Re: Technical and Spiritual Development

From: William Mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: 25 Jan 2005 08:39:05 -0800

Terrell Miller wrote:
> William Mook wrote:
>
> >>> It is uneeded in
> >>>advanced industrial cultures.
> >>
> >>such as the Arabian peninsula, where it's pretty common for one man
> >
> > to
> >
> >>have a couple dozen children by several different wives and
> >
> > concubines?
> >
> > While sexual activity is generally required for preganancy (but not
> > always given artificial insemination) the number of offspring one
has
> > is quite independent of one's propensity to engage in sexual
activity
> > (given birth control).
>
> Bill, in a very large part of the world (with a huge percentage of
the
> world's population), birth control is *evil*.

So? Those people will be less likely to use anti-aging drugs if the
drugs have a built in fertility control. It really doesn't affect the
argument.

> > Why is it impossible for those who post here to see that it would
be
> > easy and preferable to incorporate a anti-fertility drug into an
> > anti-aging serum? Because they wish to paint the worst possible
face
> > on anti-aging treatments, thats why.
>
> on the contrary, I'd love to live forever. My personal goal is to
live
> to see the next centennial. I'm all for the concept of immortality,
it's
> just that I've accumulated enough experience over the years and seen
how
> people really act to know that it's a pipe dream.

You are saying you have accumulated unspecified experiences to know
about behaviors which you don't relate that make anti-aging serum a
pipe dream.

That's about as nebulous a statement as anyone can make. Anti-aging
treatments are likely within the lifespan of many of those reading
this. Many of those will live a very long time as a consequence.

> >>what makes you think that market forces will make the whole world
> >>wealthy?
> >
> >
> > Because wealth is a consequence of choices people make, not a
condition
> > they find themselves in.
>
> ah, so the reason why a campesino in Guatemala doesn't have wood
floors
> or running water is because...he *chooses* to?!?

The reason you believe people in Guatemala are wild primitives have
more to do with your biases than with reality.

http://www.viviun.com/AD-14716/

Note the hardwood floors and running water - oh, and the address!

> This keeps getting better and better <g>

In your mind perhaps.

> > Because wealth is created not taken.
>
> actually, it's both, in that order

No, if you take something from someone you diminish its value, so
wealth overall is actually destroyed.

> > So, it is quite feasible that if everyone makes the right choices,
> > everyone could be quite wealthy.
>
> okay Bill, 1) define "the right choices"

They are different for everyone and change over time. Think about what
you're asking. You're asking me to define a course of action for
everyone on the planet so that everyone on the planet becomes wealthy
simultaneously.

This is not something any one person can do.

Even so, its obvious that given the freedom of action, and knowledge,
and time, each person will make those choices for themselves.

Why is this obvious? Because when given the chance undeveloped
economies have grown at double digit rates, doubling wealth in 5 to 7
years, and transforming societies in a generation.

You have provided absolutely no evidence this cannot occur for the
whole world, if the world's economy is given a cost competitive
alternative to fossil fuels.

> and 2) show us one moment in
> the entire history of Man when "everuyone" made the right choice...

The United States is a good example of a nation that has made the right
choice. Europe, Japan, the Asian Tigers - are also good examples.

> >>Is there anything in Rwanda or El Salvador that is of value to
> >>anyone?
> >
> >
> > Yes. Each other.
>
> I'm sure that a Rwandan war refugee will be really touched by the
> sentiment, Bill. He might not even kill you to get to your wallet so
he
> can eat something this week...this time.

More racist bilge from you, need I reply to such guff?

> >>Otherwise the Rwandans and Salvadorans don't have anything to
> >>become wealthy *with*.
> >
> >
> > Yes they do. Themselves.
>
> "Hi, my name is Manolo. I am a thirty year old male from San
Salvador. I
> look fifty, but I'm not. I can't read this sentence, or any other
> sentence. I can write my name down. I know how to split concrete
blocks
> with my machete. I can slaughter a pig. I have never seen or used a
> computer and I have no idea what one does. I can lift a 100kg bag of
> cement on one shoulder and carry it through sand without dropping the

> ashes on my cigarette.

