On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:13:12 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:08:09 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:58:17 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:
On 2013-09-08, wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:52:02 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus32615 wrote:
These boats will cost you 10x to get them to working condition...
All boats seem to require more money to maintain them than the original purchase price.
I am actually thinking about buying a used boat...
Sail or power?

Power. I owned a power boat before, 21 foot.

Cigarette boat (fun) or cabin cruiser (darned family tub)? g


it looked like this: http://media.channelblade.com/boat_g...gi15725839.jpg

That looks a whole lot like my buddy's old boat. We took it to Lake
Havasu and rode it up the Colorado River to Laughlin, then floated
down. About halfway back, it got dark and we were between vertical
cliffs of rock about 100' tall. We found a small beach and tied the
anchor around a very small tree, then we folded down the seats and
went to sleep after a cold dinner. About 5am, we woke up to a rocking
motion. Sure enough, they had let the dam out some overnight and the
level of the river had taken us off the beach. We got the anchor off
without having to dive for it, Bob having camped there before. No
wonder they say "No overnight camping on the river." That was great:
the quietest and darkest place I've ever been on Earth. No moon, no
city lights, only starlight, and that was clear but dim. (Space is
quieter, but we won't go there.

Anyway, those are OK boats...for a family man.

What are you after nowadays, Ig?
I know your boys are gonna want SOMETHING FAST! Will Wifey overrule
that?

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:49:38 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:58:17 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:52:02 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus32615 wrote:



These boats will cost you 10x to get them to working condition...



i

All boats seem to require more money to maintain them than the original purchase price.

Dan

I am actually thinking about buying a used boat...

Have you guys forgotten the definition of "boat"?

"A hole in the water into which you throw all your money."

Thats why I suggest sailboats and smaller ones..less than 26'...and
smaller for a first time buyer. Something you can trailer and not
have to pay slip or storage fees particularly over the winter in snow
states.

Shrug..we sail all year around here and lots of fun in the winter
months when the winds start blowing..but its different all over the US

Sailboats usally have a small outboard on them for docking and marina
travel..but of all the boats above rowboat size..they can be the
cheapest to own and operate.


"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:27:22 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:08:09 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:58:17 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:
On 2013-09-08, wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:52:02 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus32615 wrote:
These boats will cost you 10x to get them to working condition...
All boats seem to require more money to maintain them than the original purchase price.
I am actually thinking about buying a used boat...
Sail or power?

Power. I owned a power boat before, 21 foot.

Cigarette boat (fun) or cabin cruiser (darned family tub)? g


In addition to the previous picture...

It was a very fun boat. Even though it was very heavy, it could go 35
MPH in water, it had a nice Mercruiser 302 inboard/outboard etc.

i

35 mph? Thats pretty damned slow for a power boat.


"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:46:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:27:22 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:08:09 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:58:17 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:
On 2013-09-08, wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:52:02 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus32615 wrote:
These boats will cost you 10x to get them to working condition...
All boats seem to require more money to maintain them than the original purchase price.
I am actually thinking about buying a used boat...
Sail or power?

Power. I owned a power boat before, 21 foot.

Cigarette boat (fun) or cabin cruiser (darned family tub)? g


In addition to the previous picture...

It was a very fun boat. Even though it was very heavy, it could go 35
MPH in water, it had a nice Mercruiser 302 inboard/outboard etc.

i

35 mph? Thats pretty damned slow for a power boat.

If that is indeed Iggy's model, that's a Celebrity Crownline deep-V.
Deep-V hulls require a lot of power to go fast but they ride smooth.

A true deep-V is 20 degrees at the transom, but the Crownline was
probably less than that. Still, those straked V hulls need a lot of
power.

They were popular out here until fuel prices took off. They use a
*lot* of gas.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:46:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:27:22 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:08:09 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:

On 2013-09-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 07:58:17 -0500, Ignoramus3628
wrote:
On 2013-09-08, wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 11:52:02 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus32615 wrote:
These boats will cost you 10x to get them to working condition...
All boats seem to require more money to maintain them than the original purchase price.
I am actually thinking about buying a used boat...
Sail or power?

Power. I owned a power boat before, 21 foot.

Cigarette boat (fun) or cabin cruiser (darned family tub)? g


In addition to the previous picture...

