On 5/30/2010 7:06 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:



Greed is good. A wise sage once said "Were it not for greed, no man would
build a house, take a wife, or father a child." Greed is a normal human
emotion, given by God - and God does not make junk (except for the gall
bladder).

And the appendix. Although I have long suggested that the real function
of both is to give general surgeons a certain floor under their
earnings.


Probably a good thread for an alt.religion or soc.religion discussion, but I
can't resist he Sounds like some good arguments against the traditional
belief that the supposedly wise Judaic-Christian God created human beings and
created them in "his" own image! I know, I know; someone is going to come back
with the reply that the appendix and gall bladder are important and it is only
our ignorance that causes us to belief otherwise. (Actually the gall bladder is
important; not essential, but important. The appendix? Not enough evidence yet
to say the same.)

On 5/31/2010 2:21 AM, harry wrote:

There are greedy people everywhere. Only in America do you build a
culture on it. We had a short period over here of it. We called it
"Thatcherism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatche...erite_morality

However, we saw the flaws in many of it's ideals, it is largely
abandoned today.

Harry, you've got me curious. You've referred to Tony Blair as B-liar in your
posts, and you disparage Thatcherism. What is your political preference?

In article , Peter
wrote:

And the appendix. Although I have long suggested that the real function
of both is to give general surgeons a certain floor under their
earnings.


Probably a good thread for an alt.religion or soc.religion discussion, but I
can't resist he Sounds like some good arguments against the traditional
belief that the supposedly wise Judaic-Christian God created human beings and
created them in "his" own image! I know, I know; someone is going to come
back
with the reply that the appendix and gall bladder are important and it is
only
our ignorance that causes us to belief otherwise. (Actually the gall bladder
is
important; not essential, but important. The appendix? Not enough evidence
yet
to say the same.)

Both of those were created by God to establish a floor under the
earnings of general surgeons. Seems like a good a reason as any.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

harry wrote:

Don't fall into their propaganda trap. The Chinese gov. is truely
evil. When they were a communist society, every person in China was
entitled to a job, a house, education and free medical treatment.
It was of course a repressive society but people had rights.

That was the theory, but the practice was very different. In practice, Chinese
of that era were slaves. You lived where you were told, worked at the job you
were told, paid what you were told, in many cases, married who you were told.

All could be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat. While the constitution
promised rights, there was no effective mechanism to enforce them, so they
didn't exist. While the current government is no model of western democracy, it
is far better than the pre-1985 government. Ask anyone who has lived through
both.

You should visit China. It is a fascinating place.

-- Doug

On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:22:33 -0400, Peter wrote:

On 5/31/2010 2:21 AM, harry wrote:

There are greedy people everywhere. Only in America do you build a
culture on it. We had a short period over here of it. We called it
"Thatcherism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatche...erite_morality

However, we saw the flaws in many of it's ideals, it is largely
abandoned today.

Harry, you've got me curious. You've referred to Tony Blair as B-liar in your
posts, and you disparage Thatcherism. What is your political preference?

Hate.

On May 31, 2:22�pm, Peter wrote:
On 5/31/2010 2:21 AM, harry wrote:



There are greedy people everywhere. �Only in America do you build a
culture on it. �We had a short period over here of it. �We called it
"Thatcherism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatche...erite_morality

However, we saw the flaws in many of it's ideals, it is largely
abandoned today.

Harry, you've got me curious. �You've referred to Tony Blair as B-liar in your
posts, and you disparage Thatcherism. �What is your political preference?

l, Like lots of people in the UK I have a deep suspicion of our
politicians. The ideas I set down are just to inform Americans of the
thoughts of lots of people in the UK, not neccesarily my views.
I was and still am an admirer of Maggie Thatcher in most things. Our
economy was completely f***d up when she came to power and she put it
right. It was a painful process. As it will be once again. We have
lots of people that think everything can be fixed without pain. Well
it's not so, we are all going to hurt lots more I believe.
It was actually her that put forward the idea that greed was good. I
don't agree with that. There's a difference between need and greed.
I think a lot of the above applies to the USA too.
My politics are right wing but that's not the same as republicanism.
Rebuplicanism is the politics of the wealthy robbing the poor.
I put my country and native people first.
I respect any American who puts America first. There are lots of
people on this thread who don't do that. It's a sad thing to see once
mighty America rotting from within due to greed, lack of patriotism,
moral turpitude and avarice.
The most amazing thing of all are the ones that can't see that "W" and
republicanism has done all this. And don't seem to care.

On May 31, 5:18�pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
harry wrote:
Don't fall into their propaganda trap. �The Chinese gov. is truely
evil. �When they were a communist society, every person in China was
entitled to a job, a house, education and free medical treatment.
It was of course a repressive society but people had rights.

That was the theory, but the practice was very different. �In practice, Chinese
of that era were slaves. �You lived where you were told, worked at the job you
were told, paid what you were told, in many cases, married who you were told.

All could be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat. � While the constitution
promised rights, there was no effective mechanism to enforce �them, so they
didn't exist. �While the current government is no model of western democracy, it
is far better than the pre-1985 government. �Ask anyone who has lived through
both.

You should visit China. �It is a fascinating place. �

I think the pre 85 gov. was better than what preceeded that, Medieval
serfdom.
The problem with communism is that people are not ants.
I have visited a few communist countries. Nobody seemed oppressed or
very poor. Nobody was rich. Few were happy. But that was because
they'd never seen the truely awful places.



China is on my list. I like to travel around on my own on the buses
the places I go. That might be a problem due to language. I also
like to get myself in touch with a few locals & if possible stay with
them (reciprocally if possible) & get the insider's view, again
possibly a problem with China. I might end up on some blasted tour.
Dunno if I could stand that :-)

hibb wrote:
Call it as you wish. I'm not a Socialist, Marxists. Pink-O Communist.

Next you will say the Nazi invented propaganda.

Are you saying that horrible things that are a hell of a lot worse
than wrongly taking organs from dead people don't happen in the good
ole USA? Looks like you have that propaganda thing down pat.

You mean like 45,000 people dying each year due to lack of medical insurance?

On Sun, 30 May 2010 23:21:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Interesting story about the colonist I haven't heard of. Was this in
America? Or did you just make it up?

"...Jamestown

In 1607, English colonists arrived at Chesapeake Bay, a more fertile
region than Roanoke. After a peace treaty with Spain, there was less
risk of Spanish attack and they set up Jamestown. Of the initial 104
men, only 38 survived longer than nine months. The rest died of
disease and starvation.

In 1609, new arrivals boosted the numbers to 220 but a bad winter
killed all but 60. One starving colonist killed and ate his wife. He
was tried, found guilty and burnt at the stake...."

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...se/colony.html

Peter wrote:
On 5/30/2010 6:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:


No, restrictions on the employer interfere with the negotiations.

Further, the restrictions apply to the applicant also. For example,
an applicant cannot demand to being paid less than the minimum wage
or insist on not wearing the government-mandated safety helmet.