Jesus Terrell, I believe you need your ass kicked. That's the only way
assholes like you learn how to be civil.

> "I would love to have a job in your company, Senor. You can reach me
> at...well, there is no phone within 50km of my village, but I have a
> cousin in Mobile who ha a phone and she will be happy to get me
across
> the border. Her number is..."

You're a racist pig, pure and simple.

I cannot usefully reply to the garbage in your head. I can only reply
to reality. For your information, you might want to acquaint yourself
with some *real* Salvadorans before making any judgement. Here's a
good place to start:

http://www.uca.edu.sv/martires/new/indice.htm

Oh, can't read the language? What are we to make of that?

Shithead.

> >>The only chance that Third World countries have to become wealthy
is
> >
> > if
> >
> >>they come up with some new in-demand service that doesn't depend on
> >>their own physical resources.
> >
> >
> > Income and energy use are related. Cheap energy is the only thing
in
> > real short supply.
>
> that and raw materials and an educated, trained workforce. Oh, and
> management skills.

In a world of 8 billion people all consuming products at the same rate
as the percapita average in America today would require 11x the flow of
materials throughout the world. Nearly all materials are available in
sufficient quantity to support this expansion. Five strategic
materials would be stressed, but there are workarounds for consumer
products. There is one material that doesn't have a chance of meeting
this increase - and that material is oil. We need a low-cost
alternative to oil and we need it now.

Education, training, management - are not really problems. They pace
development, and we know from experience that an industrial economy
supplied with sufficient capital and energy supplied with a stable and
fair political and legal system in any location throughout the world
can grow at double digit rates in less developed regions - doubling
standards of living every 5 to 7 years.

> > There are plenty of physical resources otherwise.
>
> ROTFLMAO.

Again, I cannot respond usefully to the madness in your head, only to
reasoned arguments based on reality.

> Sure, Bill. Which is why when Hurricane Mitch obliterated the
Honduran
> banana plantations in 1998, the country had to start cutting down its

> mahogany trees in greatly increased numbers to compensate for the
loss
> in exports.

Horrific examples of mismanagement abound throughout the world. This
doesn't change the fact that if given sufficient capital, energy and
adequate political and legal stability and fairness - any economy
anywhere can grow at double digit rates.

> When they are all gone (takes a while for a 150-foot tree to grow),
then
> Honduras will have NAGDT.

http://www.travel-to-honduras.com/

Riiight...

> > What is limited in our industrial world is cheap energy. That's
> > because we have restricted ourselves to fossil fuels extracted from
> > reserves that are limited to around 900 billion barrels.
>
> oh God, you're not gonna get all SPS on us *again*, are you? :(

You make very general dismissive statements and don't really provide
any reasoned response to anything. You trot out these images of
poverty and ignorance that would only appeal to the worst part of
anyone's nature and say what exactly? Nothing.

> <snip>
>
> > Yes, but growth rates in the double digits are possible. This
means a
> > doubling of wealth every 5 to 7 years.
>
> okay Bill, give us examples of societies that have seen sustained
growth
> rates like that for more than, oh, three decades.

We're talking about the transformation of a society from primitive to
advanced post-industrial. To transform the world into a global society
as wealthy as American are today would require only 11x - and at a 10%
growth rate this can be done in a generation.

Three decades of doubling every 5 years would produce a society that
doubled its income 6 times - that's 2^6 = 64x That's not what we're
talking about, and you know it.

> > This means transforming a
> > subsistence society into a highly industrial society of great
wealth in
> > a generation.
>
> show when and where that has been done as well

In the United States following the Civil War. In Europe during the
same period. In Japan in the 20th century.

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=mosk.japan.final

> > This is not surprising, Ronald Reagan lived through the
transformation
> > of his society from a gaslit horse and buggy era to Star Wars.
>
> And in the nine decades of his life, the wealth of our country didn't

> double every 5 to 7 years, either.

http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-25.pdf

Well, from 1947 to 1999 average household income grew from $3,000 to
$48,000 - which is an increase of 16x in a generation. This is a
doubling every 10 years and sufficient to bring about the change we're
talking about.

The higher rates of growth occur early in the growth process and slow
as development proceeds. The period immediately after the Civil War
for example.

> > The
> > Japanese saw the transformation of their society after World War
II.
>
> and have been in economic and social stagnation for half a decade now

http://www.lm-media.com/j_encyc.html

Might I suggest you learn a thing or two about people before you
denigrate an entire culture?

> > The Chinese and Indian people are transforming their society as
well in
> > a generation.
>
> dunno about the Indians, but the Chinese are *raping* their society
for
> short-term gain.

http://www.chinaonline.com/refer/ministry_profiles/threegorgesdam.asp

The Three Gorges dam project is modeled after the US TVA project.
Anything people do on this scale can be picked at. This doesn't change
the fact that the world could grow to be a wealthy place in a
generation under the right sort of conditions.

> ANd their economy is poised to tank just like the other
> Asian antions did back in 97-98.

Evidence?

> > There is absolutely given sufficient energy resources the entire
world
> > could not be producing a quadrillion dollars a year or more in
wealth
> > (up from $40 trillion today)
>
> All your base are belong to us

Could you rephrase that? It doesn't make any sense the way you've said
it.

> >>third of the world's population. It's a lot easier for big
countries
> >>like that to bootstrap themselves than it is for scarcely-populated
> >>regions like Africa or Latin America.
> >
> >
> > Actually, its easier for them to create significant flows of
capital
> > for investment even if they are isolated from the world's trading
> > system. But they are so massive, it requires significant sustained
> > investment to make an impact.
> >
> > Smaller countries on the other hand are limited in their ability to
> > generate capital flows internally. But any capital formation as an
> > immediate impact.
> >
> > Clearly smaller nations could access the capital flows of the
> > international capital markets to great benefit.
>
> Bill, do you have even the remotest clue what "capital flows of the
> international capital markets" means?

Yes. Do you?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/icm/97icm/icmcon.htm
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/13920.ctl

Capital is the money used to build business. Capital flows into
regions where it can do the most good, that is providing the highest
return on investment. This typically is where it can do the most good
for the people in those regions creating jobs - again under the right
conditions.

If the world had sufficient quantities of low-cost energy and a fair
and stable political and legal system, there is no reason to believe
the entire world could not sustain rates of economic growth that would
allow the average income worldwide to equal that of the average
American income today.

> > Its not the lack of capital that's the problem though. Its the
> > inability of local governments to see the benefits of free capital
> > markets.
>
> Oh they see it, alright. It means that they won't be able to lord it
> over their countrymen anymore.

Should I respond to your racist comments? No, I don't think so. You
are beyond hope.

> > Still, the only thing the world really lacks is sufficient energy
to
> > support global industrialization on the scale needed.
>
> All you need is love

I doubt you'll get any from me. I'd like to kick your ass.

> >>> That's right, the entire world population will be in
> >>>decline.
> >>
> >>that's pretty certain to happen in the last half of the century
> >>regardless of what the world's GNP is or isn't.
> >
> >
> > Yes. We have a choice. We can see a decline in human numbers due
to
> > rising living standards and the rising influence of women in the
> > marketplace. Or, we can see a decline in human numbers due to
rising
> > death rates due to rising poverty and resource limitations.
>
> Bill, the reason why the population growth rate will drop in teh next

> fifty years has nothing to do with human rights or economic
prosperity.
> It's because in the fast-growing areas of the world there's nowhere
to
> cram more people.

What is your evidence?

>
> China has 1.25 billion people. China is slightly smaller than the US.

This is true, it doesn't prove your point. Please provide me with
papers from respected sources that project the sorts of things you are
saying.

> >>The countries with
> >>explosive population growth will run out of resources to support
that
> >
> >
> >>growth pretty soon, so their numbers will level off and start
> >
> > dwindling.
> >
> > Yes, rising death rates. But such nations will not go to the wall
> > quietly. They will likely blame the wealthy nations and create
their
> > own versions of Jihad against those nations.
>
> you're probably right

Which tells us how we may avoid this situation. Create the conditions
for global economic growth to provide acceptable living standards for
everyone.

> >>sure, as long as you can afford the exorbitant fee that the drug
> >>companies will charge *because they can*.
> >
> >
> > Only during the period their patents are in force. Less than 20
years.
>
> there won't *be* any publicly accessible patents, Bill.

