gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 25 May 2007 11:41 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > >> > >> Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >> > >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free > >>>>>> market > >>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do > >>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of > >>>>>> course, > >>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down > >>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. > >>>>>> We saw > >>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they > >>>>>> let the > >>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available. > >>>>> > >>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to > >>>>> become > >>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. > >>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. > >>>> > >>>> Ya znaiyu. > >>>> > >>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the > >>>>> current > >>>>> corporate model is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's > >>>> not like what you advocated earlier. > >>> > >>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries, > >>> why shouldn't it be democratic too? > >>> > >> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how > >> many shares you have. > >> 2) Because the workers don't own the company. > > > > jeffy just doesn't "get" private property. > > A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be > considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution > that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million > people "private." > Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC. Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the government, King You?
From: Rudy Canoza on 25 May 2007 11:46 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: >> Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> >>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free >>>>>>>> market >>>>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do >>>>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of >>>>>>>> course, >>>>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down >>>>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. >>>>>>>> We saw >>>>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they >>>>>>>> let the >>>>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available. >>>>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to >>>>>>> become >>>>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. >>>>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. >>>>>> Ya znaiyu. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the >>>>>>> current >>>>>>> corporate model is wrong. >>>>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's >>>>>> not like what you advocated earlier. >>>>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries, >>>>> why shouldn't it be democratic too? >>>>> >>>> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how >>>> many shares you have. >>>> 2) Because the workers don't own the company. >>> jeffy just doesn't "get" private property. >> A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be >> considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution >> that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million >> people "private." >> > Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public > corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC. > Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the > government, King You? Bingo on the last one. jeffy is one of those who feels he has some special insight, like Hillary, that makes him uniquely qualified to run the lives of the rest of us. He doesn't /really/ intend for Wal-Mart or any other big company to be run "democratically" - no, he means that he, as a cadre leading the lumpen, will run it for their benefit. jeffy cannot offer any rationale for running private enterprises as some kind of "democracies" except the resentment of the little guy.
From: Matthew T. Russotto on 25 May 2007 17:26 In article <1180040451.262540.35930(a)x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Rudy Canoza <notgenx32(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Resources flowing toward being the ones controlling the levers of >governmental power is simply not going to be stopped. It isn't >inherently corrupt. You're right about the first part, wrong about the second. Lord Acton was right. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 29 May 2007 13:43 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > >>And what do Chrysler's new owners know about the automobile > >>industry that Chrysler's automotive engineers don't? > > > > It's not clear to me that the owners know a thing about any part of the > > subject. What is clear to me is that they own the company and therefore > > they can run it into the ground if that's what they want to do with it. > > That's all well and good except for the people whose lives depend on > that company. That's why your support of dictatorial owners is > unacceptable. Democracy is necessary. > I support private property, evidently you do not. > >>>>>he's not an expert on marketing, he's not > >>>> > >>>>The marketing department are workers. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>got a degree in business management. > >>>> > >>>>Nor do the owners, for the most part. > >>> > >>>The owners are the shareholders. I suspect that the CEO and the board > >>>does indeed education in business administration. > >> > >>Boards of directors have no such requirements. > > > > I suspect that most people on major corporation board of directors have > > degrees in relevant subjects. > > I think they've got syphillis. > Why do you think that? > >>>>>Certainly the workers should be > >>>>>listened to but different people have different capabilities. > >>>> > >>>>That's why I recommend democracy, so that everyone can speak to his or > >>>>her own expertise. > >>> > >>>OTOH, I advocate freedom and the right to own property. > >> > >>Freedom for the one person at the top. > > > > He's not necessarily the owner. CEOs get fired too, you know. > > With golden parachutes. > That's sometimes the case. > >>>>>The owners > >>>>>of the company should decide who makes the big, the "executive", > >>>>>decisions. If workers want to buy companies, which they