Re: Latest News

From: R. Steve Walz (rstevew_at_armory.com)
Date: 11/19/04 

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:25:16 GMT

Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
> John Larkin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:47:48 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
> >>>then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
> >>>the rich from stealing it all.
>
> > No, we'd see zero investment, gross scarcities, and a tripling of
> > prices through inflation. And that the short-term; it would be worse
> > longterm.
>
> Which appears to be exactly what RSW wants.
-----------------------------
No, that's your lie, and that what I propose would lead us to that
is merely another of your lies.

Investment is simply not needed in a Communism, since the People can
mandate society's "investment" of labor in any new endeavor, altogether
without "funds" of any kind. And with prices set by the labor-hours
required to make something, both inflation is impossible, and scarcity
is as well, since they need only labor to have things, just as in any
real state of nature.

 
> >> Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
> >>definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.
> >>
> >> But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
> >>despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
> >>accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
> >>influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
> >>lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
> >>through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
> >>point.
>
> > In the tradeoff between instant consumption and deferred investment,
> > it is the rich who invest. Working-class people and government are
> > generally *negative* investors. Rich people who aren't good longterm
> > investors lose their wealth to people who are better at it.
>
> Yup. And when smart investors do their stuff, _everybody_
> benefits.
--------------------
Nope, only the wealthy benefit, obviously.
Without the wealthy you would receive a fair wage, which you don't
now!
 

> > But we live in a society of excess already, so most of the arguments
> > about class and wealth are moot.
>
> That's what I was trying to tell RSW. It's approaching
> the situation with royalty in the U.K. and other countries
> that maintain them for show.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------------------
You have no grasp of these issues. The wealthy deprive you of over
half of that which should be yours for your labor, and all of what
is yours in terms of residences you should automatically own at
birth just because of your inheritance from the very people who
built them, your ancestors!

You should gang up on the wealthy and TAKE IT ALL BACK!! It is your
right, and yours for the demanding alone!! The Majority control the
world, not the wealthy!!

-Steve 

-- 
-Steve Walz  rstevew@armory.com   ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!!  With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... wealthy will increase capital formation for real investment. ... Or do asset prices increase because the assets become more valuable? ... recessions, share prices typically fall and during bubbles share ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... Since Jude Wanniski claims to coined the term [supply side economics], ... income sector on the premise that capital formation for real ... wealthy will increase capital formation for real investment. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Summers: Job Growth By Spring!
    ... And spending $787,000,000,000 will keep unemployment below 8%. ... It's also nice how he claims that everyone agrees the recession is ... American taxpayers will foot the bill for the excesses of investment ... wealthy down a peg or two. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Latest News
    ... Mark Fergerson wrote: ... >> No, we'd see zero investment, gross scarcities, and a tripling of ... Investment is simply not needed in a Communism, ... Nope, only the wealthy benefit, obviously. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Latest News
    ... Mark Fergerson wrote: ... >> No, we'd see zero investment, gross scarcities, and a tripling of ... Investment is simply not needed in a Communism, ... Nope, only the wealthy benefit, obviously. ...
    (sci.electronics.cad)