I cannot respond usefully to you when you just make stuff up out of
whole cloth.

Drug companies routinely file for patent protection for new drugs. Why
wouuld this drug be different? The answer is, it wouldn't.

http://www.ktuu.com/CMS/anmviewer.asp?a=16&z=5

Drug companies value patents so highly they do ANYTHING to obtain them!
Now, you are saying drug companies will avoid patents. Please, give
me a break and shut your pie hole - because nothing useful is coming
out of it.

> Does the term "skunk works" mean anything at all to you?

Sure. Lockheed had a division that quickly developed all sorts of
advanced aircraft. This has to do with drug company policy toward
patents how?

> > After that time they will be generic drugs, and cheap.
> >
> > But you bring up an important point. We face a choice in how the
> > decline in human numbers will be brought about. If we raise living
> > standards, there will be a general easing of international tension
and
> > a large diverse population will be the result.
>
> rising standards of living
> large diverse population
> easing of international tension
>
> Pick any two.

Ever hear of false choice? This is precisely that. We can have all
three, and more besides.

> > If we allow a decline
> > in living standards, there will be increasing tension and a small
> > narrow population will be the result.
>
> short of an asteroid impact, there won't be any decline in living
> standards.

Wait a minute, didn't you just say that China was raping its people? I
guess consistency isn't your strong suit Terrel.

Fact is, without appropriate capital investment all societies face the
prospect of falling living standards.

http://countrystudies.us/russia/29.htm
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Roberts/NewsPCR111704.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

> There could very well be a flattening of the growth curve
> (rich 100-year-olds don't need a new Lexus).

More racist bilge. A person chronologically 100 years old, but
possessing the youthful vitality of a 23 year old, may very well desire
a wide range of exciting vehicles.

> >>The folks who can afford
> >
> > somec/boosterspice/whatever-Spinrad-called-it
> >
> >>will have an enormous competitive advantage over those who can't.
> >
> >
> > What you call a competitive advantage is actually a productivity
> > advantage.
>
> that's one type of competitive advantage, yes. There are others.

But we're talking about anti-aging treatments and their impact on
society. Please try to keep up!

> > Clearly everyone is better off if everyone is more
> > productive. Limiting the ability of people to be productive is
> > foolishness.
>
> ROTFLMAO.

You do that quite frequently for no reason don't you?

> You have never spent a day working for a large organization, Bill.
> Increased productivity in one area starts *wars*.

Have you ever managed a new technology? Those battles are fought and
won by companies that are growing. When all companies grow, society
grows. That's the point.

There will be battle to fight, no doubt. That won't stop the eventual
widespread use of anti-aging treatments when they become available.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

>
> >>Those
> >>people will be the exact same ones who tend to be in leadership
> >>positions (government or captains of industry or investors).
> >
> >
> > You are obviously not a wealthy or powerful person, given the way
you
> > think about things. Wealth and power are unlimited.
>
> yeah, just look at how equitably Saddam or the House of Saud or the
Kali
> cartel share their immense wealth.

We're talking about free markets and free societies, not despots backed
by US intelligence to keep the owners of oil reserves at each other's
throats for the purposes of depressing the price of oil for the US.

Please try to keep up.

> > Because, wealth
> > and power are not given - they are the result of a way of thinking
and
> > behaving. Its the thoughts and the behavior that lead to wealth
and
> > power.
>
> Thoughts and behaviour like "pull up the ladder, I've got mine!"

Bull***.

> > The more people think and behave in ways that lead to wealth and
power,
> > the more wealth and power there is.
>
> wanna buy a dotcom?

At the right price, there are plenty I'd buy.

> > Removing the limitations of aging
> > and death will release limitations currently weighing down the
human
> > spirit and as a result, many more will be able to create wealth and
> > power and for longer periods - this will transform society in very
> > beneficial ways.
>
> you're forgetting one thing, Bill: the longer your competitors live
and
> the healthier they are, the more opportunities they have to take away

> your own wealth.

You wrongly assume wealth is created by theft. It is not. Wealth is
created the same way art is created - by the creative acts of
individuals.