It was a very fun boat. Even though it was very heavy, it could go 35
MPH in water, it had a nice Mercruiser 302 inboard/outboard etc.

i

35 mph? Thats pretty damned slow for a power boat.

It sort of depends on how much fuel you want to burn. The long
distance trawler yacht guys are burning about 1.5 gal./hour at 6.5 - 7
K. About 150 mile days.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:48:52 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip


And, I also read that the top 1% carry something like 37% of the tax
burden.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:42:08 PM UTC-7, Ignoramus29430 wrote:
On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:



"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be

=================



FYI



http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/

snip

The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total

household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of

total income in more than 100 years, according to a an

analysis by economists at the University of California,

Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford

University.



The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice

of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.

The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service

data.

snip

In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings

posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.

Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of

earnings rose 6.6%.

snip







The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this

divide.



i

While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
But I wonder. Is it the proletariat getting poorer or the rich getting
richer?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:02:07 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:



While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.

One does not exclude the other. One can both work to increase what one earns and also work to improve the income of others. It is only in the first approximation that life is a zero sum game.

For example Iggy works to raise his income , but also created Algebra.com to help others.

And I try to make intelligent investment decisions , but also volunteer at the Hagley Museum. I will be making some bushings for Hagley today.

Dan

Proles are having their taxes increased at rapid rate.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/11/2013 7:48 AM, John B. wrote:
The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
But I wonder. Is it the proletariat getting poorer or the rich getting
richer?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2013-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:02:07 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:



While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.

One does not exclude the other. One can both work to increase what
one earns and also work to improve the income of others. It is only
in the first approximation that life is a zero sum game.

For example Iggy works to raise his income , but also created
Algebra.com to help others.

And I try to make intelligent investment decisions , but also
volunteer at the Hagley Museum. I will be making some bushings for
Hagley today.

Yapping on newsgroups is not "changing the system".

The "widening divide" is an unavoidable change facilitated by
evolution of technology. There is not an easy fix or solution, not a
"policy change" that can somehow make people more desirable compared
to computers.

i

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:34:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Proles are having their taxes increased at rapid rate.


Indeed, echoing Rousseau's observation [paraphrased] that
the poor cannot pay taxes as they have no money, the rich
will not pay taxes, therefore the entire burden of the state
must fall on the middle class.

In many cases the increase in the amount of money extracted
is hidden as increased governmental fees, decreased
governmental services, and inflation which erodes the value
of their wages and savings.

Loss of work place benefits such as health care and pensions
is also a significant, albeit long-term, hidden hit.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:39:00 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:34:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Proles are having their taxes increased at rapid rate.


Indeed, echoing Rousseau's observation [paraphrased] that
the poor cannot pay taxes as they have no money, the rich
will not pay taxes, therefore the entire burden of the state
must fall on the middle class.

George, you know better than that. The tax rates at the bottom and up
into the middle class have fallen fairly steadily for 70 years:

http://tinyurl.com/otdvj6u

--
Ed Huntress


In many cases the increase in the amount of money extracted
is hidden as increased governmental fees, decreased
governmental services, and inflation which erodes the value
of their wages and savings.

Loss of work place benefits such as health care and pensions
is also a significant, albeit long-term, hidden hit.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:06:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:02:07 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:







While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.



One does not exclude the other. One can both work to increase what one earns and also work to improve the income of others. It is only in the first approximation that life is a zero sum game.



For example Iggy works to raise his income , but also created Algebra.com to help others.



And I try to make intelligent investment decisions , but also volunteer at the Hagley Museum. I will be making some bushings for Hagley today.



Dan

I stand by what I said.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:37:09 AM UTC-7, Ignoramus23724 wrote:
On 2013-09-11, wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:02:07 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:







While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.



One does not exclude the other. One can both work to increase what

one earns and also work to improve the income of others. It is only

in the first approximation that life is a zero sum game.



For example Iggy works to raise his income , but also created

Algebra.com to help others.



And I try to make intelligent investment decisions , but also

volunteer at the Hagley Museum. I will be making some bushings for

Hagley today.



Yapping on newsgroups is not "changing the system".