Why do you again change the subject? Now you are talking about some
hypothetical "freedom" to "demand" lower wages or reduced safety on
the job? Next I suppose you might argue for the "freedom" for
criminals to rape and pillage your family with total immunity. Don't
you realize that what you are arguing for is not consistent with a
government or with an organized soceity? It is total absence of
government, e.g. anarchy. I can't figure out if you are perverse or
truly ignorant. In either case, your positions are non-starters.

Hmm. Maybe your newsreader skips things.

I was answering a question ("How does that change the basic fact that anyone
in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for?").

My point was that, due to government interference, there are restrictions on
hiring, both on the putative employer and the prospective employee. These
restrictions can prevent a willing employer and a willing employee from
negotiating a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Peter wrote:


Greed is good? For someone who is talking about what God has given,
and who cites God's production standards, you are probably a
believer. Therefore, you need be more familiar with another of God's
products (according to your belief), known as the Bible. Try reading
it. Specifically the sections of both the Old and New Testament that
characterize greed. I don't think you will find any support for your
position. If you can't read well enough to do that, or if you don't
have the patience or intelligence to teach yourself, go ask a
clergyman. You might learned that the truth is quite the contrary!

"Greed" is mentioned six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Prov 21:26, Eze
22:12, Ps 17:12, Prov 1:19, 15:27, Is 56:11) and in none of them is greed
condemned. In all cases, greed is mentioned as a characteristic of something
else. You are correct in that greed is not specifically praised - it doesn't
need to be in that it is a product of God's creation.

Quite possibly the New Testament has a different spin - I don't know. I'm
equally in the dark regarding the content of the Newer Testament (the Koran)
and the Newest Testament (Book of Mormon).

In my view, greed is good. Admittedly, greed has to be handled more gingerly
than some other emotions, but it is good.

A more concrete example would be dynamite compared to a bowling ball.
Dynamite has the capacity to do great good when used correctly and terrible
harm when handled improperly. A bowling ball has only an insignificant
possibility of causing harm.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine yourself standing behind Jonas Salk as
he peered through his microscope. He was motivated to spend many sleepless
nights by the horror of small children in iron lungs, but it's reasonable to
believe he was, in part, motivated by feelings and emotions that many
religious people would consider sinful!

He probably had some ENVY of Sabin, who was getting all the publicity. He
quite possibly HATED the virus he was studying. He was probably seeking
PRIDE in his work and hoping, someday, that people would pat him on the back
and call him a nice guy. And he was probably GREEDY enough to think "If I
can whip this problem, I can get enough money to do the research I want to
do without having to suck up to the bureacrats and fill out interminable
grant applications!"

So, because of these 'despicable' motives (and a lot of altruistic ones),
we've virtually eradicated Polio within your lifetime and mine.

And you can thank "greed" - at least partially.

On 5/31/2010 8:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:


I was answering a question ("How does that change the basic fact that anyone
in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for?").

My point was that, due to government interference, there are restrictions on
hiring, both on the putative employer and the prospective employee. These
restrictions can prevent a willing employer and a willing employee from
negotiating a mutually beneficial arrangement.



How can you assume that such a negotiation would always be mutually beneficial?
For example, let's say that you are an employer, owning lots of assets,
offering 20 jobs with 100s of workers already on your payroll, and I am an
unemployed, hungry, person about to be evicted for non-payment of rent. I am
desperate for money and you are not desperate to hire, just looking to ramp up
your production. You are in an excellent position to take advantage of me and
pay me less than I deserve, enabling me to pay my rent but only afford unhealthy
high fat junk food unless there are "government restrictions" on you that get us
closer to parity in our negotiations. On the other hand, I might be a totally
dishonest jerk who sees an opportunity to get a good paying professional job by
falsifying my credentials, and you are desperate to hire replacements so that
you do not default on some contract and have to pay penalty fees for
non-delivery of professional services. I am in a good position to take
advantage of you unless there are "government restrictions" severely penalizing
me for falsifying my professional credentials (e.g. professional license). In
both circumstances, my employment for you would not be a mutually beneficial
arrangement. In the first example I would be getting the short end of the stick
and in the second example you would be.

Many of the "restrictions" you decry came about to address the completely
unequal relationship between employers and employees going back to the dawn of
the industrial revolution. If you do not know what I am talking about, read
"The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, read about child labor, or about the Triangle
Shirtwaist fire and the horrific sweatshop conditions that those employees had
no power to affect, etc. Your perspective is idealistic and theoretical, but
has not been shown to be accurate in practice (reference: actual history).

A willing employer and a willing employee should have no problem negotiating a
fair employment contract providing neither party wants to try to take advantage
of the other. Human nature being what it is, that circumstance is not likely to
occur reliably without some "restrictions" that try to keep both parties on the
straight and narrow.

On 5/31/2010 8:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:


Greed is good? For someone who is talking about what God has given,
and who cites God's production standards, you are probably a
believer. Therefore, you need be more familiar with another of God's
products (according to your belief), known as the Bible. Try reading
it. Specifically the sections of both the Old and New Testament that
characterize greed. I don't think you will find any support for your
position. If you can't read well enough to do that, or if you don't
have the patience or intelligence to teach yourself, go ask a
clergyman. You might learned that the truth is quite the contrary!

"Greed" is mentioned six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Prov 21:26, Eze
22:12, Ps 17:12, Prov 1:19, 15:27, Is 56:11) and in none of them is greed
condemned. In all cases, greed is mentioned as a characteristic of something
else. You are correct in that greed is not specifically praised - it doesn't
need to be in that it is a product of God's creation.

Quite possibly the New Testament has a different spin - I don't know. I'm
equally in the dark regarding the content of the Newer Testament (the Koran)
and the Newest Testament (Book of Mormon).

In my view, greed is good. Admittedly, greed has to be handled more gingerly
than some other emotions, but it is good.

A more concrete example would be dynamite compared to a bowling ball.
Dynamite has the capacity to do great good when used correctly and terrible
harm when handled improperly. A bowling ball has only an insignificant
possibility of causing harm.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine yourself standing behind Jonas Salk as
he peered through his microscope. He was motivated to spend many sleepless
nights by the horror of small children in iron lungs, but it's reasonable to
believe he was, in part, motivated by feelings and emotions that many
religious people would consider sinful!

He probably had some ENVY of Sabin, who was getting all the publicity. He
quite possibly HATED the virus he was studying. He was probably seeking
PRIDE in his work and hoping, someday, that people would pat him on the back
and call him a nice guy. And he was probably GREEDY enough to think "If I
can whip this problem, I can get enough money to do the research I want to
do without having to suck up to the bureacrats and fill out interminable
grant applications!"

So, because of these 'despicable' motives (and a lot of altruistic ones),
we've virtually eradicated Polio within your lifetime and mine.

And you can thank "greed" - at least partially.


