http://u2r2h.modblog.com/

In the 19th century, the United States had something kind of
approximating a market system.

Now we have nothing like a market--they may teach you [that] in
economics courses, but that's not the way it works. And one of the
signs of the decline of the market is advertisement. So if you have a
real market you don't advertise: you just give information. For
example, there are corners of the economy that do run like markets--for
example stock markets. If you have ten shares of General Motors that
you want to sell, you don't put up an ad on television with a sexy
model holding up the ten shares saying "ask your broker if this is good
for you; it's good for me," or something like that. What you do is you
sell it at the market price. If you had a market for cars, toothpaste,
or whatever, lifestyle drugs, you would do the same thing. GM would put
up a brief notice saying here's the information about our models. Well,
you've seen television ads, so I don't have to tell you how it works.
The idea is to delude and deceive people with imagery. And the same has
happened to the print media. Take the New York Times for example. They
have

....

wrote:


http://u2r2h.modblog.com/

In the 19th century, the United States had something kind of
approximating a market system.

Now we have nothing like a market--they may teach you [that] in
economics courses, but that's not the way it works. And one of the
signs of the decline of the market is advertisement. So if you
have a real market you don't advertise: you just give information.
For example, there are corners of the economy that do run like
markets--for example stock markets. If you have ten shares of
General Motors that you want to sell, you don't put up an ad on
television with a sexy model holding up the ten shares saying "ask
your broker if this is good for you; it's good for me," or
something like that. What you do is you sell it at the market
price. If you had a market for cars, toothpaste, or whatever,
lifestyle drugs, you would do the same thing. GM would put up a
brief notice saying here's the information about our models. Well,
you've seen television ads, so I don't have to tell you how it
works. The idea is to delude and deceive people with imagery. And
the same has happened to the print media. Take the New York Times
for example. They have



Positively nutty. Advertising and marketing are perfectly legitimate
components of a free market system and have been around in one form or
another since the beginning of time. That said, if your goal is to
point out inequities and defects in our modern markets, there are
certainly plenty to choose from.

Positively nutty.

you understand nothing.

your mental illness is perfectly legitimate, too.

wrote:
Positively nutty.


you understand nothing.

your mental illness is perfectly legitimate, too.


Oh please. It's not mental illness to be confused by all the noise in
the signal. Maybe you're trying to draw an analogy to Chomsky's
"healthy" mid-nineteenth century market, calling the current one a neurosis?

er
--
email not valid

Do not feed the trolls....


"Enoch Root" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Positively nutty.


you understand nothing.

your mental illness is perfectly legitimate, too.


Oh please. It's not mental illness to be confused by all the noise in
the signal. Maybe you're trying to draw an analogy to Chomsky's
"healthy" mid-nineteenth century market, calling the current one a
neurosis?

er
--
email not valid

http://u2r2h.modblog.com/

your mental illness is perfectly legitimate, too.


Oh please. It's not mental illness to be confused by all the noise in
the signal. Maybe you're trying to draw an analogy to Chomsky's
"healthy" mid-nineteenth century market, calling the current one a neurosis?

You are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.

You seem to be able to have a REAL MARKET
(without distortions, feeding on people's neurosises)
where there is a NON-MARKET,
(i.e. corruption and lies guide buyers)

at the same time...

but never mind. They trained you that way.

Winning by failing... "The Bush Way"

http://u2r2h.modblog.com/

oh yes, oh ah, morals are soo old fashioned...

now we whities can mass-kill and we are good at the same time.

Truth is not absolute, its just relative. Everyone has her/his own
truth.
Nothing is real, opposites are the same..

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

wrote:
http://u2r2h.modblog.com/


your mental illness is perfectly legitimate, too.


Oh please. It's not mental illness to be confused by all the noise in
the signal. Maybe you're trying to draw an analogy to Chomsky's
"healthy" mid-nineteenth century market, calling the current one a neurosis?


You are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.