The "widening divide" is an unavoidable change facilitated by

evolution of technology. There is not an easy fix or solution, not a

"policy change" that can somehow make people more desirable compared

to computers.



i

You have never done anything in your entire life to change the system.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:47:39 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:39:00 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:34:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Proles are having their taxes increased at rapid rate.


Indeed, echoing Rousseau's observation [paraphrased] that
the poor cannot pay taxes as they have no money, the rich
will not pay taxes, therefore the entire burden of the state
must fall on the middle class.

George, you know better than that. The tax rates at the bottom and up
into the middle class have fallen fairly steadily for 70 years:

http://tinyurl.com/otdvj6u

That's why I qualified the statement by noting
In many cases the increase in the amount of money extracted
is hidden as increased governmental fees, decreased
governmental services, and inflation which erodes the value
of their wages and savings.

Many of these fees bypass the constitutional requirement
that all federal revenue must pass through the treasury and
be approved by Congress. Check your phone bill for an
example of a tax described as a fee, with the money
nominally going to improve school internet connection.
While this may be a "good thing," it evades controls,
accountability, and express intent of the Constitution.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:04:49 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:




I stand by what I said.

Yawn

Dan

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:51:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:04:49 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:









I stand by what I said.



Yawn



Dan

Time for your daily nap.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:37:09 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

On 2013-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:02:07 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:



While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.

One does not exclude the other. One can both work to increase what
one earns and also work to improve the income of others. It is only
in the first approximation that life is a zero sum game.

For example Iggy works to raise his income , but also created
Algebra.com to help others.

And I try to make intelligent investment decisions , but also
volunteer at the Hagley Museum. I will be making some bushings for
Hagley today.

Yapping on newsgroups is not "changing the system".

The "widening divide" is an unavoidable change facilitated by
evolution of technology. There is not an easy fix or solution, not a
"policy change" that can somehow make people more desirable compared
to computers.

i
I suggest that human nature enters into the equation also. Russia and
China both made a very definite effort equalize levels of income and
each now have the very rich and the very poor. A matter of only 60
years for the Chinese - the Russians took longer, but maybe their rich
are richer :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2013-09-12, John B wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:37:09 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

On 2013-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:02:07 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:



While you put yourself first others will work to try and change the system.

One does not exclude the other. One can both work to increase what
one earns and also work to improve the income of others. It is only
in the first approximation that life is a zero sum game.

For example Iggy works to raise his income , but also created
Algebra.com to help others.

And I try to make intelligent investment decisions , but also
volunteer at the Hagley Museum. I will be making some bushings for
Hagley today.

Yapping on newsgroups is not "changing the system".

The "widening divide" is an unavoidable change facilitated by
evolution of technology. There is not an easy fix or solution, not a
"policy change" that can somehow make people more desirable compared
to computers.


I suggest that human nature enters into the equation also. Russia and
China both made a very definite effort equalize levels of income and
each now have the very rich and the very poor. A matter of only 60
years for the Chinese - the Russians took longer, but maybe their rich
are richer :-)


Human nature definitely enters into the equation. I think that any
type of serious economic disturbance or readjustment, would tend to
create a larger wealth gap.

i

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
==================

A nobel sentiment (pun intended) indeed :-(, and one
frequently expressed by the prior residents of both
Versailles and the Winter Palace, before the deluge.

It is correctly observed that desperate solutions frequently
result in desperate remedies, and if one is averse to
desperate remedies, then one best avoid or prevent desperate
situations.

On 2013-09-12, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
==================

A nobel sentiment (pun intended) indeed :-(, and one frequently
expressed by the prior residents of both Versailles and the Winter
Palace, before the deluge.

It is correctly observed that desperate solutions frequently result
in desperate remedies, and if one is averse to desperate remedies,
then one best avoid or prevent desperate situations.

I think about similar questions every other day. As I said many times,
I am worried and disturbed about a possibility that a large, and
constantly increasing, majority of people would not be needed in an
automated economy.

For example, I can easily visualize how a typical McDonalds restaurant
could be run by 1 person, the rest automated. It would also serve
customers better and avoid messed up orders. A robot could handle
deliveries.

I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

i

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:56:51 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
==================

A nobel sentiment (pun intended) indeed :-(, and one
frequently expressed by the prior residents of both
Versailles and the Winter Palace, before the deluge.