First of all, the Salk vaccine was first on the market and first used. Quoting
from Wikipedia, "The first was developed by Jonas Salk and first tested in 1952.
Announced to the world by Salk on April 12, 1955, it consists of an injected
dose of inactivated (dead) poliovirus. An oral vaccine was developed by Albert
Sabin using attenuated poliovirus. Human trials of Sabin's vaccine began in 1957
and it was licensed in 1962." If anything, Sabin would have had the motivation
to get some of the recognition that Salk had already received. I had the
opportunity to meet and speak with Dr. Sabin on more than one occasion. It's
sad to see you confuse or conflate greed with altruism.

On 5/30/2010 3:18 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 00:00:35 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? ?In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have what's called "positive discrimination".

You guys use "positive discrimination"?!

Shocks the **** out of me, but being the Brit, your are, I understand.

P.S. Catch a flight from Paris or London into Las Vegas.!!

Who made up that comment -- "positive discrimination" ?


In England, a white male can honestly say he was positively
discriminated against.

TDD

On 5/29/2010 3:34 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, wrote:

On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

I've explained Affirmative Action in the USA to my friends in other
countries by using the example of the quadriplegic gymnastics coach.

TDD

On 5/31/2010 12:17 PM, harry wrote:
On May 31, 5:18�pm, Douglas wrote:
wrote:
Don't fall into their propaganda trap. �The Chinese gov. is truely
evil. �When they were a communist society, every person in China was
entitled to a job, a house, education and free medical treatment.
It was of course a repressive society but people had rights.

That was the theory, but the practice was very different. �In practice, Chinese
of that era were slaves. �You lived where you were told, worked at the job you
were told, paid what you were told, in many cases, married who you were told.

All could be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat. � While the constitution
promised rights, there was no effective mechanism to enforce �them, so they
didn't exist. �While the current government is no model of western democracy, it
is far better than the pre-1985 government. �Ask anyone who has lived through
both.

You should visit China. �It is a fascinating place. �

I think the pre 85 gov. was better than what preceeded that, Medieval
serfdom.
The problem with communism is that people are not ants.
I have visited a few communist countries. Nobody seemed oppressed or
very poor. Nobody was rich. Few were happy. But that was because
they'd never seen the truely awful places.



China is on my list. I like to travel around on my own on the buses
the places I go. That might be a problem due to language. I also
like to get myself in touch with a few locals& if possible stay with
them (reciprocally if possible)& get the insider's view, again
possibly a problem with China. I might end up on some blasted tour.
Dunno if I could stand that :-)

It would be interesting to hear from some of our Chinese cousins in
this newsgroup. I don't know if The Great Internet Wall of China
includes Usenet. The ancient cultures of the East are quite fascinating.

TDD

On 5/30/2010 5:21 PM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Then England got trade unions...

And you don't have them in America?

Yeah, but they're mostly moribund. The union-dominated states are failing
like Britain (New York, California, Michigan, etc.).

The British Empire was destroyed by the economic effort of fighting
tyranny. Some thing the US also once did, except when republicans
were in power.

Agreed.

Then they ground down their own population to enrich a tiny majority
that already had more than they needed.

"Need" has nothing to do - or should have nothing to do - with western
economic thought. The only thing that reasonably counts is "want."

I agree that there's some waste. A rich person can only live in only one
mansion at a time. While he's at villa "A," the 57 rooms in chateau "B" are
going to waste. Maybe he could be encouraged to open those 57 rooms to the
local destitute?

Same with his yachts. While he's lollygagging with the "Pacific" yacht, the
"Atlantic" cruiser could take the water-deprived fishing.


Give The Obama Administration a little more time and they'll start
mandating "sharing". Government control of everything is their goal.

TDD

On 5/31/2010 7:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/30/2010 6:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:


No, restrictions on the employer interfere with the negotiations.

Further, the restrictions apply to the applicant also. For example,
an applicant cannot demand to being paid less than the minimum wage
or insist on not wearing the government-mandated safety helmet.



Why do you again change the subject? Now you are talking about some
hypothetical "freedom" to "demand" lower wages or reduced safety on
the job? Next I suppose you might argue for the "freedom" for
criminals to rape and pillage your family with total immunity. Don't
you realize that what you are arguing for is not consistent with a
government or with an organized soceity? It is total absence of
government, e.g. anarchy. I can't figure out if you are perverse or
truly ignorant. In either case, your positions are non-starters.

Hmm. Maybe your newsreader skips things.

I was answering a question ("How does that change the basic fact that anyone
in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for?").

My point was that, due to government interference, there are restrictions on
hiring, both on the putative employer and the prospective employee. These
restrictions can prevent a willing employer and a willing employee from
negotiating a mutually beneficial arrangement.



You haven't mentioned people like me and thee who work for themselves. I
gave up on the corporate world of quota hiring and Affirmative Action a
few decades ago. I work for who I please and when I please especially
when someone says please by waving hundred dollar bills under my nose.
Does that make me a ho?

TDD

On 5/30/2010 12:29 PM, harry wrote:
On May 30, 1:27�pm, wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
�wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Harry, we greedy Americans give more to help our fellow man than any
other country. If there is a disaster somewhere, Americans are going
to send help and even if it's a country that doesn't like America,
we're going to offer help. Americans are every sort of person you can
think of, some are very bad but most are not the greedy *******s you
seem to think we are and it's quite tiresome to hear it over and over.
It's like hearing people say that all white folks in The South are
racist and descendants of slave owners, it's preposterous and very
insulting. If we have a fault, it's that we don't tell the rest of the
world to **** off. Do you think for a second that Americans would
hesitate to come to the aid of your country if you were attacked or
beset by some natural disaster? What do you think we greedy *******s
would do? I'd like to know?

TDD

Peter wrote:
On 5/31/2010 8:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:


I was answering a question ("How does that change the basic fact
that anyone in the U.S. can take
any job they can get hired for?").

My point was that, due to government interference, there are
restrictions on hiring, both on the putative employer and the
prospective employee. These restrictions can prevent a willing
employer and a willing employee from negotiating a mutually
beneficial arrangement.

How can you assume that such a negotiation would always be mutually
beneficial? For example, let's say that you are an employer, owning
lots of assets, offering 20 jobs with 100s of workers already on your
payroll, and I am an unemployed, hungry, person about to be evicted
for non-payment of rent. I am desperate for money and you are not
desperate to hire, just looking to ramp up your production. You are
in an excellent position to take advantage of me and pay me less than
I deserve, enabling me to pay my rent but only afford unhealthy high
fat junk food unless there are "government restrictions" on you that
get us closer to parity in our negotiations.

Deserve? ("To be entitled to; to have earned; to be worthy of")

At the least, you are not "entitled" to my money, nor have you yet "earned"
it. You may be "worthy" of it in someone's eyes, but mine are the only ones
that count.




Many of the "restrictions" you decry came about to address the
completely unequal relationship between employers and employees going
back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. If you do not know
what I am talking about, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, read
about child labor, or about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and the
horrific sweatshop conditions that those employees had no power to
affect, etc. Your perspective is idealistic and theoretical, but has
not been shown to be accurate in practice (reference: actual
history).

Not accurate? Ever buy a loaf of bread?

