On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:27:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.

"Elitist". Leadership or rule by an elite.

"Elite". The best or most skilled members of a group.

Of course I want the best possible people to run the country. I am
sorry if you disagree.


My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
founders?

Here is the reading list for the course on Social and Political
Philosophy:


The Republic. Plato.

The Crito. Plato.

Politics. Aristotle.

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli.

Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes.

The Second Treatise On Civil Government. John Locke.

The Social Contract. Jean Jacques Rousseau.

The Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson.

Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson.

Letters. Thomas Jefferson.

On The Duty of Civil Disobedience. Henry David Thoreau.

On Liberty. John Stuart Mill.

The Doctrine of Fascism. Benito Mussolini.

Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler.

Reconstruction In Philosophy. John Dewey.

Ethics. John Dewey (with James H. Tufts).

Non-Violent Resistance. M. K. Gandhi.




The various Federalist Papers were covered in a History course, rather
than a Philosophy course.


Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate.

(False analogy deleted.)



I'm no longer going to bother arguing with you. Your mind is closed.
You ask for proof and when it is presented with you, you simply
indulge in the same tired, reflexive rhetoric.

Why?

Because


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!


(sorry Jack)



tom watson

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:02:07 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.

Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
themselves educated in a subject area.


Outstanding!

A perfect example of the intersection of Le Mot Juste with Le Bon
Mot.



tom watson

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:


It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dave Nagel


It should further be noted that I am not acting as a proponent of the
political theories discussed. Neither were any of the other students.
Neither was the prof.

Education is about familiarizing oneself with multiple viewpoints. It
may be the case that you have to hold your nose while you are learning
about some things.

Let me tell you a very short story.

I surprised my father-in-law one day while he was reading The New York
Times. As he was a life-long Republican, I expressed my dismay at his
choice of reading material.

Not missing a beat (he was an attorney, and used to impromptu
calumnies and vague innuendo) he said, "I like to know what the enemy
is thinking."


I rest my case.



tom watson

t wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:27:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold.
First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't
disappoint.

"Elitist". Leadership or rule by an elite.

"Elite". The best or most skilled members of a group.


and you were fussing at others over definitions of terms. So, let's be
precise:

From the American heritage dictionary:
é·lit·ism
NOUN: 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or
groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority,
as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2a. The sense of
entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or
domination by such a group or class.
OTHER FORMS: e·litist €”ADJECTIVE & NOUN

"Elitist" is one who considers himself to be a member of the elite, which
is not necessarily the same thing as being elite.



Of course I want the best possible people to run the country. I am
sorry if you disagree.


Yet you support those who want to punish them when they are in the private
sector.




.... snip


I'm no longer going to bother arguing with you. Your mind is closed.
You ask for proof and when it is presented with you, you simply
indulge in the same tired, reflexive rhetoric.

Why?

Because


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!


Proof? What proof are you talking about?

That, based upon your readings, Obama can't possibly be a marxist or
socialist?

OK, fine Tom, Obama is not a Marxist or socialist, the rest of us were
wrong. He's a free market capitalist who advocates raising taxes on those
who succeed (the private sector elite per your definition above), taking
the fruits of their labor and re-distributing that wealth to those who
haven't. That he will benefit politically from those to whom he bestows
this "largesse" I'm sure isn't even in the equation. He's not a socialist
even though he advocates nationalizing 1/7 of the US economy by
nationalizing health care. I don't know what the rest of us were thinking.

Oh, and he supports the second amendment,too. Just ask him. Pay no
attention to the fact that he has said, "I am consistently on the record as
opposing concealed carry" Chicago Tribune April 27, 2007
Has stated, "...just because you have an individual right does not mean
that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that
right" 2008 Philelphia primary debate. Has stated, "I'll continue to be in
favor of handgun registration requirements and licensing requirements for
training." Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001. Forget the fact that he voted
to allow prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in the
home (Illinois SB 2165 3/25/04). But he supports the second amendment and
his followers should get in peoples' faces and let them know that (recent
campaign appearance).






