the boycott of black business as a tool
of the racists; the activists became involved haranguing people about where to
shop.

Chocolate.  Blind capitalism gave us widespread use of slave labor. Through the
marketplace, you kept saying, give me cheaper, give me cheaper, until
eventually no corner was left to cut but the farmworker's wages.  The answer is
not necessarily the State here but nagging. Activists harangued the importers to
stop using slave labor;  then harangued people of good will to buy from the
importers who showed more good will than the others in rectifying the situation.


The socialism/ capitalism dilemma is shown here in the famous opening credit for
the Odd Couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odd_Couple_(TV_series)
Felix is not calling the cops, he is not sending Oscar to a prison camp. He is
however harassing, nagging Oscar about having thrown a cigarette butt on the
ground.  The look of disgust from Oscar is probably the same you'd get if you
nagged someone about smoking in a restaurant where children are present, about
the MPG of the car they purchased, the age of the "actors" in the DVD they
purchased,  what kind of wages were paid the bean-pickers with the chocolate
they purchased. It is the look of Southerners seeing nonviolent activists
driving over the border to tell them how to live with blacks.

Q: When Texas passed a "beef blasphemy" law, under which Oprah Winfrey was sued
for making criticisms of an agricultural process, was  law that a liberal or
conservative one,  was it capitalistic or socialistic?   How about when New York
state flirted with a law that would have forbidden farmers from telling
consumers whether they used growth hormones on the cows?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> >>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >>>> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >>>> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> >>>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> >>> a long time.
> >>>
> >>>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> >>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> > 
> >> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
> >> I heard in a long time.
> > 
> >   And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> > I have heard in a long time.
> > 
> >   You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> > situation.
> > 

> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed 
> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is 
> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first 
> place.

  Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
will provide it."

  Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
they are quoting?

> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the 
> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before 
> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of 
> context and attack that.

  Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
be confused about what I was referring to).

  It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
context.

> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said 
> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and 
> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and 
> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly, 
> have happened).

  At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. Capitalism does
ot lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
racism (while other economic models don't).

> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things 
> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man 
> argument.
> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context, 
> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw 
> man I would say.

  What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
meta-straw-man?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
>   My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.

I think it's also a matter of education. People think slavery is bad and 
blacks are "equal" because they've been taught that. They haven't been 
taught that (for example) gays are normal people too. It requires state 
schools run by tolerant people (which is why you see battles over evolution 
in schools here) and it takes a generation or more to really take effect.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."

Well, it followed the remark about slavery in Africa, which is far more 
racist than merely disallowing dark-skinned people to patronize your store. 
I thought you were talking about the Africa sentence too. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2009 16:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>>>> marketplace will provide them.  If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>>>> the marketplace will prove them.  If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>>>>   I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>>>> a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>>   You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>>>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments 
>>>> I heard in a long time.
>>>   And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
>>> I have heard in a long time.
>>>
>>>   You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
>>> situation.
>>>
> 
>> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed 
>> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is 
>> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first 
>> place.
> 
>   Who said anything about Africa. 

gregjohn did.

> I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."

Sigh, read on before replying next time.

>   Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
> they are quoting?

Either the last sentence or the whole quote. The convention is that if 
you only want to react to a part your response comes immediately after 
that part. And after that you give the rest of the context.
Or you do what used to be the convention before e-mail: repeat part of 
the thing you want to refer to, to make clear what you intend.
The way you responded made it impossible to know which sentence you were 
replying to.

>> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the 
>> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before 
>> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of 
>> context and attack that.
> 
>   Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
> be confused about what I was referring to).

You quoted the whole context and responded to only a part, if that makes 
it more clear to you.

>   It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
> referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
> I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
> last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
> context.
> 
>> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said 
>> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and 
>> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and 
>> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly, 
>> have happened).
> 
>   At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. 

Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my 
problem.

> Capitalism does
> not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy.  People
> will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> racism (while other economic models don't).

totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.

>> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things 
>> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man 
>> argument.
>> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context, 
>> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw 
>> man I would say.
> 
>   What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
> man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
> meta-straw-man?

Sorry, I explained why I *perceived* what you wrote as a straw man 
argument, because you asked for it. As such it is just that: an 
explanation, it is not an argument. The only sensible answer would have 
been: 'Oh, I did not realise people interpreted what I wrote wrong in 
this way. Next time I take more care.' Alternatively, you can just 
reiterate that the rest of the world is absolutely stupid for not 
understanding you.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. 

> Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my 
> problem.

  That would be a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, or in more mundane
terms, "correlation implies causation" fallacy.

  The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
States. Hence capitalism causes racism.

  Sorry, you fail.

  Could you please point out a country where capitalism *demonstrably* has
caused racism (because, in your own words, these things "happen"), rather
than just both phenomena appearing in the same country without there
necessarily being a direct correlation between the two?

  (And please don't tell me that you understood what I wrote as meaning
"racism doesn't happen, that's ludicrous.")

> > Capitalism does
> > not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy.  People
> > will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> > country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> > racism (while other economic models don't).

> totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.

  Of course he did. He talked about how capitalism and free commerce could
lead to things like racist behavior. That was the whole point.

  If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
> States. Hence capitalism causes racism.

Nobody said capitalism causes racism except you.

>   If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?

That totally unrestricted capitalism allows people to exercise their 
existing racism as long as that racism is profitable in that marketplace. 
Just like unrestricted capitalism allows people to pollute as long as that 
pollution is profitable in that marketplace. By singling out the one remark 
about racism, you seem to have indicated that you missed the point, which 
was that with less and less government restriction, one moves away from 
socialism, communism, and fascism, and towards capitalism and anarchy, and 
that movement is not always what we'd call socially beneficial even if it 
maximizes the profits/financial health in a particular market.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
>>> mind.
>>>
> 
>> It probably does to you.
> 
>   Me having that opinion would be really obnoxious if I were a rich snob,
> but I'm certainly not. I barely make a living.
> 
>   But I honestly don't feel any kind of jealousy towards rich people. If they
> want to put their kids to expensive private schools, then why not? Does it
> hurt me in any way if they do that? No. Then why should it bother me? It
> doesn't make sense.
> 
>   What *would* be unfair is to pass some ridiculous law which would forbid
> them from doing that and instead force those kids to get a lesser education,
> just because the majority is jealous of them being rich. *That* would be
> obnoxious, IMO.
> 

As long as they pay their property taxes thus paying back for their own 
education, theoretically, it is usually accepted as a fair compromise. 
It is when generations of private school induces the idea that they 
should not have to contribute to the public school system that it gets 
worrisome.  People without children are quick to join the bandwagon 
oblivious to the fact that they are not paying for someone else's kid's 
education, they are paying back for their own.

Of course the other source of money being lost is through parent 
association fund raising, but that is inherently unfair anyway.  Even 
with public schools there is going to be rich schools and poor schools.

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2009 17:49, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. 
> 
>> Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my 
>> problem.
> 
>   That would be a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, or in more mundane
> terms, "correlation implies causation" fallacy.
> 
>   The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
> States. Hence capitalism causes racism.
> 
>   Sorry, you fail.

No, sorry. I never said that capitalism causes racism. I think I won't 
mention that you again distorted a remark from someone else and tried to 
ridicule that. No point really.

>   Could you please point out a country where capitalism *demonstrably* has
> caused racism (because, in your own words, these things "happen"), rather
> than just both phenomena appearing in the same country without there
> necessarily being a direct correlation between the two?
> 
>   (And please don't tell me that you understood what I wrote as meaning
> "racism doesn't happen, that's ludicrous.")

I didn't understand that, so I won't tell that.

