Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronic Schematics (alt.binaries.schematics.electronic) A place to show and share your electronics schematic drawings. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
The ultimate solution to "fairness"...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...te_agenda.html ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? I'll guess that the empathy genes somehow got squelched. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:14:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys". ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:14:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys". ...Jim Thompson Notice how Jim did not answer the question, but tries to blame Eeyore for the "unfairness". don |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? "You call this stuff food?", he posts, nervously looking over at the wife. -- Paul Hovnanian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? No, not right now. But I'm planning on becoming one of those 'rich people' of whom you speak. And then cutting you peasants in on my booty will no longer be fair. -- Paul Hovnanian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel. |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
don wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys". Notice how Jim did not answer the question, but tries to blame Eeyore for the "unfairness". Ages back someone posted a link to a political standpoint test that placed you on a grid with various factors at each corner. Ironically, Jim wasn't that far from me. Also the American concept of Socialism is very different to that in Europe and indeed probably elsewhere. Graham |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! Graham |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. No, _I_ don't have it, silly. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. I never said EQUAL and that would be wrong. The statement above merely says "narrow the divide". I think that's good. Graham |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote: No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! Then you should have married him. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. Let's just cut straight to a trivial example. If person A works but person B chooses not to is it 'fair' they receive the same income, especially when the only way is to take it away from person A who did the work? If you want to use the 'effort of labor' argument then that doesn't hold water either. Like, if person A expends a boat load of effort and labor making a piece of junk it is 'fair' he receive the same income as someone who makes things that work? If you say yes then *you* go buy the piece of junk so he has an 'income'. Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. In the first place that's rhetorical B.S. The poor have not 'gotten poorer' and the middle class is always 'struggling'. It's called "working." Let's take another 'fairness' example. Say a company has decided to pass out raises to it's employees. What's the 'fair' way to do it? How about just giving everyone a 10% raise? Is that 'fair'? Let's see. If person A is making a wage of 1 and person B is making a wage of 5 then there's a 'wage gap' of 4. After the 'equal' 10% raise the wages are 1.1 and 5.5 for a 'wage gap' of 4.4. Oh, no. We have an 'increasing income gap'. But they both received what is arguably a 'fair' raise. So you tell me why it would be 'fair' for the lower income person to get all the raise just to 'narrow the income gap'? Did the other worker do nothing toward increased profits? Is that fair ? You'd have to first define the meaning of "fair." What's 'unfair' about it? Let's make another example. Say a repair man fixes your toaster for what you consider a 'fair price'. He fixes your neighbor's toaster for the same "fair price' and they're happy with it too. All is 'fair'. Now he discovers a way to do it a million times faster, fixes a million toasters for the same 'fair price', and becomes rich. Now, all of a sudden, it isn't fair? Why? It's the same 'fair price' you were happy with before. Actually, what happens in the real world is he is able to fix them for a third of the previous 'fair price', so you're ahead of the game, and gets 'rich' to boot but, even being better off, you're still ****ed he's 'rich'. Graham Well, your arguements are too logical and reasonable - therefore ARE NOT FAIR. |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote:
don wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys". Notice how Jim did not answer the question, but tries to blame Eeyore for the "unfairness". Ages back someone posted a link to a political standpoint test that placed you on a grid with various factors at each corner. Ironically, Jim wasn't that far from me. Also the American concept of Socialism is very different to that in Europe and indeed probably elsewhere. Graham America was not supposed to be mired in the socialism pit, but we had too much help from FDR.... |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote:
Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! Graham The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper ("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us. I would be pleased to allow you that 1%, i could *use* 1% of your 1%! |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper ("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us. All governments print money to get out of sticky situations and Obama certainly can't be blamed for getting all of us into it. It was the republicans under GWB. Funny that, traditionally, political conservatives have tended to believe in 'sound money'. I would be pleased to allow you that 1%, i could *use* 1% of your 1%! Well there you go you see, you really would like to narrow that divide. Graham |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. No, _I_ don't have it, silly. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. I never said EQUAL I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it does. I totally disagree. Even in Soviet Russia there wasn't true equality. It's either 'bad' by simply being unequal or you're claiming some 'god like' power to decide what a person's talent and labor is 'worth'. Well, that is, if you're trying to make a rational argument, as opposed to just blathering about what you 'like' or 'feel'. and that would be wrong. You mean like the examples I gave but you snipped out? I wanted to cut to the chase. The statement above merely says "narrow the divide". And what's 'fair'. 