> >>There would be a huge incentive for the host government of the
first
> >>drug company to develop an antiaging serum to strictly regulate its
> >>production.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense. There will be some concern as to the drug's impact on
> > population, and laws will be passed early on to require the
> > incorporation of an anti-fertility drug in the anti-aging drug
> > treatment. That's all. As the impact of such linkage makes itself
> > felt, even that will be repealed as human numbers fall (due
hopefully
> > to increased wealth, not increased death rates.)
>
> It always amazes me how some people can string together bull***
> extrapolations based on how they *want* things to be. ANd then belive

> their own BS.

Do you look in the mirror when you say that? YOU SHOULD!

> >>The drug company doesn't care,
> >
> >
> > Yes they do. All companies want to maximize their profits.
>
> Not true. All companies seek to maximize their *investment*.

If you don't take maximum profit your investment isn't worth what it
could be. If you cannot take maximum profit, then you sell your
investment to someone who can.

> Profit is
> one way to do that, but it's not the only way and often isn't even an

> option.

Well, well, that's true - what a refreshing thing. Terrel actually
saying something coherent.

Yes, when market and/or technology conditions change you've got to
modify your investments to maintain highest profitability.

But this is a secondary concern. Profit drives business and business
value. Period.

If you cannot make maximal profit for whatever reason (and there may be
plenty) then you sell your investment off to focus resources on those
things you can make maximal profit in.

>
> Case in point: professional sports franchises. They make more money
than
> they claim, but the real incentive in operating a sports team isn't
to
> make a tidy profit, it's *franchise appreciation*.

Aw, gawd, a moment of sanity and then the bull*** again.

Even you know this is a special case. Or are you saying that the free
market operates like a sports franchise always? What a crock.

> IOW, buy the team for $300 million, hold on to it and amortize the
tax
> breaks for a decade, then sell the team for $650 million.

How about buying a beach house in South Carolina and renting it out,
using the rents to pay all the costs and then selling the house?
Hopefully it will appreciate.

Doesn't make much sense except in the case where you really like the
beach and use the house yourself some of the time.

Same with the team. There are other benefits, like advertising or PR
benefits, that accrue from this exercise.

Generally speaking businesses operate in the free market to maximize
their investments by engaging in activities that sell products and
services at the greatest profits possible.

> And there are plenty of "shell" coprtorations that exist strictly as
a
> tax writeoff.

Yes. Regulations create special conditions that lead to special
situations. These are all about conserving wealth. We're talking
about creating wealth. Please try to keep up.

> They're not supposed to earn a profit, they'r esupposed to
> generate paper losses that can be used to offset the earnings of the
> parent corporation.

Yes. Please understand the difference between conserving wealth under
confiscatory tax laws and creating wealth from whole cloth.

> Other companies exist strictly to launder money from criminal
> activities. They aren't supposed to maximize their profit either,
since
> that draws more public and legal attention.

Another special condition based on breaking the law. This is a way to
convert illegal profits, not CREATE WEALTH - so, it doesn't really
apply to what we're talking about here.

People that live longer and are more vital are people that will CREATE
MORE WEALTH - and so by this reason anti-aging treatments of the type
we're discussing will make society wealthier.

> > This means
> > selling at the peak profit point to the largest population
possible.
> > Any compay that misses this opportunity leaves the door open to a
> > competitor who will make maximal profit and eventually bury the
first
> > company.
>
> assuming that there are competitors who know of the existence of the
> product *and can develop their own competing brand*.

The moment you sell something the market knows about it. That's what
advertising is all about.

> I'd love to make a fortune developing stealth aircraft for the Air
> Force. Not a chance in hell I'll ever be able to, though.

We're talking about free markets. Please try to keep up.

> >>they can make a massive
> >>fortune just selling it to the Beautiful People. Saves them a lot
of
> >>organizational bother not to have to expand the company's
> >
> > bureaucracy,
> >
> >>and it's guaranteed profit. The b-school term for that is "cash
cow".
> >
> >
> > You obviously didn't go to business school.
>
> BA in economics, MBA in international business. Five years as a
> marketing analyst at Coke.