It is correctly observed that desperate solutions frequently
result in desperate remedies, and if one is averse to
desperate remedies, then one best avoid or prevent desperate
situations.


So, what is the answer? Kill the Kulaks?
--
Cheers,

John B.

At least a few of us on RCM can be robot repairmen.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/12/2013 12:16 AM, Ignoramus23724 wrote:

I am worried and disturbed about a possibility that a large, and
constantly increasing, majority of people would not be needed in an
automated economy.

For example, I can easily visualize how a typical McDonalds restaurant
could be run by 1 person, the rest automated. It would also serve
customers better and avoid messed up orders. A robot could handle
deliveries.

I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

i

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:33:41 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:26:54 -0700, George Plimpton

wrote:



On 9/12/2013 9:08 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,0,1843147.sto

ry



What you excluded:



For example, the tech sector, which has largely led the economic recovery in

California, requires people with skills for jobs as programmers, software

engineers and similar occupations.



That is partly why employment levels have recovered in the Bay Area � home to

a glut of tech start-ups � and other coastal areas while lagging in the

inland parts of the state.



That is irrelevant to point, except to illustrate how woefully out of

step with 21st century needs our social and educational infrastructure

are.

The tech sector employment growth has been concentrated among

foreigners. The U.S. isn't producing anything close to enough people to

fill those jobs; Asians and some eastern Europeans are getting them.



We get their best. Let's hope we can keep more of them.



Otherwise, the skill demands of the good jobs generally outstrip our

ability to produce them. And that may not be a matter of education; it

may be mostly a matter of how many "above average" people we can

produce -- on the average.



As Iggy says, advancing technology is a cruel master for average

people seeking jobs.



--

Ed Huntress

What a load of horse****. Both of you blooming idiots are completely unable to address the fact that long term machining apprenticeships have now been mostly replaced by short term "machinist" training programs in the USA.

Limited, short term training programs don't produce the advanced skill set that modern, high tech, machining job shops require. Scrap king iggy wouldn't know anything about a modern, high tech, machining job shop or what they require and after years igggy can barley machine his way out of a paper bag... just like you "slow" Eddy.

The problem isn't computers or CNC machines for machinists... the problem is the US educational system for machinists isn't adequate and hasn't been adequate for decades. Fix this and you will see manufacturing in the US have a chance at showing what it's really capable of. Keep ignoring this problem, like we have for decades, and watch manufacturing in the USA keep disappearing.

If only more machinists read algebra.com I'm sure everything would be okay with US manufacturing and our machinist training problem wouldn't exist. What a ****ing joke you two clowns are. The same applies to Mark Wieber and his cult of idiots led by life long losers like Larry Jackass.

When it comes to modern metalworking this newsgroup has become a circus act filled with clowns.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:26:48 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:33:41 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:26:54 -0700, George Plimpton

wrote:



On 9/12/2013 9:08 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

In article ,

George Plimpton wrote:



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,0,1843147.sto

ry



What you excluded:



For example, the tech sector, which has largely led the economic recovery in

California, requires people with skills for jobs as programmers, software

engineers and similar occupations.



That is partly why employment levels have recovered in the Bay Area � home to

a glut of tech start-ups � and other coastal areas while lagging in the

inland parts of the state.



That is irrelevant to point, except to illustrate how woefully out of

step with 21st century needs our social and educational infrastructure

are.

The tech sector employment growth has been concentrated among

foreigners. The U.S. isn't producing anything close to enough people to

fill those jobs; Asians and some eastern Europeans are getting them.



We get their best. Let's hope we can keep more of them.



Otherwise, the skill demands of the good jobs generally outstrip our

ability to produce them. And that may not be a matter of education; it

may be mostly a matter of how many "above average" people we can

produce -- on the average.



As Iggy says, advancing technology is a cruel master for average

people seeking jobs.



--

Ed Huntress

What a load of horse****. Both of you blooming idiots are completely unable to address the fact that long term machining apprenticeships have now been mostly replaced by short term "machinist" training programs in the USA.

Great -- producing people for jobs of the last century, which are now
in decline.

I guess you aren't aware of CNC and robotics.