>>> Capitalism does
>>> not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy.  People
>>> will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
>>> country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
>>> racism (while other economic models don't).
> 
>> totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.
> 
>   Of course he did. He talked about how capitalism and free commerce could
> lead to things like racist behavior. That was the whole point.
> 
>   If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?
> 

IMHO just that: if there is already racism, capitalism might lead to 
companies that capitalize on that.
I think in a later mail he said that he knew of instances where that 
actually happened. In his post that started this 'discussion' he did 
only said that in his opinion it would be a logical consequence.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> oblivious to the fact that they are not paying for someone else's kid's 
> education, they are paying back for their own.

That, and that having an educated population is good for them even if 
they're uneducated themselves. Sort of like how having enough people 
vaccinated protects those who aren't as well.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:

Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I 
though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain 
the lurkers.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
> 
> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I 
> though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain 
> the lurkers.

I think it's OK if we're both ganging up on Warp. ;-) ;-)

(No, really, I'm just kidding. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
>> Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
>> something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I 
>> think
>> you're headed on the wrong track with this.
>>
>> Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is 
>> indeed a
>> direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of 
>> jealousy but
>> of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.
>>
>> In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from 
>> one high
>> school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
>> Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the 
>> bad
>> district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.
>>
> Sadly, in the US, schools are part of the culture war going on. There 
> are people on boards, like the one in Texas, that **admit** to having 
> gotten elected so they can destroy the public system. The only 
> "standards" are set by the same state boards, who are often unqualified, 
> and make choices about what and how things are taught that have 
> *nothing* to do with what works. This is in contract to private schools, 
> which take on of two tacks - The ones that care at all have the teachers 
> work out what needs to be taught, and hire from a pool that is *noted* 
> for doing well. The ones that are ideology driven use the old school 
> "Rote" learning system, which sidesteps the need to understand the 
> ideas, by satisfying the only thing that can be easily tested, "Whether 
> or not the can give the right answers, whether they understand why they 
> are right or not, even even, sometimes *if* they are right or not (in 
> the case of those things that fall into the 'stuff we want them to take 
> as truth' category)."
> 
> There is a strong rise in the US of institutions like Liberty 
> University, and "home schooling", the former of which will let you turn 
> in dissertations on biology, which contain nothing but whining about 
> god, gods creation, and the vast global conspiracy of Darwinists. The 
> later.. You can buy specialized "pro-creationist" texts for, which 
> teach, "How to answer the questions the way other schools and the 
> government want you to, without corrupting yourself with belief in those 
> things." Its the #1 best selling "home schooler" kit in the country, 
> last I heard. Which should tell you, right off, who is doing 90% of the 
> home schooling in the US. Their reason for it? Most of them buy the kits 
> because they are a) not close enough to, b) can't afford, or c) don't 
> trust the *type* of private school closest to them (FSM forbid a 
> Protestant land in a Catholic school, and actually have to learn 
> something, for example), to teach the *truth (tm)*.
> 
> Their torpedoing the public schools via *intentional* sabotage, neglect, 
> and defunding, even as most of the new "private" schools have been fundi 
> in nature recently, and most of the people sinking the public schools 
> don't even **have** kids in the program, since they are busy teaching 
> them, at home, how Jesus invented toothpaste.
> 
> To the original question... I think we need stricter guidelines as to 
> what sort of BS happens, and not based on more "multiple choice" tests 
> to assess what is being taught, no matter what country is involved. The 
> moment you make something private, it creates a gap between what is 
> "intended" and what is actually happening, from the perspective of 
> anyone believing it should be "universal". But, whether or not they need 
> to be banned is **hugely** dependent one which country you are talking 
> about, or even, as in the US, which *state* its in. In some places, the 
> only difference between the public and private schools are that the 
> public ones could *theoretically* be sued for the things being taught in 
> them, if you ever got a federal judge to look at it, since the local 
> ones don't think there is a single thing wrong, and support what is 
> being taught in them. Its that bad, in some places.
> 
Wow.
I'd forgotten about this side of the question.  Good points you make!
And an interesting case demonstrating regional differences approaching 
this question.

