Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
From: Scott Hedrick (dinehnm_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/19/04
- Next message: dave schneider: "Re: Embarrassingly, an off-topic rant"
- Previous message: Anthony Frost: "Re: Q: Red giant heating effects on earth-like planets over time"
- In reply to: John E. Jaku-Hing: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Next in thread: Alan Anderson: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:53:51 -0400
"John E. Jaku-Hing" <johnejakuhing@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4cbbde8.0408190545.7639327f@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Time for people to change.
> >
>
> People as a majority refuse to change. Therefore, change will not
> happen.
Then the people get to enjoy the consequences of their decision.
>
> > >What you are suggesting is that the world revolve
> > > around business.
> >
> > It revolves around *economics*.
>
> Economics is an end to a means. It's icing on the cake for democracy.
Everything you do is based on economics. Surely you are aware that economics
is more than mere money?
http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/2002a.html
http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/2000b.html
http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/1995a.html
http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/1994a.html
http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/1986a.html
And, most importantly:
http://almaz.com/nobel/economics/1992a.html
Can you prove Mr. Atta and
> his band of merry thugs crashed into the World Trade Center? I bet
> you cannot.
I don't have any reason to even try. I haven't brought them up and I don't
have anything to say about them. Now, instead of throwing red herrings,
perhaps you could provide real data to support your claims.
> > How does a dollar of capital gains spend any different than a dollar
from
> > wages or even simple interest?
> >
>
> True. I withdraw my former comment. I suppose that may be the
> difference between us. You are not flexible for debate.
When it comes to demanding verifiable evidence, I'm not.
> > I didn't say it was *good*. I said it was *useful*. A national debt and
the
> > use of debt instruments gives the government the ability to control
fiscal
> > policies.
> >
>
> Yes. I see your point (sarcasm). We control them quite well
> currently, don't we?
Alan Greenspan and his buddies have done a great job so far in controlling
inflation.
If this government were operating as a business,
> we would be deep in Ch. 11 by now
Not at all. If the government were being run like a business, it would have
been run substantially different. However, this far I've seen no reason to
expect government to be run as if it were a business, since it isn't.
The sad fact is that the country
> will not realize it is defunct until after the bloody class and race
> revolution is over and a inferior government is installed in place of
> the current one.
I believe you are correct. It's a lot easier to do that than to actually fix
the problem, which has to do with human nature itself. The people have
allowed themselves to become dependent on government largess (which is a
fancy way of saying "wealth redistribution") rather than to treat government
as a necessary evil.
> >
> > Truth hurts. Life isn't fair, and there's no reason to expect it to be.
> > Markets change.
> >
>
> Try calling Harvard and telling them their institution is no longer
> needed, as tradespeople are the future of this country.
Why would I do that?
You may be
> called in for a photograph to frame and captioned "the most short
> sighted man on Earth"
I don't have a picture of Eric to send them.
> >
> > Yep. I don't see the public caring if they can still get cheap crap at
> > WalMart.
>
> The public by in large are made of ignorant tradespeople. No one
> cares about getting a good education anymore.
Worse- they think the education they have *is* a good one.
>Money, in its raw form, generally equals destruction
> of one's humanity. It's perceived as an end, not a means.
It should be considered as a tool, nothing more. It is, in and of itself,
rather useless. It's almost criminal that what passes as public education
includes nothing about how to handle money. Few folks even seem to be able
to balance their checkbooks.
> > Yep. I'm not complaining about Darwin. Just watching the results.
>
> Let's see how long you feel patriotic when (not if) housing prices
> crash 50-70%, revolution is on the streets, and hoardes of people come
> begging to your door for food after $70-100/bbl oil.
What makes you feel I'm not prepared for that?
> >
> > Yep. It's much easier than actually doing something to fix the problem.
> >
>
> That's some nice snipping.
I followed proper protocol by only including the relevant part.
> > That's nice. Now how about answering the question I asked.
> >
>
> What question? Sorry, I snipped it.
Go back and reread the post, then.
> >
> > I'm sure the capitalists like George Washington, Ben Franklin, and the
other
> > founding fathers who operated for-profit businesses would disagree.
> >
>
> Aristocrats. NOT capitalists.
Businessmen- the very definition of capitalists. Your education is clearly
deficient when it comes to American history.
> > >China is the pinnacle of how capitalism should be
> > > exercised, according to it's idealogues. They're much more
> > > capitalistic than we are. Maybe you should move there since you like
> > > it so much?
> >
> > Please provide a verifiable reference to a post where I gave an opinion
as
> > to my preferences about China.
> >
>
> Given the empirical evidence you've provided
That's nice. Now, let's see a verifiable reference to a post where I gave an
opinion as to my preferences about China.
> > Then it should be easy for you to provide specific references where he
> > actually did *something* to support stem cell research. He was in a
position
> > of authority for 8 years.
> >
>
> Anyone who gets in the way of scientific research gets run over.
Is this an admission on your part that you do not have any verifiable
evidence that Gore did anything to support stem cell research while he was
vice president? How about earlier, as a Senator? It isn't necessary to
discuss Bush or the Republicans or anyone else in order to answer the
question.
> > > But since you
> > > didn't read the Economist essay I offered you
> >
> > What makes you think I didn't?
> >
>
> Am I really typing this?