Limited, short term training programs don't produce the advanced skill set that modern, high tech, machining job shops require. Scrap king iggy wouldn't know anything about a modern, high tech, machining job shop or what they require and after years igggy can barley machine his way out of a paper bag... just like you "slow" Eddy.

And exactly how many such jobs will there be? Or do you mean jobs like
yours? We only need a handful of Internet bloviators, Jon.


The problem isn't computers or CNC machines for machinists... the problem is the US educational system for machinists isn't adequate and hasn't been adequate for decades. Fix this and you will see manufacturing in the US have a chance at showing what it's really capable of. Keep ignoring this problem, like we have for decades, and watch manufacturing in the USA keep disappearing.

Everybody has a "reason" that manufacturing jobs are declining. Yours
is among the ones that manufacturers and economists have largely
rejected, because it isn't true.

If it were true, they'd simply start raising machinists' salaries
until they filled the available jobs.

When a shop owner says our education system has let him down, what he
means is that he can't find enough cheap machinists.


If only more machinists read algebra.com I'm sure everything would be okay with US manufacturing and our machinist training problem wouldn't exist. What a ****ing joke you two clowns are. The same applies to Mark Wieber and his cult of idiots led by life long losers like Larry Jackass.

The joke that you are is the reason you don't have a job, Jon, and
that you're reduced to talking for free on social networks.


When it comes to modern metalworking this newsgroup has become a circus act filled with clowns.

You're certainly one of them.

--
Ed Huntress

snip
Indeed, echoing Rousseau's observation [paraphrased] that
the poor cannot pay taxes as they have no money, the rich
will not pay taxes, therefore the entire burden of the state
must fall on the middle class.

George, you know better than that. The tax rates at the bottom and up
into the middle class have fallen fairly steadily for 70 years:

http://tinyurl.com/otdvj6u

That's why I qualified the statement by noting
In many cases the increase in the amount of money extracted
is hidden as increased governmental fees, decreased
governmental services, and inflation which erodes the value
of their wages and savings.

Many of these fees bypass the constitutional requirement
that all federal revenue must pass through the treasury and
be approved by Congress. Check your phone bill for an
example of a tax described as a fee, with the money
nominally going to improve school internet connection.
While this may be a "good thing," it evades controls,
accountability, and express intent of the Constitution.

follow up to my follow up...more info about falling real
wages

http://www.epi.org/files/2013/BP365.pdf
snip
According to every major data source, the vast
majority of U.S. workers—including white-collar
and blue-collar workers and those with and without
a college degree—have endured more than a decade
of wage stagnation. Wage growth has significantly
underperformed productivity growth regardless
of occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, or education
level.
During the Great Recession and its aftermath (i.e.,
between 2007 and 2012), wages fell for the entire
bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution, despite
productivity growth of 7.7 percent.
snip
During the Great Recession and its aftermath (i.e.,
between 2007 and 2012), wages fell for the entire bottom
70 percent of the wage distribution, despite productivity
growth of 7.7 percent. The losses tended to
be larger further down the wage distribution; wages at
the 80th percentile were essentially flat (increasing by
0.2 percent), the median (50th percentile) worker saw
a decline of 2.6 percent, and the 20th percentile worker
saw a decline of 5.5 percent over this period.
snip

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16:37 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

On 2013-09-12, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
==================

A nobel sentiment (pun intended) indeed :-(, and one frequently
expressed by the prior residents of both Versailles and the Winter
Palace, before the deluge.

It is correctly observed that desperate solutions frequently result
in desperate remedies, and if one is averse to desperate remedies,
then one best avoid or prevent desperate situations.

I think about similar questions every other day. As I said many times,
I am worried and disturbed about a possibility that a large, and
constantly increasing, majority of people would not be needed in an
automated economy.

For example, I can easily visualize how a typical McDonalds restaurant
could be run by 1 person, the rest automated. It would also serve
customers better and avoid messed up orders. A robot could handle
deliveries.

Ayup, that's a very plausible scenario and outcome.