Here in New York, where a huge public school system coexists with an 
extensive network of private schools, it is much, much more about class, 
ability, and race, and hardly at all about ideology affecting curriculum.

The private schools, especially on the HS level, are able to
be exclusive both in the sphere of money, and in the sphere of academic 
ability. What is not so clear to me is to what extent racial exclusion 
is masked by these criteria.  Common cynicism would lead me to expect 
that it is to a great extent but I just do not know.  But I am quite 
sure that ideology is off the table.  The other point I want to stress 
again is that it is not only money.  Students for elite private schools 
must compete in standardized aptitude tests, just as they do to get into 
elite public schools.

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2009 19:12, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. 
>> I though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to 
>> entertain the lurkers.
> 
> I think it's OK if we're both ganging up on Warp. ;-) ;-)
> 
> (No, really, I'm just kidding. :-)

Good, me neither.

(trying in vain to break out of this liars paradox)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> The private schools, especially on the HS level, are able to
> be exclusive both in the sphere of money, and in the sphere of academic 
> ability. What is not so clear to me is to what extent racial exclusion 
> is masked by these criteria.  Common cynicism would lead me to expect 
> that it is to a great extent but I just do not know.  But I am quite 
> sure that ideology is off the table.  The other point I want to stress 
> again is that it is not only money.  Students for elite private schools 
> must compete in standardized aptitude tests, just as they do to get into 
> elite public schools.

Yeah. That is definitely *helping* the wackos to undermine it too. Just 
read something on a school planning to help the "underprivileged" with 
more remedial course, in high school, by... canceling **labs** and 
letting go the teachers for those classes. Yep, that'il fix it. Now 
everyone at the school can impress management by being able to count 
change, instead of only some of them, when they all get those high tech 
jobs working in the "burger lab" at McDonald's. Nothing like "improving" 
education by sacrificing the top students, while elevating the worst, 
for what ever reason they are the worst, to the same level of mediocrity 
and failure. But, heh.. No problem. Its my understanding that more and 
more colleges are responding to this by teaching "remedial" classes too. 
Who needs 4 years of college for people that actually *arrive* knowing 
what they need to start, and pay professors to teach complex subjects, 
if you can give former high school teachers, who can't get decent pay, 
to teach remedial work the first 2 years of college, then charge the 
students for 5-6 more, from the few actual professors you still have 
working there? Isn't 8 years about right, if you want to become a 
computer programmer (which currently takes 3-4, to get a BA in it)? And, 
if it takes 8 more, for the same stupid reason, to get a doctorate.. 
Heck, they can just pay for it on credit cards and loans, from the 
people that brought us the housing collapse, right?

Sigh.. We need to fix things *before* private schools, never mind high 
schools and/or colleges get involved, and that means fixing it starting 
at pre-school. When I was going, someone brought their kid in with a 
diaper bag, a bottle, and a passifier, and got told, "Bring him back 
when he is *ready*." Some place, some where, there is some bozo 
pre-school with 2 nannies, whose job is to change diapers, because a 
bunch of clueless idiots got a few judges to say, "You need to provide 
them with a way to have their kids in school, even if the parents are 
idiots.", and they are using those plastic "self stick" sticker, for 
"art", instead of crayons, because the stickers are *cheaper*, and they 
can't afford to have both nannies and crayons.