Really? And you still work there? Or did they fire your ass for
incompetence? Just wondering. Based on what you've said here, I'd
take your MBA away from you.

> Once again, you simply could not have been more wrong about me, Bill.

Somehow I think not.

> > Any product has a peak
> > profit point. As you raise prices you increase per unit profits.
This
> > is a function of your production cost. But as you raise prices,
you
> > decrease sales. This is a function of your demand curve. Multiply
per
> > unit profit by units sold and you get total profits. The result is
an
> > inverted parabolic curve with a single peak point - the peak profit
> > point. This is the price you sell your product at, and the volume
you
> > organize to produce and sell the product at - given your technology
and
> > the demand *curve* for your product.
>
> That's the simplest model of "equilibrium", and it dates way back to
> David Ricardo and Adam Smith in teh 18th century.

Yes.

> In later econ classes (hell, in later chapters of your Econ 101
> textbook) they discuss models where supply and demand are, for
various
> reasons, not freely self-adjusting.

True.

> Like in monopolies and like with artificially fixed supply curves,
> real-world stuff like that.

Yep.

And your point is? What? Please recall that we were talking about
creating wealth, not preserving monopolies, etc., and the impact of
longevity treatment to the wealth of the world.

You and others maintain that practical longevity treatments would
impoverish the world. I on the other hand am arguing that practical
longevity treatments will create vast new populations of highly
productive people and as a consequence create huge quantities of new
wealth.

You have yet to offer one single point of fact in support of your
position.

> > As I mentioned, anyone who sets an arbitrarily high price for a
product
> > and sells only to those who can afford the price is leaving the
door
> > wide open to a real business person who takes the trouble to learn
the
> > market and method and set a price and volume that maximizes profits
for
> > his operation.
>
> Like five cents per kiloWatt hour, eh Bill? ;)

Yes. DC electricity derived from inconstant solar sources have a peak
price point (given my cost of production) of around 5 cents in most
place in the US. So what?

>
> >>So the production runs of the drug are very small because of
> >
> > "technical
> >
> >>difficulties".
> >
> >
> > You put quotation marks around technical difficulties to indicate
that
> > these are not real, but excuses to limit production.
>
> yep
>
> > Clearly, this
> > doesn't change the condition that leaves the door open to a
competitor
> > who operates in a business like way.
>
> so you're saying that one firm's price point is the sole driver to
> "leave the door open to a competitor", eh Bill?

No. I'm saying that unmet demand will be met by others if not met by
the early innovator.

> >>Which means that the price will be sky-high.
> >
> >
> > Which means there is huge unfilled demand beckoning competitors to
> > enter the market to fulfill it.
>
> not if they never know about it and can't do anything about it, Bill.

You really should reign in your fantasy.

Company X offers a drug for sale that extends life indefinitely.
People take the drug and their life is extended. The business
community knows about this and some consider the business potential of
this new development and look for opportunities to make a profit for
themselves in this business.

Now, even if the drug is for sale very quietly to people worth $50
million or more - SO WHAT? You are saying NONE of the 250,000 or so
people who are taking the drug at this price point will EVER consider
the business potential of this development. Hell, those worth $50
million or more will be PRECISELY the people who will look into the
business side of things.

>
> >>Who ruthlessly guard their source of immortality.
> >
> >
> > Why? This doesn't follow from your earlier argument. If you have
the
> > money and access to the resource you want, and can get it at a
price
> > you're willing to pay, what do you care what others do?
>
> Why did J.P. Morgan, already rich beyond avarice, start snapping up
all
> the steamship lines he could get his hands on?

Because he could. So what? We're talking about markets, not the
avarice of individuals. Please try to keep up.

> Why do Microsoft and Coca-Cola and Intel continue to ruthlessly
gather
> market share?

Because they think its important to maintain and improve their value.

HP just decided last week to maximize its profit not market share
against Dell as a way to grow in value.

So what?

It doesn't change the fact that widespread use of longevity treatment
along the lines we've already discussed would dramatically increase the
wealth of any society that used it.

[snip]

Well, this was fun, but clearly, I've shown that once again, you have
missed the mark and not kept up with what we're talking about. So, I
must go and do something more useful today than attempt to educate you.
Cheers.