I don't know. Are you? I see that, once again, you forgot to answer the
question asked. Is English a third language for you?
> > >Church groups get excited about him
> > > because they actually believe that he'll somehow "turn back the clock"
> > > and bring us back to a more wholesome time (ala "Leave it to Beaver"
> > > analogy).
> >
> > Reference, please.
>
> Sure:
OK. Still waiting.
> > >But, why ban the use of stem cells in the
> > > first place? It makes no logical sense.
> >
> > I happen to agree.
>
> Please write to someone at whitehouse.gov and sign as many petitions
> as possible if you truly agree.
I've already done as much as I care to about the subject.
> >
> > >I would venture that a mushroom
> > > cloud would be over Tora Bora as a response to 9/11.
> >
> > Hard to justify that.
>
> True. Hard to justify that Bush stands "strong against terrorism"
> either.
The evidence, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to disagree with you.
The real shame is that North Korea wasn't included on the action list ahead
of Iraq.
> > > Gore might as well have invented the internet. Without the internet,
> > > we would be running several proprietary protocol.
> >
> > That's nice. Now answer the question I asked.
> >
>
> Since markets are not collaborative by their very nature of being
> competitive, it is entirely rational to conclude that the internet
> would be not around as you see it.
That's nice. Instead of talking, how about providing some verifiable data?
> suggest you return to school so you may
> understand things more effectively and not see things as black and
> white.
I want to avoid going to school where you went, because it's clear that you
need to get a refund of your tuition. The world is decidedly gray, and your
revolutionary fervor seems to have blinded you to that.
>I would be a space alien, and you would have no proof to offer
> that I am not.
Actually, your posts tend to indicate you are. You certainly seem to be
failing to pay attention to news here on Earth.
> > The market will save us if it's profitable. That's the whole purpose of
the
> > market- to make a profit.
> >
>
> That's true. But the market is not the panacea for everything.
Of course not. Neither is government action.
> > > Business will not care to respond to millions dying from the plague.
> >
> > Sure it will- if there's money in it.
>
> By then, you'll be decaying in the ground as well, a victim of this
> plague. Capitalism is too reactive, not proactive, to respond
> properly to disease.
Not quite- there's no reason why private people who think the matter is
important cannot pool their own money and pay a drug company to do the
research. It's called philanthropy.
>here's lots of money in curing people's diseases,
> but more money in helping losers get hard-ons.
Yep. I have a problem with Viagra being covered by health insurance, but
that's up to the insurance company.
> > > > > > Please provide verifiable evidence as to the specific amount of
> > attention he
> > > > > > is required to pay to a given area.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Stem cell research.
> > > >
> > > > That's nice. Now answer the question I asked.
> > >
> > > Gore is a proponent of science. Bush is a throwback to puritanical
> > > times.
> >
> > That's nice. Now answer the question I asked, which was "Please provide
> > verifiable evidence as to the specific amount of attention he is
required to
> > pay to a given area."
>
> Please provide me with a computer simulation proving that capitalism
> is a sustainable system devoid of boom/bust cycles as a prelude of
> revolution.
After you've supported the original claim with verifiable evidence. Talk
isn't enough. The claim was made that Bush spent too much on the military.
That is a subjective statement. It's an opinion, which Eric refuses to admit
to. If he insist on treated the statement as objective, then I want to see
objective evidence to support it.
> > > > Exactly. Every business started with a person taking the risk. Most
> > fail,
> > > > but some don't. They hire other people. It's people like Bill Gates
who
> > are
> > > > responsible for creating jobs, not George Bush or John Kerry.
> > >
> > > Your pyramid/matrix schemes are not business.
> >
> > Which schemes are those? Please provide a verifiable reference to any
post
> > where I promoted any kind of pyramid/matrix scheme.
>
> Lending is a pyramid scheme.
In what way? Pyramid schemes require those at the bottom to bring more
people in in order to move up. How does my lending someone money become a
pyramid scheme?
>lease provide
> evidence that you do not operate a pyramid/matrix scheme.
You made the claim- the burden of proof is on you.
ould easily become a
> > > millionaire over 1-2 years if I quit my job and began a predatory
> > > lending business fleecing old people out of their homes with
> > > outrageous interest rates and the imminent foreclosure.
> >
> > Sure. Why would you want to?
>
> Why would I want to become a millionaire?
Why would you want to fleece people? Why would you want to perform actions
that would cost you money, when you could make money loaning money at
reasonable rates to those who can afford it instead? It seems your ethics
are as faulty as your history.
> When the housing bubble bursts and predatory lenders take to the
> streets looking for work (once again), don't forget to visit:
> www.hud.gov/homes/index.cfm
Actually, when the housing bubble bursts, I expect my business to flourish,
precisely because I'll be able to provide valuable services at reasonable
rates to those in need. It's so nice to be able to provide a public service.
You might consider it sometime.
Instead of rushing to post, why don't you take some time to find real,
verifiable data to support your statements instead of hand waving? Surprise
me with real data *relevant* to the questions already asked.
- Next message: dave schneider: "Re: Embarrassingly, an off-topic rant"
- Previous message: Anthony Frost: "Re: Q: Red giant heating effects on earth-like planets over time"
- In reply to: John E. Jaku-Hing: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Next in thread: Alan Anderson: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