Sometimes I despair at the US' ability to survive another 50 years, 
never mind 100, or 200, given that we *actually* seem to think that the 
opinion of some slouch that spend 80% of their time on a couch watching 
Oprah or Nascar (or both), is more important than *funding* schools, 
fixing what doesn't work in them for real, instead of just testing the 
bad ones, and chopping funding, and **keeping the morons fingers out of 
the soup**, while doing so. The same people that *want* us to drag 
people out of a line at the airport, and strip search them, to make sure 
they are not *insane* or *stupid* enough to be trying to blow up a 
plane, think that its irrelevant if someone is insane and/or stupid, 
when telling the school, "I don't want Ezekial to have to learn that 
Evilution stuff!", or imagine that the way to gauge how good a school 
is, should be base not on how many of the kids move on to something 
better later, but a) how many Football stars it produces, and b) how 
many of the kids got them a proper education on farm animals, or 
roofing, or sewage treatment, so they chose the *family* profession, 
over something high falootin and useless, like physics. And, for now at 
least, with the exceptions of "big cities", which are too "librul", most 
of the country seems to be trying to cater to making things dumber and 
dumberer.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.
> 
It only does so as long as competition is *possible*. The problem is, 
any place a bottleneck exists, you get 1-2 people, or corporations, 
which swallow up everything in the bottleneck, and then they get 
everything, and everyone else scrambles for the scraps. This is only 
made *worse* when you add into it the, fairly recent, rise to prominence 
of libertarianism, which takes the existing belief in innovation via 
competition, mixes it with social anarchism, and predicates that a) 
there is nothing wrong with companies either swallowing the bottlenecks, 
or even making ones up that shouldn't exist, because the guy with $5 and 
an idea can *somehow* magically overcome the company with $5 billion, 
and 50 lawyers, all dedicated on making sure that a) they can own the 
idea, even when they didn't come up with it, b) the idea seems to 
somehow "undermine" the economy, or c) the guy with his $5 will never 
see anything *close* to a market for it.

Its like arguing that the sheep farmer can make himself rich from a new 
fabric, when everything from his sheep farm to the markets its sold in, 
are *owned* by the people in the castle a mile away.

You have to have a mixture of both. A recognition that "some level" of 
equality is a necessity, or you run aground of your own success, by 
reducing everyone to a state where they can't afford your own product. 
Walmart is a good example. You want quality, for a good price, and which 
doesn't break in five minute from buying it, you **don't** buy Walmart. 
But, 90% of their employees make minimum wage, and no tips. Any of them 
with families get **help** from management to fill out government 
subsidy forms. The only they they can afford is what Walmart sells, and 
the result is one of two things - 1) The quality has to *drop* to make 
up the difference, or 2) their own employees, if the quality where 
raised, wouldn't be able to afford their own products.

This result came from trying to satisfy 99% of the country, and finding 
that 19% of them already couldn't *afford* anything better. Now, 50% of 
them can't. The people buying what would have been considered the 
"poorest" quality 50 years ago (as in things like a toaster they used 
for 20 years before replacing it), are now 20% of the population, not 
90%. This isn't progress.

Or, lets put it another way, since this is an example from the "other" 
side of the fence, where fairness becomes "unfair" to the company. 
Cars.. For most of my fathers early adult life, and teens, it was $1 per 
*pound*, for a car. Now, its $50 per pound. Why? Because the workers 
robbed the company, instead of the company robbing them. Same problem. 
You need some perception of "equality", which includes the rest of the 
people in your country. If you don't, and you are a worker, you scramble 
to get every dime you can, until half the country can't afford what you 
just manufactured. If your are a company, same thing. You can't create a 
state in which you either have to lower quality to the point where 
people consider everything you sell to be crap, but have no choice but 
to buy it, and support "innovation", or "progress". All you do is hang 
yourself with your own rope, until your money supply gets cut off by no 
one being able to afford the crap any more than they can the decent stuff.

You don't need socialism for things to work. You do need either 
companies to recognize that they *have* a social obligation, not just 
one to their own gains and profits, or someone who *recognizes* the 
social obligation, and is willing to say, "Stop screwing everyone." What 
we have now is companies that don't, for the most part give a crap, 
lobbying politicians, how own stock in the companies, often get hired by 
them, if/when they retire, and who also **don't see** their own social 
obligations. If everyone scrounges for the list dime, you end up with a 
world of people with stepped on fingers, two people with bags full of 
dimes, and **nothing to buy with it**.