Peter wrote:
On 5/31/2010 8:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:


Greed is good? For someone who is talking about what God has given,
and who cites God's production standards, you are probably a
believer. Therefore, you need be more familiar with another of
God's products (according to your belief), known as the Bible. Try
reading it. Specifically the sections of both the Old and New
Testament that characterize greed. I don't think you will find any
support for your position. If you can't read well enough to do
that, or if you don't have the patience or intelligence to teach
yourself, go ask a clergyman. You might learned that the truth is
quite the contrary!

"Greed" is mentioned six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Prov 21:26,
Eze 22:12, Ps 17:12, Prov 1:19, 15:27, Is 56:11) and in none of them
is greed condemned. In all cases, greed is mentioned as a
characteristic of something else. You are correct in that greed is
not specifically praised - it doesn't need to be in that it is a
product of God's creation. Quite possibly the New Testament has a
different spin - I don't
know. I'm equally in the dark regarding the content of the Newer
Testament (the Koran) and the Newest Testament (Book of Mormon).

In my view, greed is good. Admittedly, greed has to be handled more
gingerly than some other emotions, but it is good.

A more concrete example would be dynamite compared to a bowling ball.
Dynamite has the capacity to do great good when used correctly and
terrible harm when handled improperly. A bowling ball has only an
insignificant possibility of causing harm.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine yourself standing behind Jonas
Salk as he peered through his microscope. He was motivated to spend
many sleepless nights by the horror of small children in iron lungs,
but it's reasonable to believe he was, in part, motivated by
feelings and emotions that many religious people would consider
sinful! He probably had some ENVY of Sabin, who was getting all the
publicity. He quite possibly HATED the virus he was studying. He was
probably seeking PRIDE in his work and hoping, someday, that people
would pat him on the back and call him a nice guy. And he was
probably GREEDY enough to think "If I can whip this problem, I can
get enough money to do the research I want to do without having to
suck up to the bureacrats and fill out interminable grant
applications!" So, because of these 'despicable' motives (and a lot of
altruistic
ones), we've virtually eradicated Polio within your lifetime and
mine. And you can thank "greed" - at least partially.


First of all, the Salk vaccine was first on the market and first
used. Quoting from Wikipedia, "The first was developed by Jonas Salk
and first tested in 1952. Announced to the world by Salk on April 12,
1955, it consists of an injected dose of inactivated (dead)
poliovirus. An oral vaccine was developed by Albert Sabin using
attenuated poliovirus. Human trials of Sabin's vaccine began in 1957
and it was licensed in 1962." If anything, Sabin would have had the
motivation to get some of the recognition that Salk had already
received. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Dr. Sabin on
more than one occasion. It's sad to see you confuse or conflate
greed with altruism.

My mistake. So switch the names in my example. I was not confusing greed
with altruism. I simply said that PART of the motivations for Salk/Sabin
(pick one) were sufficient, in some people's mind, to damn him to
everlasting Hell.

On 6/1/2010 8:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/31/2010 8:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:


Greed is good? For someone who is talking about what God has given,
and who cites God's production standards, you are probably a
believer. Therefore, you need be more familiar with another of
God's products (according to your belief), known as the Bible. Try
reading it. Specifically the sections of both the Old and New
Testament that characterize greed. I don't think you will find any
support for your position. If you can't read well enough to do
that, or if you don't have the patience or intelligence to teach
yourself, go ask a clergyman. You might learned that the truth is
quite the contrary!

"Greed" is mentioned six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Prov 21:26,
Eze 22:12, Ps 17:12, Prov 1:19, 15:27, Is 56:11) and in none of them
is greed condemned. In all cases, greed is mentioned as a
characteristic of something else. You are correct in that greed is
not specifically praised - it doesn't need to be in that it is a
product of God's creation. Quite possibly the New Testament has a
different spin - I don't
know. I'm equally in the dark regarding the content of the Newer
Testament (the Koran) and the Newest Testament (Book of Mormon).

In my view, greed is good. Admittedly, greed has to be handled more
gingerly than some other emotions, but it is good.

A more concrete example would be dynamite compared to a bowling ball.
Dynamite has the capacity to do great good when used correctly and
terrible harm when handled improperly. A bowling ball has only an
insignificant possibility of causing harm.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine yourself standing behind Jonas
Salk as he peered through his microscope. He was motivated to spend
many sleepless nights by the horror of small children in iron lungs,
but it's reasonable to believe he was, in part, motivated by
feelings and emotions that many religious people would consider
sinful! He probably had some ENVY of Sabin, who was getting all the
publicity. He quite possibly HATED the virus he was studying. He was
probably seeking PRIDE in his work and hoping, someday, that people
would pat him on the back and call him a nice guy. And he was
probably GREEDY enough to think "If I can whip this problem, I can
get enough money to do the research I want to do without having to
suck up to the bureacrats and fill out interminable grant
applications!" So, because of these 'despicable' motives (and a lot of
altruistic
ones), we've virtually eradicated Polio within your lifetime and
mine. And you can thank "greed" - at least partially.


First of all, the Salk vaccine was first on the market and first
used. Quoting from Wikipedia, "The first was developed by Jonas Salk
and first tested in 1952. Announced to the world by Salk on April 12,
1955, it consists of an injected dose of inactivated (dead)
poliovirus. An oral vaccine was developed by Albert Sabin using
attenuated poliovirus. Human trials of Sabin's vaccine began in 1957
and it was licensed in 1962." If anything, Sabin would have had the
motivation to get some of the recognition that Salk had already
received. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Dr. Sabin on
more than one occasion. It's sad to see you confuse or conflate
greed with altruism.

My mistake. So switch the names in my example. I was not confusing greed
with altruism. I simply said that PART of the motivations for Salk/Sabin
(pick one) were sufficient, in some people's mind, to damn him to
everlasting Hell.


You're careless with the facts spills over into all of your postings.

By the way, as far as your contention that "greed is good", have you bothered to
look up the definition of the word "greed"? In my dictionary (American
Heritage), it is, "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs
or deserves".

If you want to rethink your statement, and defend a position that competition is
good, or ambition is good, or a desire to better one's self is good, you are
more likely to make a credible case.

Oren:

Give me some examples, education and health care for starters.

1. Abolish the Department of Education.


I asked for examples. I'm looking for specific examples of private health
care and education that is cheaper and better.

Jim Yanik:

Comrade Obama sends HIS kids to private schools.
ISTR that Comrade Obama attended private schools himself.
I suspect most of the DemocRAT Congresscritters do the same.

Isn't Harvard a private school?

and US healthcare is where the foreigners all come when they need
medical trteatments. I note the mayor of Newfoundland,Canada came to
the US to get his medical care,instead of submitting to the
much-vaunted Canadian system.

The claim was that private industry could do education and health care,
better and cheaper. I'm looking for specific examples that prove that
claim, along with citations. What Obama does is irrelevant to the claim.
What Williams does is also irrelevant.

:

Give me some examples, education and health care for starters.