can with a > >>>>>public company by just buying shares until they control, I've no trouble > >>>>>at all with that. Go for it. > >>>> > >>>>Democracy is just a way to ensure that everyone gets listened to, which > >>>>you concede is a good idea anyway. > >>> > >>>I would hope that if we were explaining our views on this, people would > >>>listen to me more than you. > >> > >>I suspect you might. > > > > Because if they listen to you, they will support reducing personal > > freedom. I don't like that. > > Reducing personal freedom for the one person at the top, while > increasing it for everyone else. I suppose the Magna Carta decreased > the freedom of the English king too. > Being a king is about owning people, owning a sovereign. I don't support that. Owning property is what I'm talking about. The freedom to start a business, to make a profit. > >>>>>>>Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top > >>>>>>>down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for the > >>>>>>>service, you can have it because the availability is based on ability to > >>>>>>>pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs, > >>>>>>>assistance for the poor, etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Their system is keeping a lot more people healthier to a riper old age > >>>>>>than the U.S. system, which excels mostly in enriching the insurance > >>>>>>industry. > >>>>> > >>>>>What are the average lifespans of Americans with health coverage? What > >>>>>about Americans of different ethnicities? Are the foods that Americans > >>>>>eat contributing to a lower lifespan compared to some other countries > >>>>>such as Japan, where they eat more fish, and Italy, where they eat more > >>>>>olive oil, etc.? You can't answer these questions, which is fine, but > >>>>>what what isn't is that you don't care. All you want to do is blame the > >>>>>American health care system for things that might be really be due to a > >>>>>McDonald's diet. > >>>> > >>>>McDonald's is everywhere these days. Up until about 50 years ago, > >>>>Canada had the same life expectancy as the U.S. No significant > >>>>differences due to climate or lifestyle. Then Canada started > >>>>implementing universal healthcare. Their life expectancy now is two > >>>>years greater than the in U.S. It is clearly due to their universal > >>>>healthcare system, as Canada hasn't diverged significantly from the > >>>>U.S. in any other way. > >>> > >>>Do you have a cite for this claim? > >> > >>http://apha.confex.com/apha/131am/techprogram/paper_73726.htm > > > > What is that? > > An abstract for a paper on the cost of the American healthcare system. > > The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) is just a measure of the number of > infants that die within a year of birth. I was able to find comparative > data for both Canada and the U.S. prior to the development of the > Canadian Universal Health System. Hospital insurance was initiated in > most provinces over a period of a few years, and was in place in all > provinces by 1961. Medical (Doctors) insurance was started in the early > 1970's and in all provinces by the late 1970's. > > IMR per 1,000 births United States Canada > 1950 29.2- 40.7- > 1953 27.9- 35.9- > 1964 25.2- 26.7- > 1983 11.20 08.52 > 1988 10.00 7.60 > 1995 7.52 5.92 > 1998 6.44 5.59 > What is this supposed to prove? Both countries have seen remarkable decreases in infant mortality. > http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/uhc-canus.pdf > > Cancer survival patterns in Honolulu were more nearly like the patterns > in Toronto than were those of any other American city. Because Hawaii is > the one American state that has attempted�though with only partial > success�to implement universal medical insurance, the evidence suggests > that the differences in cancer survival documented in these studies were > primarily the result of differences in access to health services. > > http://www.milbank.org/quarterly/8301feat.html > > Beautiful illustration of the way Canadian life expectancy improved > relative to the U.S. in Figure 2 of that last article. > Life expectancy and infant mortality are very nearly the same in both countries. > > I think it's a mess. Let people get large donations and put who provided > > the money on a website right away. That way people can know if someone > > might be beholden. Then you'd get a much greater mix. Someone like Perot > > could fund a campaign, which he'd probably do by picking a reasonable > > person, instead of himself running, since he himself is nuts. > > Nuts usually like other nuts. It's easier, and more effective, to get > the money out of politics rather than try to inform everyone of who is > getting how much money from whom. > How could you run a campaign if you didn't have any money? How could the government know to give you money and not the 5000 other people who also wanted to run?
From: Jeffrey Turner on 30 May 2007 08:37
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> > > >>>>And what do Chrysler's new owners know about the automobile >>>>industry that Chrysler's automotive engineers don't? >>> >>>It's not clear to me that the owners know a thing about any part of the >>>subject. What is clear to me is that they own the company and therefore >>>they can run it into the ground if that's what they want to do with it. >> >>That's all well and good except for the people whose lives depend on >>that company. That's why your support of dictatorial owners is >>unacceptable. Democracy is necessary. > > I support private property, evidently you do not. I support private property. I just don't think that a large corporation is private. >>>>>>>he's not an expert on marketing, he's not >>>>>> >>>>>>The marketing department are workers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>got a degree in business management. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nor do the owners, for the most part. >>>>> >>>>>The owners are the shareholders. I suspect that the CEO and the board >>>>>does indeed education in business administration. >>>> >>>>Boards of directors have no such requirements. >>> >>>I suspect that most people on major corporation board of directors have >>>degrees in relevant subjects. >> >>I think they've got syphillis. > > Why do you think that? Because I've got as much evidence as you. >>>>>>>Certainly the workers should be >>>>>>>listened to but different people have different capabilities. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's why I recommend democracy, so that everyone can speak to his or >>>>>>her own expertise. >>>>> >>>>>OTOH, I advocate freedom and the right to own property. >>>> >>>>Freedom for the one person at the top. >>> >>>He's not necessarily the owner. CEOs get fired too, you know. >> >>With golden parachutes. > > That's sometimes the case. > >>>>>>>The owners >>>>>>>of the company should decide who makes the big, the "executive", >>>>>>>decisions. If workers want to buy companies, which they can with a >>>>>>>public company by just buying shares until they control, I've no trouble >>>>>>>at all with that. Go for it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Democracy is just a way to ensure that everyone gets listened to, which >>>>>>you concede is a good idea anyway. >>>>> >>>>>I would hope that if we were explaining our views on this, people would >>>>>listen to me more than you. >>>> >>>>I suspect you might. >>> >>>Because if they listen to you, they will support reducing personal >>>freedom. I don't like that. >> >>Reducing personal freedom for the one person at the top, while >>increasing it for everyone else. I suppose the Magna Carta decreased >>the freedom of the English king too. > > Being a king is about owning people, owning a sovereign. I don't support > that. Owning property is what I'm talking about. The freedom to start a > business, to make a profit. You can still start a business and make a profit, you just can't run it as a dictatorship. >>>>>>>>>Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top >>>>>>>>>down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for the >>>>>>>>>service, you can have it because the availability is based on ability to >>>>>>>>>pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs, >>>>>>>>>assistance for the poor, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Their system is keeping a lot more people healthier to a riper old age >>>>>>>>than the U.S. system, which excels mostly in enriching the insurance >>>>>>>>industry. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What are the average lifespans of Americans with health coverage? What >>>>>>>about Americans of different ethnicities? Are the foods that Americans >>>>>>>eat contributing to a lower lifespan compared to some other countries >>>>>>>such as Japan, where they eat more fish, and Italy, where they eat more >>>>>>>olive oil, etc.? You can't answer these questions, which is fine, but >>>>>>>what what isn't is that you don't care. All you want to do is blame the >>>>>>>American health care system for things that might be really be due to a >>>>>>>McDonald's diet. >>>>>> >>>>>>McDonald's is everywhere these days. Up until about 50 years ago, >>>>>>Canada had the same life expectancy as the U.S. No significant >>>>>>differences due to climate or lifestyle. Then Canada started >>>>>>implementing universal healthcare. Their life expectancy now is two >>>>>>years greater than the in U.S. It is clearly due to their universal >>>>>>healthcare system, as Canada hasn't diverged significantly from the >>>>>>U.S. in any other way. >>>>> >>>>>Do you have a cite for this claim? >>>> >>>>http://apha.confex.com/apha/131am/techprogram/paper_73726.htm >>> >>>What is that? >> >>An abstract for a paper on the cost of the American healthcare system. >> >>The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) is just a measure of the number of >>infants that die within a year of birth. I was able to find comparative >>data for both Canada and the U.S. prior to the development of the >>Canadian Universal Health System. Hospital insurance was initiated in >>most provinces over a period of a few years, and was in place in all >>provinces by 1961. Medical (Doctors) insurance was started in the early >>1970's and in all provinces by the late 1970's. >> >>IMR per 1,000 births United States Canada >>1950 29.2- 40.7- >>1953 27.9- 35.9- >>1964 25.2- 26.7- >>1983 11.20 08.52 >>1988 10.00 7.60 >>1995 7.52 5.92 >>1998 6.44 5.59 > > What is this supposed to prove? Both countries have seen remarkable > decreases in infant mortality. Canada's used to be one-third worse and is now significantly better than America's. >>http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/uhc-canus.pdf >> >>Cancer survival patterns in Honolulu were more nearly like the patterns >>in Toronto than were those of any other American city. Because Hawaii is >>the one American state that has attempted�though with only partial >>success�to implement universal medical insurance, the evidence suggests >>that the differences in cancer survival documented in these studies were >>primarily the result of differences in access to health services. >> >>http://www.milbank.org/quarterly/8301feat.html >> >>Beautiful illustration of the way Canadian life expectancy improved >>relative to the U.S. in Figure 2 of that last article. > > Life expectancy and infant mortality are very nearly the same in both > countries. For some value of "nearly the same" that would amount to about 34,000 fewer American babies dying each year if the U.S. number matched the Canadian number. And an extra 700 million years of life for Americans if we achieved their life expectancy. [Interesting features of population in the United States include: the number of babies born in year (about four million)... http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/pop-intr.html] >>>I think it's a mess. Let people get large donations and put who provided >>>the money on a website right away. That way people can know if someone >>>might be beholden. Then you'd get a much greater mix. Someone like Perot >>>could fund a campaign, which he'd probably do by picking a reasonable >>>person, instead of himself running, since he himself is nuts. >> >>Nuts usually like other nuts. It's easier, and more effective, to get >>the money out of politics rather than try to inform everyone of who is >>getting how much money from whom. > > How could you run a campaign if you didn't have any money? How could the > government know to give you money and not the 5000 other people who also > wanted to run? Plenty of other countries manage it. The details can be worked out, but there are international norms for such things. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt |