On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:16:58 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

OK. Please excuse the grins and facetiousness. Please also forgive my
playing with words. I enjoy it. I am taking this subject seriously. It
affects all of us for good and bad, including the Chinese. But I often
hide behind a smartarse exterior.

I hope those Chinese US$0.80 / hour workers are proud of the space
shot. While I realise that we have to account for living costs when
talking income, I bet that space shot did not cost only 1/50th of a
shuttle launch..........hmmm....... I withdraw that bet. It _might_
have done! Man! Those Chinese astronauts are _brave_.

Wup! Hang on! A quote from Gary C....if I may, Gary.

Talking of China's budget........

"Their entire space program runs on a budget of under
$1.5 billion per year. The US is spending $28 billion this year, "

So apparently China is spending 1/20th of the US space budget, while
the workers get 1/50th of the pay. I was safe with that bet after all.

Damn!

Facts! You want facts? Sitting on the fence gives you splinters up the
bum! I have counted mine. There are too many. I challenge anyone to
prove me wrong! G Funny you know? Maybe that's why sitting on the
fence is always described as covering your arse! G.

To the matters at hand..........

Actually, I had put "fuzzball philosophy" in front of that fairness
paragraph because I agree it is exactly that. Fairness is among the
least _reasons_ for anything happening (note I do not say the least
reason for doing anything, liberalist softy that I am G)

I feel that my second paragraph (omitted) has more weight. When the
"unfairees" see the unbfairness, they react.

Fairness is another issue, Nick. We aren't arguing about fairness. What Gary
and Carl are saying is that there is an *economic* reason for their claims.
I don't know of any, and no one has presented one here except in fuzzy,
qualitative terms.

A lot of these fuzzy ideas break down when you look at actual numbers and
actual patterns of economic events. This subject can't be discussed in real
terms without a lot of solid numbers to prove or disprove one idea or the
other. Gathering them is very hard work. Even finding them can be hard work.
That's the hard work on which I've spent so much of my time lately, and it
makes me skeptical about these off-the-cuff and anecdotal "theories." They
often collapse when you look at the numbers.

hmmm....I disagree that numbers, or economic as distinct from social
events, provide all the answers. Regarding the fuzziness of the posts
that prompted these between "you and I" G, Gary was writing about
the imbalance of the use of resources, and the impossibility of
maintaining that imbalance in a stable way, AFAICS. Carl agreed. I am
not sure whether they _were_ arguing economically, together or
individually, but if they were, I agree that they have not presented
facts.

On the other hand, human behaviour should be taken into serious
account here. There have been just a _couple_ of events in history,
causing enormous change, because of that exact situation.

...........the imbalance, that is. Carl's agreement, and even Gary's
statements, may have caused some bobbles throughout time G.

Gary may have been referring to that human behaviour angle.

Gary...Gary....chance to support me......errr hedge your bets.....
here! G
************************************************** ****************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/