In the case of education, you only need to look at private schools
versus public schools. Which is producing a better product in terms
of educated students.

The claim was cheaper and better. As for better, I have one daughter in
private school and one in public school. I would the quality of
education much higher in the public school. Yes there are reasons why
one is in a private school and the other in a public school but they
are irrelevant to the discussion (it has nothing to do with behavior).
But that is only one example and proves nothing either way.



In areas where vouchers have been implemented
so that parents can decide whether to send their children to public
schools or use the voucher for private schools, the results have been
the private schools are doing a far better job.

This is very interesting. Source?

In the case of public healthcare, take a look at the fraud going on
in Medicare/Medicaid.

The costs are a fraction of those in private health care and judging by
the way seniors fight tooth and nail to keep Medicare, it must be doing
it's job well.

Don;t believe me? Ask Obama. One of his most remarkable claims for
funding his new healthcare was that he was gonna recover billions in
waste and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid. Only in America. Anywhere
else, the logical response would be, "you idiot, if the govt can't
run those, how are you gonna run an even bigger boondoggle?

The government does an excellent job at running Medicare. Medicare is
cheaper, has always been cheaper, and has historically had a much
higher satisfaction rate than private insurance.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...rsus-insurers/

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...ations/In-the-
Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-
Reality.aspx

Jim Yanik:

It's far more believeable than anything you've said so far.

What specifically did I say that was unbelievable?

On Jun 1, 4:57�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 5/30/2010 12:29 PM, harry wrote:





On May 30, 1:27 pm, �wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, �aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Harry, we greedy Americans give more to help our fellow man than any
other country. If there is a disaster somewhere, Americans are going
to send help and even if it's a country that doesn't like America,
we're going to offer help. Americans are every sort of person you can
think of, some are very bad but most are not the greedy *******s you
seem to think we are and it's quite tiresome to hear it over and over.
It's like hearing people say that all white folks in The South are
racist and descendants of slave owners, it's preposterous and very
insulting. If we have a fault, it's that we don't tell the rest of the
world to **** off. Do you think for a second that Americans would
hesitate to come to the aid of your country if you were attacked or
beset by some natural disaster? What do you think we greedy *******s
would do? I'd like to know?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would be the last to deny this. On my relatively short visit to the
USA everyone was very kind an generous to me without exception. This
has been true virtually everywhere I have been. And we a re old
allies, we did come to help you in Iraq.
There is a problem in the UK at the moment because of emerging facts
about how and why we got into this war. Esp. emerging info about the
non-existant WMD and how the intlelligence was manipulated. Bush is
thoroughly hated over here and republicans who have destroyed our
economy as well as yours. Obama is a great relief as he seems to be
less scheming than W. We'll see.
What I find to be amazing is the circles of ignorance in America.
There seems to be goups of people that emerge with opinions without
any information. They "know" it to be true because they have dicussed
it among like minded people. Because no information comes in from the
outside, the opinion becomes reinforced to the extent they don't want
to hear anything different.
When their spurious views are exposed they become extremely abusive.
Now I have handed out abuse too but only when abused first.

The problem is that few Americans travel and when they do it's in
little frightened groups, afraid to interact with local people. Which
makes them look ridiculous or unfriendly to local people. They have
the view that nothing important happens outside America, (except in
the country of their origin).

Also in Europe, you can have a discussion with anyone and hold
different views without these hysterical outbursts we see from time to
time on these threads. A lot of my friends hold very different views
(esp. political) to me and we often have arguments but remain
friends.
It's called open mindedness. Hardly ever to be found in America. We
have wit and banter, again unknown in America.

Jay Hanig:

Yes. I'm a RN and I was working in a hospital when I had this
conversation with a friend. He had no reason to lie to me.

Just like during the health care debates everyone opposed suddenly had a
relative or friend in Canada who died from health care rationing. Once at
a party I literally had 4 people in a row tell me the exact same story
except each of them claimed it was their relative or friend who died.
People lie, people exagerate. Maybe he really did all those tests because
he really was afraid but then maybe he just really had no better ideas.

On Jun 1, 4:09�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 5/29/2010 3:34 PM, Oren wrote:





On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:50:23 -0400, �wrote:

On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. �And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. �These sort of things never went
on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. �The workforce in China is not slave. �In many respects,
it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. �The Chinese may take any job
they can get hired for, at any wage, and with any benefits they can negotiate.
True, in many cases, those wages are far less than the US or UK. �But, in many
cases, it beats the hell out of working in a rice paddy.

And slavery certainly existed in Adam Smith's day, both in the US and the UK.

-- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can get hired
for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Does the U.K. have Affirmative Action? �In the USA, you can be hired
by the color of your skin (ancestry / lineage) , even if you get
scored 73 on your essay test.

Using a #2 pencil on the official application can get you into the
interview office.

I've explained Affirmative Action in the USA to my friends in other
countries by using the example of the quadriplegic gymnastics coach.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, we can agree on that.

On Jun 1, 4:19�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 5/31/2010 12:17 PM, harry wrote:





On May 31, 5:18 pm, Douglas �wrote:
�wrote:
Don't fall into their propaganda trap. The Chinese gov. is truely
evil. When they were a communist society, every person in China was
entitled to a job, a house, education and free medical treatment.
It was of course a repressive society but people had rights.

That was the theory, but the practice was very different. In practice, Chinese
of that era were slaves. You lived where you were told, worked at the job you
were told, paid what you were told, in many cases, married who you were told.

All could be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat. While the constitution
promised rights, there was no effective mechanism to enforce them, so they
didn't exist. While the current government is no model of western democracy, it
is far better than the pre-1985 government. Ask anyone who has lived through
both.

You should visit China. It is a fascinating place.

I think the pre 85 gov. was better than what preceeded that, Medieval
serfdom.
The problem with communism is that people are not ants.
I have visited a few communist countries. Nobody seemed oppressed or
very poor. �Nobody was rich. �Few were happy. �But that was because
they'd never seen the truely awful places.

China is on my list. �I like to travel around on my own on the buses
the places I go. �That might be a problem due to language. �I also
like to get myself in touch with a few locals& �if possible stay with
them (reciprocally if possible)& �get the insider's view, again
possibly a problem with China. �I might end up on some blasted tour.
Dunno if I could stand that �:-)

It would be interesting to hear from some of our Chinese cousins in
this newsgroup. I don't know if The Great Internet Wall of China
includes Usenet. The ancient cultures of the East are quite fascinating.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are there any? The few Chinese Chinese I have met are really
baffling.
I heard on the news here that the Chinese gov. has fsllen out with
Google and is cutting off internet links.

On Jun 3, 7:31�am, Mac Cool wrote:
Jay Hanig:

Yes. �I'm a RN and I was working in a hospital when I had this
conversation with a friend. �He had no reason to lie to me.

Just like during the health care debates everyone opposed suddenly had a
relative or friend in Canada who died from health care rationing. Once at
a party I literally had 4 people in a row tell me the exact same story
except each of them claimed it was their relative or friend who died.
People lie, people exagerate. Maybe he really did all those tests because
he really was afraid but then maybe he just really had no better ideas.

This is one of these little circles I was referring to. This sort of
stuff can emerge on the internet too. It goes the rounds and after a
while becomes f"act"

On 6/3/2010 1:30 AM, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:57�am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/30/2010 12:29 PM, harry wrote:





On May 30, 1:27 pm, �wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, �aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Harry, we greedy Americans give more to help our fellow man than any
other country. If there is a disaster somewhere, Americans are going
to send help and even if it's a country that doesn't like America,
we're going to offer help. Americans are every sort of person you can
think of, some are very bad but most are not the greedy *******s you
seem to think we are and it's quite tiresome to hear it over and over.
It's like hearing people say that all white folks in The South are
racist and descendants of slave owners, it's preposterous and very
insulting. If we have a fault, it's that we don't tell the rest of the
world to **** off. Do you think for a second that Americans would
hesitate to come to the aid of your country if you were attacked or
beset by some natural disaster? What do you think we greedy *******s
would do? I'd like to know?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would be the last to deny this. On my relatively short visit to the
USA everyone was very kind an generous to me without exception. This
has been true virtually everywhere I have been. And we a re old
allies, we did come to help you in Iraq.
There is a problem in the UK at the moment because of emerging facts
about how and why we got into this war. Esp. emerging info about the
non-existant WMD and how the intlelligence was manipulated. Bush is
thoroughly hated over here and republicans who have destroyed our
economy as well as yours. Obama is a great relief as he seems to be
less scheming than W. We'll see.
What I find to be amazing is the circles of ignorance in America.
There seems to be goups of people that emerge with opinions without
any information. They "know" it to be true because they have dicussed
it among like minded people. Because no information comes in from the
outside, the opinion becomes reinforced to the extent they don't want
to hear anything different.
When their spurious views are exposed they become extremely abusive.
Now I have handed out abuse too but only when abused first.

The problem is that few Americans travel and when they do it's in
little frightened groups, afraid to interact with local people. Which
makes them look ridiculous or unfriendly to local people. They have
the view that nothing important happens outside America, (except in
the country of their origin).

Also in Europe, you can have a discussion with anyone and hold
different views without these hysterical outbursts we see from time to
time on these threads. A lot of my friends hold very different views
(esp. political) to me and we often have arguments but remain
friends.
It's called open mindedness. Hardly ever to be found in America. We
have wit and banter, again unknown in America.



Most folks here in Alabama have never traveled abroad. In Europe
one can travel 100 km and be in another country. Here, it's not
unusual for me to travel that distance to another town to run
a service call on a computer or telecom system. You have to
remember, America was founded by religious wackos and a lot of
the behavior of the citizenry reflects this. Of course, our wackos
don't usually hunt down and kill someone who draws a picture of
Jesus, even if it's horribly distasteful. They may shun you and
boycott your business if they think you've done something sacrilegious
but your life is not usually in danger because of it. It can be quite
entertaining at times, like Monday when there was an election and
all the candidates were trying to out-Jesus their opponents. You
are more likely to find Bohemian behavior in college towns where
there are a lot of students and many people from diverse backgrounds.
Some time ago, there was a group of Christians who gathered on the
street across from the house of a woman who practiced Wicca shouting
that she was an evil Devil worshiper. The witch couldn't get them to
understand that Wiccans don't believe in the existence of The Devil.
It distresses me that more status is given to athletes or actors
rather than scholars in my country. To me it's bizarre that the
media goes nuts when a college gets a new football coach but pays
little attention when the same university gets a Nobel Prize winning
professor. My country is a wild mix of contradictions and oddball
behavior and that's why I love my home, I wouldn't have it any
other way.

TDD

In article ,
Mac Cool wrote:

Jay Hanig:

Yes. I'm a RN and I was working in a hospital when I had this
conversation with a friend. He had no reason to lie to me.

Just like during the health care debates everyone opposed suddenly had a
relative or friend in Canada who died from health care rationing. Once at
a party I literally had 4 people in a row tell me the exact same story
except each of them claimed it was their relative or friend who died.
People lie, people exagerate. Maybe he really did all those tests because
he really was afraid but then maybe he just really had no better ideas.
Interesting that you have people at a party tell you the same thing 4
different times and your default is, instead of maybe thinking this
represents a pattern, all are lying.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Mac Cool wrote in
:

Jim Yanik:

Comrade Obama sends HIS kids to private schools.
ISTR that Comrade Obama attended private schools himself.
I suspect most of the DemocRAT Congresscritters do the same.

Isn't Harvard a private school?

and US healthcare is where the foreigners all come when they need
medical trteatments. I note the mayor of Newfoundland,Canada came to
the US to get his medical care,instead of submitting to the
much-vaunted Canadian system.

The claim was that private industry could do education and health care,
better and cheaper. I'm looking for specific examples that prove that
claim, along with citations. What Obama does is irrelevant to the claim.
What Williams does is also irrelevant.



it's very relevant. you're in denial.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jun 3, 8:31�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 6/3/2010 1:30 AM, harry wrote:





On Jun 1, 4:57 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/30/2010 12:29 PM, harry wrote:

On May 30, 1:27 pm, � wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Harry, we greedy Americans give more to help our fellow man than any
other country. If there is a disaster somewhere, Americans are going
to send help and even if it's a country that doesn't like America,
we're going to offer help. Americans are every sort of person you can
think of, some are very bad but most are not the greedy *******s you
seem to think we are and it's quite tiresome to hear it over and over.
It's like hearing people say that all white folks in The South are
racist and descendants of slave owners, it's preposterous and very
insulting. If we have a fault, it's that we don't tell the rest of the
world to **** off. Do you think for a second that Americans would
hesitate to come to the aid of your country if you were attacked or
beset by some natural disaster? What do you think we greedy *******s
would do? I'd like to know?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would be the last to deny this. �On my relatively short visit to the
USA everyone was �very kind an generous to me without exception.. �This
has been true virtually everywhere I have been. �And we a re old
allies, we did come to help you in Iraq.
There is a problem in the UK at the moment because of emerging facts
about how and why we got into this war. �Esp. emerging info about the
non-existant WMD and how the intlelligence was manipulated. �Bush is
thoroughly hated over here and republicans who have destroyed our
economy as well as yours. �Obama is a great relief as he seems to be
less scheming than W. �We'll see.
� What I find to be amazing is the circles of ignorance in America.
There seems to be goups of people that emerge with opinions �without
any information. They "know" it to be true because they have dicussed
it among like minded people. Because no information comes in from the
outside, the opinion becomes reinforced to the extent they don't want
to hear anything different.
When their spurious views are exposed they become extremely abusive.
Now I have handed out abuse too but only when abused first.

The problem is that few Americans travel and when they do �it's in
little frightened groups, afraid to interact with local people. Which
makes them look ridiculous or unfriendly to local people. �They have
the view that nothing important happens outside America, (except in
the country of their origin).