I prefer the clones, though, for two reasons. The first is that when
they screw up, they usually give the screwup item to the orderer,
costing the evil corporation another 50 cents. (I buy only ice cream
cones there. The rest is worthless crap, so I don't benefit from the
screwups.) I should be an ice cream machine repairman in this town,
though. There are 3 McDs here and at least one of them has a broken
machine every single week, bar none. I'll bet the (otherwise) idiot
tech is a millionaire by now.

Second, the pretty gal who served me the fine ice cream cone today was
also complimented by her boss, who said that the cone was beautifully
made. It was a large cone and was very uniform in its structure, so
he was right.


I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what our
fine nation is turning into.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On 2013-09-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16:37 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

On 2013-09-12, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:42:08 -0500, Ignoramus29430
wrote:

On 2013-09-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:59:21 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

"Nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs created since 2009 pay less than $13.80 an hour."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEj-S...ature=youtu.be
=================

FYI

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...orest/2793343/
snip
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total
household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of
total income in more than 100 years, according to a an
analysis by economists at the University of California,
Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford
University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice
of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%.
The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service
data.
snip
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings
posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000.
Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of
earnings rose 6.6%.
snip



The divide is widening. The key is to be on the right side of this
divide.

i
==================

A nobel sentiment (pun intended) indeed :-(, and one frequently
expressed by the prior residents of both Versailles and the Winter
Palace, before the deluge.

It is correctly observed that desperate solutions frequently result
in desperate remedies, and if one is averse to desperate remedies,
then one best avoid or prevent desperate situations.

I think about similar questions every other day. As I said many times,
I am worried and disturbed about a possibility that a large, and
constantly increasing, majority of people would not be needed in an
automated economy.

For example, I can easily visualize how a typical McDonalds restaurant
could be run by 1 person, the rest automated. It would also serve
customers better and avoid messed up orders. A robot could handle
deliveries.

Ayup, that's a very plausible scenario and outcome.

I prefer the clones, though, for two reasons. The first is that when
they screw up, they usually give the screwup item to the orderer,
costing the evil corporation another 50 cents. (I buy only ice cream
cones there. The rest is worthless crap, so I don't benefit from the
screwups.) I should be an ice cream machine repairman in this town,
though. There are 3 McDs here and at least one of them has a broken
machine every single week, bar none. I'll bet the (otherwise) idiot
tech is a millionaire by now.

Second, the pretty gal who served me the fine ice cream cone today was
also complimented by her boss, who said that the cone was beautifully
made. It was a large cone and was very uniform in its structure, so
he was right.


I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

"Ignoramus15426" wrote in
message ...

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what
our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

The Khmer Rouge solution was to force the unproductive urbanites out
onto collective farms, to make the nation self-sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:07:29 -0500, Ignoramus15426
wrote:

On 2013-09-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16:37 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

That's good. I was thinking you'd be on the left.


As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

No, those are definitely the 3 most likely trends. Now if we could
only get people to drop the Reps and Dems and find a new party whose
platform is solidly sane, fiscally frugal, and _pro_-USA...

Until Gunner's Great Cull happens, and changes things drastically, I
forsee #3 happening/growing, too. I revamped my BOB and am adding to
my stores continually now, hoping to shelter-in-place when the SHTF.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On 2013-09-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ignoramus15426" wrote in
message ...

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what
our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

The Khmer Rouge solution was to force the unproductive urbanites out
onto collective farms, to make the nation self-sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

That would be #2 on my list. Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen?
Less likely in a civilized society.

i

On Friday, September 13, 2013 6:27:54 AM UTC-7, Larry Jaques wrote:

Until Gunner's Great Cull happens, and changes things drastically...


Larry Jackass at his best.

On 2013-09-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:07:29 -0500, Ignoramus15426
wrote:

On 2013-09-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16:37 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

That's good. I was thinking you'd be on the left.


As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

No, those are definitely the 3 most likely trends. Now if we could
only get people to drop the Reps and Dems and find a new party whose
platform is solidly sane, fiscally frugal, and _pro_-USA...

That would be awesome. I especially want fiscally frugal.

Until Gunner's Great Cull happens, and changes things drastically, I
forsee #3 happening/growing, too. I revamped my BOB and am adding to
my stores continually now, hoping to shelter-in-place when the SHTF.