You seem to be able to have a REAL MARKET
(without distortions, feeding on people's neurosises)
where there is a NON-MARKET,
(i.e. corruption and lies guide buyers)

You seem to be unable to read well enough to recognize that I am a
sympathizer. You are also a very poor parrot of Chomsky.

I'll give you a D-

er
--
email not valid
[followups reset to an appropriate forum]

Other than Chomsky's writings on linguistics, about which he is truly
gifted, I would not waste my time reading anything he either writes or
wrote. His views and perspectives on politics, especially socialist
politics, turn my stomach. In his view, Cuba, Viet Nam and China are
free societies, and our society is one of repression in comparison.

Glen

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:13:31 GMT, Glen wrote:

Other than Chomsky's writings on linguistics, about which he is truly
gifted, I would not waste my time reading anything he either writes or
wrote. His views and perspectives on politics, especially socialist
politics, turn my stomach. In his view, Cuba, Viet Nam and China are
free societies, and our society is one of repression in comparison.


Except for himself. Despite his proclamation of how disinterested he is
in material things and his hatred of the military-industrial complex, he
has amassed a fortune, a significant portion of that came through Pentagon
research grants. While denouncing capitalism, he is himself a capitalist,
occupying that eeevil top 10% tax bracket (he's actually in the top 2% in
terms of wealth) and is worth millions. He has money in the stock market
he denounces and money in at least one tax shelter that will enable his
heirs to avoid paying the inheritance taxes that he so vigorously claims
that everybody else should be paying. He owns a home worth over $850k and
a vacation home in Wellfleet, MA valued in excess of $1.2M.

Is there anything wrong with someone having this amount of wealth? No,
but for someone who vigorously preaches an egalitarian, socialist society
in which wealth is evil and disparities in income an indication of racism
and inequality and further denounces the evils of capitalist society and
then turns around and utilizes the same institutions he denounces to assure
he has a high standard of living compared to those around him is the very
definition of elitism. The best way to remove the hypocrisy from these
people statements is to add the phrase, "for me" to all of their radical
statements. Basically, he advocates a true two-tier society, the leaders
such as himself who will be entitled to the wealth and prestige that come
with such a position based upon their obvious superiority to the rest of
us, and the rest of us, the benficiaries of their utopian society. No
thanks.



Glen




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

dos lenguas mejor que uno

how much good you could do if you would not write rot

wrote:

how much good you could do if you would not write rot


Actually I enjoy Mark's(?) writing. I hope he writes whenever he has
something to say.

On 27 Dec 2005 15:00:31 -0800, wrote:

how much good you could do if you would not write rot


Interesting, I write facts, you respond with ad hominem.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

What do you know, Glen?

wrote:
What do you know, Glen?

I suggest you read the book _Do As I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in
Liberal Hypocrisy_, by Peter Schweizer.

On the web, check out "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky: Part II Method and
Madness", By David Horowitz , found at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1018

Some quotes, in his own words:

"China is an important example of a new society in which very
interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a
good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on
mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had
been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step."

and
"I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror,
period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask
questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are
going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to
ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using
terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would
be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of
the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would
be justified."

Talking about the "wonderful" governments of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge
(whom he supported vociferously) after their atrocities became undeniable'
"Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces.
They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish
to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and
caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners
or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of
Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will
fail to take into account." . . . "the deaths in Cambodia were not the
result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but
rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined
military units out of government control, starvation and disease that
are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors."

I could go on and on and on...

Glen

If you idiots read HOROWITZ

(this guy is a joke. No Facts, just fabrications!!)

you cannot be helped.

you must belong to the 48%
of clinically insane US-Americans,
who still believe CIA propaganda (saddam=911)
... which in by books is MUCH WORSE than what delusions Germans carried
during the 1930s.

Because YOU CAN actually read up...

but it is MUCH easier to go along with the MAINSTREAM, for FEAR that
you **** you pants, being confronted with the truth... that the USA is
the most criminal, murderous and hypocrit state ever.