That has been the whole mess with this health care debacle. The 
insurance companies use their **own**, self owned, company to determine 
what it "costs" to perform a medical procedure, and that is where the 
term "premium" comes from. They underrate the cost, drive up the 
premiums, then get people in congress to argue that, if it costs $100 to 
do something, they say it costs $80, and your therefor have to pay, due 
to their lie, $20, that isn't *fair* to them, and you should be paying 
$25. The governments response - One side says, "OK, there is no way in 
hell we are, at this point, going to get them to stop lying, or using 
their own internal company to rate the costs, so lets provide some 
direct competition, which *doesn't* lie about it.", and the other side 
screams, "Making us charge the customer what it actually costs like that 
is wrong, and the reason isn't because we just don't want to pay it, its 
because government run programs are **socialism**." Sigh...

>   Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
> or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
> succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
> the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
> invention which makes everyone's life easier.
> 
They can't. As I already said. They have three options. Go to another 
country, find enough money to do it themselves (or inherit it), or 
**sell it** to some company that gives them 1% of what its actually 
worth, who then makes themselves rich by taking in $100,000,000 for 
every $1,000,000 the guy that invented it does. Yeah, he gets "rich", 
sort of, but not without everyone that is already rich making 100 times 
are much, for doing nothing, other than happening to already have the 
factory needed to manufacture it. Oh, and selling it at a store that 
pays its people so little they can never *ever* hope to try to do the same.

>   What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
> keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
> comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
> so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.
> 
That isn't reasonable. You have to have some compromise, or it just 
doesn't work. Ann Rand and their ilk are all idiots, and the current 
economic mess is squarely at the feet of the nitwits that fell for it. 
Its the flip side of socialism. If everyone has the same, there is no 
reason to innovate. If 5% of the population has 99% of the resources, 
its not **possible** to innovate. You did nothing but replace the 
"state" with "corporations". The average person is still being screwed, 
only worse, because corporations are under no obligation, theoretical or 
otherwise, to bother with the "well being" of anyone other than their 
own stock holders, and, only as much as "necessary" to their customers. 
Problem is, "necessary", in the later case is based solely on, "Enough 
people will buy it.", not on quality, content, or intrinsic value.

>   It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
> in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
> entrepreneurship.
> 

Its also not a coincidence that such markets produce 500 times as much 
total crap, by comparison, either. There is a difference between 
"innovation" and "marketing". The later is more important to capitalism 
than the former, by a *huge* margin. Sometimes.. it even manages to kill 
the former, when a better option is available.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of 
>> “Communism”
> 
> What do *you* think the difference is?  They sound pretty similar, 
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by 
> "the people".
> 
Problem is, the "the government owns it", model isn't far off what you 
get with unfettered capitalism either. We had that once in the US, 
before anti-trust laws. Companies owned you house, your clothes, sold 
you your food, provided you with *less* than necessary to pay it all 
back, and even had their own mini-military, to "protect" the companies 
assets from people prone to show up demanding higher pay, or a way out 
of their contracts, or a decrease in their debt to the company. We 
thought this was an horribly bad idea at one point. Now... I am not so 
sure some companies are not backsliding into it. Pretty sure a few 
companies, for example, that sell consumer goods are also offering 
"credit cards", along with the vague discounts they give to their 
employees, while actually "lowering" their pay. One grocery store, as an 
example of the pay lowering, Krogers, I think it was, had many of their 
divisions re-structured so that they went from having 2-3 different pay 
scales, and special pay for meat cutters and others, to *one* single 
wage for all non-managers. Minimum wage. Overnight, they lost 
*everything*. Now all they have to do is offer home loans and credit, 
and its right back to the same BS all over again.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
> 
> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I
> though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain
> the lurkers.

I think you're doing fine. This thread is quite entertaining so far.

-- 
a lurker.

Post a reply to this message