I dumped most of my food stores due to mice. I only have a bit of
canned stuff.

i

"Ignoramus32089" wrote in
message ...
On 2013-09-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue
finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living
on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is
what
our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

The Khmer Rouge solution was to force the unproductive urbanites
out
onto collective farms, to make the nation self-sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

That would be #2 on my list. Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen?

They set out to implement their notion of 'pure' communism Violent
repression was the consequence when it clashed with human nature.

Lenin himself recognized the flaws of pure communism once he had faced
the realities of ruling a nation (Marx never had) and replaced it with
the New Economic Policy that reinstated private enterprise to a
limited degree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
"The NEP represented a move away from full nationalization of certain
parts of industries."

[NEP policy] "increased the peasants' incentive to produce, and in
response production jumped by 40% after the drought and famine of
1921-22."

Did they allow or suppress that history when you were in school? We
learned quite a lot about the social engineering experiments of the
past, one of which was still active and near enough to visit:
http://www.shakers.org/

Other countries' schoolbooks may present history very differently from
ours. I have an old German one in which Rome never fell, but passed on
to its legitimate Germanic heirs (who as Praetorians had been a power
there for centuries) and a Soviet one that dismisses the protracted
meat grinder leading to the Allied victory in Normandy as 'no major
battles'.

Less likely in a civilized society.

Less likely in a society that can effectively resist oppression.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:19:30 -0500, Ignoramus32089
wrote:

On 2013-09-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:07:29 -0500, Ignoramus15426
wrote:

On 2013-09-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:16:37 -0500, Ignoramus23724
wrote:

I do not have a global solution and, meanwhile, I will just try to
stay on the right side of the divide.

That's good. I was thinking you'd be on the left.


As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

No, those are definitely the 3 most likely trends. Now if we could
only get people to drop the Reps and Dems and find a new party whose
platform is solidly sane, fiscally frugal, and _pro_-USA...

That would be awesome. I especially want fiscally frugal.

Wouldn't that be novel? sigh



Until Gunner's Great Cull happens, and changes things drastically, I
forsee #3 happening/growing, too. I revamped my BOB and am adding to
my stores continually now, hoping to shelter-in-place when the SHTF.

I dumped most of my food stores due to mice. I only have a bit of
canned stuff.

You should have used 5/6-gallon buckets, Mylar bags vacuum sealed with
oxygen absorbers inside, and gamma lids. Stock back up, Ig. The
fecal material is about to hit the impeller, so you want to be stocked
for it.

Gamma lids at HD, 3 for $21, http://tinyurl.com/k8zalnk
Mylar bags/oxy abs at eBay $24 http://tinyurl.com/kyfxejj
Costco ARC bucket $15 off right now, $84.99 http://tinyurl.com/lxo656a
Costco 55gal water drum http://tinyurl.com/mbpd5nl
http://www.costco.com/emergency-kits...d=food+storage

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:42:59 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ignoramus15426" wrote in
message ...

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what
our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

The Khmer Rouge solution was to force the unproductive urbanites out
onto collective farms, to make the nation self-sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge


Hell..I could use a dozen or so Leftards. Ill import some pot from
Mexico to feed em and picking up a plow and making harnesses is easy.
And when they die in harness..I simply grab another from the cage and
push the dead one into the nearest ditch and later in the season.
.....we can plow em under for compost.


"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:38:15 -0500, Ignoramus32089
wrote:

On 2013-09-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ignoramus15426" wrote in
message ...

As for how such situations can resolve themselves, I see three
possibilities:

1) That I am wrong and that displaced people will continue finding
employment.

2) A violent resolution of this, resulting in mass damage and
realignment

3) A non-violent resolution, with the majority of people living on
handouts, studying liberal arts or doing make-work stuff.

Number 3 is what I personally anticipate, but I recognize the
uncertainty that is inherent in these predictions. In any case,
everyone needs to make predictions in order to plan our actions.

#3 is the bulk of the Democrat's Platform, isn't it? That is what
our
fine nation is turning into.


DO you see any other alternatives, other than 1, 2 or 3?

The Khmer Rouge solution was to force the unproductive urbanites out
onto collective farms, to make the nation self-sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

That would be #2 on my list. Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen?
Less likely in a civilized society.

i

You do understand that with violent revolution.."civilization" is the
first to die..and only later is it reborn.


"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)