100 to 1? 10 to 1? 4 to 1? a buck? Say, in the UK a modest minimum wage that leaves little room for fun and no hope of property ownership is around £10,000, a 'decent wage' is £30,000 - £50,000, a 'really good' wage is $100,000 and at the top of the tree somone like BA's MD gets nearly £800,000. So 100:1 would easily cover it. If ( as I have said before ) individual can earn more from their own labours alone that's not unreasonable, but not as an employee. I think that's good. Why? Because money can be diverted to more worthwhile causes. Such as education and health, infrastructure etc. Graham |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Eeyore wrote: No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! Then you should have married him. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not into guys. Graham |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Eeyore wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Eeyore wrote: No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! Then you should have married him. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not into guys. Yet you want the benifits of being a mans wife? -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:33:37 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper ("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us. All governments print money to get out of sticky situations Bull. and Obama certainly can't be blamed for getting all of us into it. Straw man. No one said he was to be "blamed for getting all of us into it." It was the republicans under GWB. Funny that, traditionally, political conservatives have tended to believe in 'sound money'. Funny that you have no clue, albeit entirely expected. The financial 'meltdown' was caused by creating a 'give away to the poor' loan system based on the typical liberal view that 'the banks can afford it', 'business can afford it', 'Wall Street can afford it', just don't ask if the buyer can afford it. In other words, just the sort of thing you love. Ever notice this guy never has any cites? lol |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:33:37 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% ! The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper ("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us. All governments print money to get out of sticky situations Bull. and Obama certainly can't be blamed for getting all of us into it. Straw man. No one said he was to be "blamed for getting all of us into it." It was the republicans under GWB. Funny that, traditionally, political conservatives have tended to believe in 'sound money'. Funny that you have no clue, albeit entirely expected. The financial 'meltdown' was caused by creating a 'give away to the poor' loan system based on the typical liberal view that 'the banks can afford it', 'business can afford it', 'Wall Street can afford it', just don't ask if the buyer can afford it. In other words, just the sort of thing you love. Ever notice this guy never has any cites? lol |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. No one. The article is by lying drunk Charles Krauthammer. |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. No one. The article is by lying drunk Charles Krauthammer. |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. No, _I_ don't have it, silly. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. I never said EQUAL I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it does. A ridiculous lie. |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. No, _I_ don't have it, silly. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. I never said EQUAL I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it does. A ridiculous lie. |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:40:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. No, _I_ don't have it, silly. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. I never said EQUAL I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it does. I totally disagree. Even in Soviet Russia there wasn't true equality. I didn't say there was. It *is*, however, the 'argument' used despite it never happening, because those in power always find some 'rationale' for why *they* get 'privileges'. It's either 'bad' by simply being unequal or you're claiming some 'god like' power to decide what a person's talent and labor is 'worth'. Well, that is, if you're trying to make a rational argument, as opposed to just blathering about what you 'like' or 'feel'. and that would be wrong. You mean like the examples I gave but you snipped out? I wanted to cut to the chase. You mean cut out the chase. The statement above merely says "narrow the divide". And what's 'fair'. 100 to 1? 10 to 1? 4 to 1? a buck? Say, in the UK a modest minimum wage that leaves little room for fun and no hope of property ownership is around £10,000, a 'decent wage' is £30,000 - £50,000, a 'really good' wage is $100,000 and at the top of the tree somone like BA's MD gets nearly £800,000. So 100:1 would easily cover it. If ( as I have said before ) individual can earn more from their own labours alone that's not unreasonable, but not as an employee. The challenge was for you to provide some rationale for what constitutes 'fair' but all you've done is give how much of their own money you've arbitrarily decided to let people keep, at least for the moment. And if we got a dozen more liberals in here they'd likely come up with a dozen different opinions because they're all completely devoid of any principle. It's either how much you 'want' or what you feel you can get away with taking before ****ing off too many people who vote your ass out. I think that's good. Why? Because money can be diverted to more worthwhile causes. Such as education and health, infrastructure etc. See? It's just "I want the money" and you figure to take it. Him personally? You're funny. lol |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:40:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for it. No, _I_ don't have it, silly. " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government. Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted god like powers to make such a determination. I never said EQUAL I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it does. I totally disagree. Even in Soviet Russia there wasn't true equality. I didn't say there was. It *is*, however, the 'argument' used despite it never happening, because those in power always find some 'rationale' for why *they* get 'privileges'. It's either 'bad' by simply being unequal or you're claiming some 'god like' power to decide what a person's talent and labor is 'worth'. Well, that is, if you're trying to make a rational argument, as opposed to just blathering about what you 'like' or 'feel'. and that would be wrong. You mean like the examples I gave but you snipped out? I wanted to cut to the chase. You mean cut out the chase. The statement above merely says "narrow the divide". And what's 'fair'. 100 to 1? 10 to 1? 4 to 1? a buck? Say, in the UK a modest minimum wage that leaves little room for fun and no hope of property ownership is around £10,000, a 'decent wage' is £30,000 - £50,000, a 'really good' wage is $100,000 and at the top of the tree somone like BA's MD gets nearly £800,000. So 100:1 would easily cover it. If ( as I have said before ) individual can earn more from their own labours alone that's not unreasonable, but not as an employee. The challenge was for you to provide some rationale for what constitutes 'fair' but all you've done is give how much of their own money you've arbitrarily decided to let people keep, at least for the moment. And if we got a dozen more liberals in here they'd likely come up with a dozen different opinions because they're all completely devoid of any principle. It's either how much you 'want' or what you feel you can get away with taking before ****ing off too many people who vote your ass out. I think that's good. Why? Because money can be diverted to more worthwhile causes. Such as education and health, infrastructure etc. See? It's just "I want the money" and you figure to take it. Him personally? You're funny. lol |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Robert Baer wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Ain't nuttin' fair... In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed, but not forced to be "equal". There's far from equality here. Graham |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
Jim Thompson wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Eeyore wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: The ultimate solution to "fairness"... Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again .... " Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. " Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ? Graham You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair? Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys". Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another matter. Graham |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another matter. You need someone to keep those yacht builders employed. :-) |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:55:49 -0700, "Joel Koltner" wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another matter. You need someone to keep those yacht builders employed. :-) While there's some merit to that point there's a bigger issue involved and Eeyore exemplifies it with "obscenely rich." The problem with that notion is that once started there's no end to it and "obscenely" becomes "excessively," then "more than 'enough'," and eventually it's virtually any differential because, despite all the braying about 'fairness', there's no principle involved. It's just opinion, envy, and greed deciding who it's 'ok' to extort money from. No it isn't anything like that slippery slope. The point here is that the ratio of 80% percentile income to 20% percentile is a very good predictor of both teenage pregnancy rates and violent crime. A ratio of 5 or 6 seems to be a fair compromise. Countries where the rich overpay themselves and exploit the poor mercilessly invariably have more violent crime. The US is surprisingly at one global extreme for teenage pregnancy see for example: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/7/1181/F1 Put simply if the ratio between the haves and the have nots is too large and widely seen to be unfair then the larger underclass start helping themselves to whatever they like. The haves are doing the same thing but in a different way by exploiting the weakness of their workers. This was derided in classical liberalism as "organized theft," where the majority gangs up to rob whoever they feel like robbing this week, and is not much different than a 'poor' street gang robbing some 'rich dude' except it's all 'legal', of course, because, hey, we 'voted' to screw you. But then, maybe the street gang 'voted' on it too. Classical Manchester Liberalism and the campaign for Free Trade was founded in the anti-Corn Laws league that fought to stop price control from keeping corn (wheat) prices artificially high. It was a populist uprising against vested interests of the landed gentry, lawyers and merchant bankers who were the politicians of the day. To vote then you had to own enough land and city dwellers for the most part did not qualify. The original Corn laws were crafted to make the rich richer and the poor poorer - and from fighting that injustice Liberalism was founded. Regards, Martin Brown |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
The ultimate solution to "fairness"
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:55:49 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another matter. You need someone to keep those yacht builders employed. :-) That's more than a joke. Watch what happens when Obama "obscenely" taxes the "rich". All kinds of service people will be out of work. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The ultimate solution to "fairness" | Electronic Schematics | |||
For women who desire the traditional 12-marker dials, the "Faceto,""Juro" and "Rilati" all add a little more functionality, without sacrificingthe diamonds. | Woodworking | |||
Finally good solution of "how to store 625 tools for 12 years" | Metalworking |