Also in Europe, you can have a discussion with anyone and hold
different views without these hysterical outbursts we see from time to
time on these threads. �A lot of my friends hold very different views
(esp. political) to me �and we often have arguments but remain
friends.
It's called open mindedness. �Hardly ever to be found in America. �We
have wit and banter, again unknown in America.

Most folks here in Alabama have never traveled abroad. In Europe
one can travel 100 km and be in another country. Here, it's not
unusual for me to travel that distance to another town to run
a service call on a computer or telecom system. You have to
remember, America was founded by religious wackos and a lot of
the behavior of the citizenry reflects this. Of course, our wackos
don't usually hunt down and kill someone who draws a picture of
Jesus, even if it's horribly distasteful. They may shun you and
boycott your business if they think you've done something sacrilegious
but your life is not usually in danger because of it. It can be quite
entertaining at times, like Monday when there was an election and
all the candidates were trying to out-Jesus their opponents. You
are more likely to find Bohemian behavior in college towns where
there are a lot of students and many people from diverse backgrounds.
Some time ago, there was a group of Christians who gathered on the
street across from the house of a woman who practiced Wicca shouting
that she was an evil Devil worshiper. The witch couldn't get them to
understand that Wiccans don't believe in the existence of The Devil.
It distresses me that more status is given to athletes or actors
rather than scholars in my country. To me it's bizarre that the
media goes nuts when a college gets a new football coach but pays
little attention when the same university gets a Nobel Prize winning
professor. My country is a wild mix of contradictions and oddball
behavior and that's why I love my home, I wouldn't have it any
other way.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Don't feel distressed our society in the UK is going down the plug
hole as well. Few people here take religion seriously. But whatever
you think about religion, it is the source of all our laws and rules.
Some people however can't accept that religion can go out of date as
society advances.
Most people here think religion is the root of most evil. However,
if you're going to abandon relgious pronciple, you need something in
it's place and that hasn't happened over here. We are getting very
immoral here.
You may take it fro me, your country is more uniform than most.
That's the problem with Americans, they can't grasp the fact that
there are wildly different places and viewpoints out there. And who
is to say they are not valid?
I often think however that extreme christian and muslim nuts are very
close together. Especially in what they regard as "sin". And what
needs to be done about it.

On Jun 3, 1:28�pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
�Mac Cool wrote:

Jay Hanig:

Yes. �I'm a RN and I was working in a hospital when I had this
conversation with a friend. �He had no reason to lie to me.

Just like during the health care debates everyone opposed suddenly had a
relative or friend in Canada who died from health care rationing. Once at
a party I literally had 4 people in a row tell me the exact same story
except each of them claimed it was their relative or friend who died.
People lie, people exagerate. Maybe he really did all those tests because
he really was afraid but then maybe he just really had no better ideas.

�Interesting that you have people at a party tell you the same thing 4
different times and �your default is, instead of maybe thinking this
represents a pattern, all are lying.

--
� I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Not lying, the victim of repub. propaganda via Fox TV.

On Jun 3, 8:31�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 6/3/2010 1:30 AM, harry wrote:





On Jun 1, 4:57 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/30/2010 12:29 PM, harry wrote:

On May 30, 1:27 pm, � wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Harry, we greedy Americans give more to help our fellow man than any
other country. If there is a disaster somewhere, Americans are going
to send help and even if it's a country that doesn't like America,
we're going to offer help. Americans are every sort of person you can
think of, some are very bad but most are not the greedy *******s you
seem to think we are and it's quite tiresome to hear it over and over.
It's like hearing people say that all white folks in The South are
racist and descendants of slave owners, it's preposterous and very
insulting. If we have a fault, it's that we don't tell the rest of the
world to **** off. Do you think for a second that Americans would
hesitate to come to the aid of your country if you were attacked or
beset by some natural disaster? What do you think we greedy *******s
would do? I'd like to know?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would be the last to deny this. �On my relatively short visit to the
USA everyone was �very kind an generous to me without exception.. �This
has been true virtually everywhere I have been. �And we a re old
allies, we did come to help you in Iraq.
There is a problem in the UK at the moment because of emerging facts
about how and why we got into this war. �Esp. emerging info about the
non-existant WMD and how the intlelligence was manipulated. �Bush is
thoroughly hated over here and republicans who have destroyed our
economy as well as yours. �Obama is a great relief as he seems to be
less scheming than W. �We'll see.
� What I find to be amazing is the circles of ignorance in America.
There seems to be goups of people that emerge with opinions �without
any information. They "know" it to be true because they have dicussed
it among like minded people. Because no information comes in from the
outside, the opinion becomes reinforced to the extent they don't want
to hear anything different.
When their spurious views are exposed they become extremely abusive.
Now I have handed out abuse too but only when abused first.

The problem is that few Americans travel and when they do �it's in
little frightened groups, afraid to interact with local people. Which
makes them look ridiculous or unfriendly to local people. �They have
the view that nothing important happens outside America, (except in
the country of their origin).

Also in Europe, you can have a discussion with anyone and hold
different views without these hysterical outbursts we see from time to
time on these threads. �A lot of my friends hold very different views
(esp. political) to me �and we often have arguments but remain
friends.
It's called open mindedness. �Hardly ever to be found in America. �We
have wit and banter, again unknown in America.

Most folks here in Alabama have never traveled abroad. In Europe
one can travel 100 km and be in another country. Here, it's not
unusual for me to travel that distance to another town to run
a service call on a computer or telecom system. You have to
remember, America was founded by religious wackos and a lot of
the behavior of the citizenry reflects this. Of course, our wackos
don't usually hunt down and kill someone who draws a picture of
Jesus, even if it's horribly distasteful. They may shun you and
boycott your business if they think you've done something sacrilegious
but your life is not usually in danger because of it. It can be quite
entertaining at times, like Monday when there was an election and
all the candidates were trying to out-Jesus their opponents. You
are more likely to find Bohemian behavior in college towns where
there are a lot of students and many people from diverse backgrounds.
Some time ago, there was a group of Christians who gathered on the
street across from the house of a woman who practiced Wicca shouting
that she was an evil Devil worshiper. The witch couldn't get them to
understand that Wiccans don't believe in the existence of The Devil.
It distresses me that more status is given to athletes or actors
rather than scholars in my country. To me it's bizarre that the
media goes nuts when a college gets a new football coach but pays
little attention when the same university gets a Nobel Prize winning
professor. My country is a wild mix of contradictions and oddball
behavior and that's why I love my home, I wouldn't have it any
other way.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just read through your post again. I never had the opportunity to see
some of your whackos while I was over there. I did intend to, but my
i-friend was RC it turned out and not into whackos. Pity. I fancied to
see see some holy rollers or extreme religious behaviour, US style.
Any politician that mentions Jesus over here would be laughed out
of town and be last in any election. B-liar famously said, "We don't
do Jesus". Heh! Heh! He joined the RC church when he left office. I
can't understand why they took him after what he did to our abortion
laws. They must be as hypocritical as him, they needed to
excommunicate him!
Oh! BTW. you can stick to miles if you like, we still have them here.
For the moment. Inches however have ben nobbled by the EU *******s.
In the UK we worship celebrities. The nearest example to that, that
you would know, would be Paris Hilton. Ie completely without talent
and complete airheads in your parlance. There's the thing on TV
called "Britains got Talent" Jeeze. I only watched it once, it was
embarrasing. Most of them needed drowning to prevent reproduction.
BTW, everyone over here is extremeyl concerned about the Gulf oil
spill. We do worry about y'all.