--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:02:16 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


You must be incredibly tough.


tom watson

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:06:29 -0400, t wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:02:16 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


You must be incredibly tough.

That's been the elephant in the room for a looooooong time.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

.... snip

That's too bad - and does not speak well of either faculties nor
administrations of those institutions. Perhaps as an alumnus you can
advocate for the missing balance.

Could it be that the fascination you describe is more with the various
notions of Utopia than with practical, real-world systems of governance?


From what I observed, I would say that is a correct assessment. Seems
that the advocates and apologists were always making the statement
that, "it just hasn't been done right". They kind of miss the basic needs
and nature of humans and the fact that in order for their utopian visions
to work, force is required; which, unfortunately kind of destroys that
utopian feeling.

The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has
in
multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize
and refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with
which statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't
change the idea that this candidate is seeking greater government
control, larger government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of
re-distributing it to his political gain, and punishing success in the
name of fairness.

Interesting. With the substitution of "productivity" for "success",
that's pretty much how I'd have characterized the behavior of the
current administration. :-)


Aside from the unfortunate addition of yet another major socialist program
(the prescription drug benefit), I'm not seeing that quest for more
government power.



Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate.
You
have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine
car
derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful
over
the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a
policy of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do
well also, those who have, for the past several years been finalists and
winners (the top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars
-- the judges will then choose one of those entries and provide that car
to one of the losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who
shows up with the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them
touching the ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with
crayon or magic marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the
thrill of the
competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and
look forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.


In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You surely
are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes raised
and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where the
top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the dictatorship
of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get something for
nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than themselves and
distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

It also does not follow that the tax burden on those in the top 25% has
declined, as a matter of fact, just the opposite:

1986 76.02
1987 76.92
1988 77.84
1989 77.22
1990 77.02
1991 77.29
1992 78.48
1993 79.27
1994 79.55
1995 80.36
1996 81.32
1997 81.67
1998 82.69
1999 83.54
2000 84.01
2001 82.90
2002 83.90
2003 83.88
2004 84.86
2005 85.99
2006 86.27

So, where does this end, the bottom end of the distribution continues to
have less and less stake in assuring that government expenditures are
well-managed and appropriate. As a matter of fact, since they benefit
disproportionately, it is in their interest to vote those into office who
promise the most. This is not a healthy situation in which our country
finds itself.


.... snip


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

t wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:


It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dave Nagel


.... snip

Not missing a beat (he was an attorney, and used to impromptu
calumnies and vague innuendo) he said, "I like to know what the enemy
is thinking."


I rest my case.


Tom, I was not advocating knowing the enemy nor the philosophies espoused.
I was taking exception to your insinuation that unless someone had read
your defined reading list, they were unworthy to discuss the topic at hand.
There are numerous ways to obtain such knowledge, full immersion into the
doctrine is not necessarily the only way to do so. Others will accuse you
of having not done enough because you did not read them in the original
language.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:24:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


Could anyone be THAT tough?


tom watson

t wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:02:16 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


You must be incredibly tough.


tom watson

Ad hominem? I will use the term very precisely here Tom, your elitism
based upon your self-perceived notion of your superior knowledge is showing
through. You cannot abide the fact that others have a different view with
which you disagree and you thus carry forth the notion that those others
must therefore be inferior to you and your own worldview, that they could
in no way have arrived at those worldviews through deliberative thought or
careful study and evaluation. Therefore we see the smug attitudes, the
dismissive statements and finally the devolution to ad hominem attack.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:32:45 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


Even Popeye isn't this tough.


tom watson

On Oct 19, 9:28*pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:24:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita

wrote:
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Could anyone be THAT tough?

tom watson

People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.

In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You surely
are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes raised
and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where the
top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the dictatorship
of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get something for
nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than themselves and
distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

Math isn't a serious problem for me until you move significantly beyond
partial differential equations. It was my major area of study.