You shat-in-the-brain apologists will grasp ANY STRAW to denounce those
who but question your fantasy planet.


Sizeable Minorities Still Believe
Saddam Hussein Had Strong Links to Al Qaeda,
Helped Plan 9/11 and Had Weapons of Mass Destruction

(all 100% untrue, but in the USA corporate media pushed this
propaganda...
aggressively in the USA ... using well known cognition/conformity
PSYCHO tricks... as described in the famous Asch conformity
experiments:
http://www.answers.com/topic/asch-co...ty-experiments )

However, the numbers have fallen substantially this year

(but still near half of USA adults are clinically insane!!)

More than four years after the attacks of September 11, 2001,
many U.S. adults still believe some of the justifications
for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited,

(hah!)

according to a new Harris Poll. For example:

Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that
Saddam Hussein had "strong links to Al Qaeda."

Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein
"helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the
United States on September 11."

Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq
"had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."

Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that
"several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September
11
were Iraqis."

However, all of these beliefs and others have declined sharply since
the questions were asked in February 2005. For example:

Those who think Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda have fallen
from 64 to 41 percent.

Those who believe that Iraq was a serious threat to U.S. security
are down from 61 to 48 percent.

(48 % are insane!)

Those who think Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11 are
down from 47 to 22 percent.

Those who think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are
down from 36 to 26 percent.

Those who think Iraqi hijackers attacked the United States
on 9/11 have fallen from 44 to 24 percent.

Although public support for the war in Iraq has been waning,
a 56 percent majority of all adults believe that
"the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein."

(the PRESIDENT of Iraq said, for most it was WORSE than under saddam,
only an elite has profited.)

However, this has also fallen from 76 percent since February.

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,961 U.S.
adults surveyed online between December 8 and 14, 2005 by Harris
Interactive.


These new poll findings and trends show how slowly most people change
their minds once they believe something to be true.
Nevertheless, they also show that, over time, beliefs can change
greatly.

TABLE 1

WHAT THE PUBLIC BELIEVES TO BE TRUE

"Do you believe that the following statements are true or not true?"

Percent saying "true"

Base: All Adults


The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.

October 2004 76
February 2005 76
December 2005 56

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security.

October 2004 63
February 2005 61
December 2005 48

Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.

October 2004 62
February 2005 64
December 2005 41

Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the
U.S.
on September 11, 2001.

October 2004 41
February 2005 47
December 2005 22

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded.

October 2004 38
February 2005 36
December 2005 26

Several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were
Iraqis.

October 2004 37
February 2005 44
December 2005 24



TABLE 2 WHAT THE PUBLIC BELIEVES TO BE TRUE AND NOT TRUE

"Do you believe that the following statements are true or not true?"

Base: All Adults

The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein

True 56
Not True 16
Not Sure 25
Decline To Answer 3

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S.

True 48
Not True 35
Not Sure 15
Decline To Answer 2

Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda

True 41
Not True 33
Not Sure 24
Decline To Answer 2

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.s. invaded

True 26
Not True 50
Not Sure 22
Decline To Answer 2

Several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11 were Iraqis

True 24
Not True 42
Not Sure 31
Decline To Answer 3

Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the
U.S.
on Sept. 11, 2001

True 22
Not True 46
Not Sure 30
Decline To Answer 2


Methodology

The Harris Poll® was conducted online within the United States between
December 8 and 14, 2005 among 1,961 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures
for
age, sex, race, education, region and household income were weighted
where
necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the
population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for
respondents’ propensity to be online.

In theory, with probability samples of this size, one could say with 95
percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of
plus
or minus 2 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S.
adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Unfortunately,
there are several other possible sources of error in all polls or
surveys
that are probably more serious than theoretical calculations of
sampling
error. They include refusals to be interviewed (nonresponse), question
wording and question order, and weighting. It is impossible to quantify
the errors that may result from these factors. This online sample was
not
a probability sample.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=623