On 6/3/2010 1:57 AM, Mac Cool wrote:


I asked for examples. I'm looking for specific examples of private health
care and education that is cheaper and better.

Some friendly words of caution: Carefully re-read the correct statements you
made in previous posts that specific examples are not useful in this discussion.

One can often find anecdotal examples that support a certain position. Those
anecdotal examples are not likely to be statistically significant and therefore,
not strong supporting evidence.

Even if someone comes up with a few specific examples of private health care and
education that is cheaper and better, those examples will not "make the case"
for those who stubbornly prefer their cherry-picked example(s) and ignore
well-done analysis.

The facts support your position. When you ask the opposition to cite anecdotes
to refute your facts, you fall into their trap.

In article , Peter
wrote:

On 6/3/2010 1:57 AM, Mac Cool wrote:



One can often find anecdotal examples that support a certain position. Those
anecdotal examples are not likely to be statistically significant and
therefore,
not strong supporting evidence.

Anecdotes, by definition, are not statistically significant and even
less likely to be clinically significant (an important concern not
generally looked at even in large clinical trials).
I am reminded that anecdote is not the singular of data. (g).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 6/3/2010 10:32 AM, harry wrote:
On Jun 3, 8:31�am, The Daring
wrote:
On 6/3/2010 1:30 AM, harry wrote:





On Jun 1, 4:57 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/30/2010 12:29 PM, harry wrote:

On May 30, 1:27 pm, � wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
� wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you are one of those greedy Americans thaty wants everything.
Even steal the food out of your nieghbour's children's mouth.

This is the black side of America. Greed, aquisitivity, damn your
neighbour attitude.

Harry, we greedy Americans give more to help our fellow man than any
other country. If there is a disaster somewhere, Americans are going
to send help and even if it's a country that doesn't like America,
we're going to offer help. Americans are every sort of person you can
think of, some are very bad but most are not the greedy *******s you
seem to think we are and it's quite tiresome to hear it over and over.
It's like hearing people say that all white folks in The South are
racist and descendants of slave owners, it's preposterous and very
insulting. If we have a fault, it's that we don't tell the rest of the
world to **** off. Do you think for a second that Americans would
hesitate to come to the aid of your country if you were attacked or
beset by some natural disaster? What do you think we greedy *******s
would do? I'd like to know?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would be the last to deny this. �On my relatively short visit to the
USA everyone was �very kind an generous to me without exception. �This
has been true virtually everywhere I have been. �And we a re old
allies, we did come to help you in Iraq.
There is a problem in the UK at the moment because of emerging facts
about how and why we got into this war. �Esp. emerging info about the
non-existant WMD and how the intlelligence was manipulated. �Bush is
thoroughly hated over here and republicans who have destroyed our
economy as well as yours. �Obama is a great relief as he seems to be
less scheming than W. �We'll see.
� What I find to be amazing is the circles of ignorance in America.
There seems to be goups of people that emerge with opinions �without
any information. They "know" it to be true because they have dicussed
it among like minded people. Because no information comes in from the
outside, the opinion becomes reinforced to the extent they don't want
to hear anything different.
When their spurious views are exposed they become extremely abusive.
Now I have handed out abuse too but only when abused first.

The problem is that few Americans travel and when they do �it's in
little frightened groups, afraid to interact with local people. Which
makes them look ridiculous or unfriendly to local people. �They have
the view that nothing important happens outside America, (except in
the country of their origin).

Also in Europe, you can have a discussion with anyone and hold
different views without these hysterical outbursts we see from time to
time on these threads. �A lot of my friends hold very different views
(esp. political) to me �and we often have arguments but remain
friends.
It's called open mindedness. �Hardly ever to be found in America. �We
have wit and banter, again unknown in America.

Most folks here in Alabama have never traveled abroad. In Europe
one can travel 100 km and be in another country. Here, it's not
unusual for me to travel that distance to another town to run
a service call on a computer or telecom system. You have to
remember, America was founded by religious wackos and a lot of
the behavior of the citizenry reflects this. Of course, our wackos
don't usually hunt down and kill someone who draws a picture of
Jesus, even if it's horribly distasteful. They may shun you and
boycott your business if they think you've done something sacrilegious
but your life is not usually in danger because of it. It can be quite
entertaining at times, like Monday when there was an election and
all the candidates were trying to out-Jesus their opponents. You
are more likely to find Bohemian behavior in college towns where
there are a lot of students and many people from diverse backgrounds.
Some time ago, there was a group of Christians who gathered on the
street across from the house of a woman who practiced Wicca shouting
that she was an evil Devil worshiper. The witch couldn't get them to
understand that Wiccans don't believe in the existence of The Devil.
It distresses me that more status is given to athletes or actors
rather than scholars in my country. To me it's bizarre that the
media goes nuts when a college gets a new football coach but pays
little attention when the same university gets a Nobel Prize winning
professor. My country is a wild mix of contradictions and oddball
behavior and that's why I love my home, I wouldn't have it any
other way.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just read through your post again. I never had the opportunity to see
some of your whackos while I was over there. I did intend to, but my
i-friend was RC it turned out and not into whackos. Pity. I fancied to
see see some holy rollers or extreme religious behaviour, US style.
Any politician that mentions Jesus over here would be laughed out
of town and be last in any election. B-liar famously said, "We don't
do Jesus". Heh! Heh! He joined the RC church when he left office. I
can't understand why they took him after what he did to our abortion
laws. They must be as hypocritical as him, they needed to
excommunicate him!
Oh! BTW. you can stick to miles if you like, we still have them here.
For the moment. Inches however have ben nobbled by the EU *******s.
In the UK we worship celebrities. The nearest example to that, that
you would know, would be Paris Hilton. Ie completely without talent
and complete airheads in your parlance. There's the thing on TV
called "Britains got Talent" Jeeze. I only watched it once, it was
embarrasing. Most of them needed drowning to prevent reproduction.
BTW, everyone over here is extremeyl concerned about the Gulf oil
spill. We do worry about y'all.

The oil spill is being discussed on local talk radio as I type this.
Most folks around here have no idea that there is a Gulf Stream that
can actually carry the remnants, the heavier less volatile components
of crude oil, to the shores of Great Britain. The dumbing down of my
countrymen is going to be the death of America and I consider the
loss brainpower to be more dangerous to our republic than any foreign
terrorist. The talking heads and politicians should shut the hell up
and allow the experts to do their job and plug the damn well. BP has
a very good incentive to stop the leak, "profit". That evil, greedy
quest for money that drives all of these huge wicked corporations.

TDD