You can shift the burden downward in either of two ways: either by

[1] introducing a relative increase in the rate of taxation on those
with lower incomes, or by

[2] introducing a relative decrease in the rate of taxation on those
with higher incomes.

However, without regard for the specific tax rates du jour, if the
middle class contracts beyond some 'healthy' threshold, then the entire
social structure (not just its financial or economic aspects) becomes
unstable.

I'm definitely not a socio-economics guru, so I can't specify where that
threshold lies - but not even a geek like me could miss the historical
pattern or doubt the irrelevance of specific tax rates if/when that
threshold is crossed.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.


Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).


tom watson

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, David G. Nagel wrote:

It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Very few people would claim that the Soviet Union practiced communism.
They were just another dictatorship that used communism as a prop.

However, Marx was right when he said it wouldn't work. Its main fallacy
was ignoring human nature.

t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:02:07 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.
Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
themselves educated in a subject area.


Outstanding!

A perfect example of the intersection of Le Mot Juste with Le Bon
Mot.



tom watson

I dunno. I found it a rather vapid response. Here's why. I have
learned much in my life. The more I know, the more I realize
I don't know. Given any discipline, I've come to understand that
it is possible to come up with an arcane reference that makes
my sparing partner seem ill educated. It is simply not possible to
be an expert in every primary resource. That's why honest people
have to resort to synthetic summaries. For instance, in one lifetime
I cannot master the whole of, say, economic or political theory.
But we can learn from works like "Economics In One Lesson" by
Hazlitt. Demanding original Greek or Latin before conceding the
merits of a debate is cheap rhetorical theater...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 19, 10:26*pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.

Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).

tom watson

I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.

But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."

Thank God for accountants.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).

tom watson

I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.

But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."

Thank God for accountants.

Thank God not all entrepreneurs are accountants.

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.

In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You
surely
are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes
raised
and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where
the top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the
dictatorship of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get
something for nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than
themselves and distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

Math isn't a serious problem for me until you move significantly beyond
partial differential equations. It was my major area of study.


Wasn't intending to imply that you did not -- your work on CNC equipment
and other endeavors show otherwise. I was directing that more at main
stream media and various congressional propagandists who, when tax cuts
were announced (as an across-the board percentage) complained that
the "rich" were going to benefit more, citing how the "rich" would be able
to buy a car with their tax decrease while those with only lower incomes
would be able to buy a muffler. That both groups received the same
percentage decrease was lost on (or ignored by) these propagandists,
labeling this as unfair to those with lower income.

You can shift the burden downward in either of two ways: either by

[1] introducing a relative increase in the rate of taxation on those
with lower incomes, or by

[2] introducing a relative decrease in the rate of taxation on those
with higher incomes.

However, without regard for the specific tax rates du jour, if the
middle class contracts beyond some 'healthy' threshold, then the entire
social structure (not just its financial or economic aspects) becomes
unstable.

I'm definitely not a socio-economics guru, so I can't specify where that
threshold lies - but not even a geek like me could miss the historical
pattern or doubt the irrelevance of specific tax rates if/when that
threshold is crossed.


Looking at the current tax burdens, I would say we are getting close to
that threshold. At some time, the burden is going to have to be shifted
back downward -- the current setup is open to the abuse I described
previously -- the tyranny of the majority. A majority that demands, it pay
little or nothing and that all the burden be carried by the minority (upper
25%). If nothing else, by shifting that tax burden more equitably, those
in the lower tiers will begin demanding accountability and frugality from
their government -- that's not a bad thing. Unfortunately, that's not an
easy thing to accomplish. Nobody in the lower tiers is going to willingly
accept a greater tax burden. The only way to make this work is to start
cutting government largesse and granting tax cuts to the upper tiers while
keeping the lower tier tax rates unchanged. This will be treated with
howls of protest, but it's going to have to happen sooner or later. If it
happens later, it very well could be that it happens by those toting the
load giving up and either voting with their feet or becoming members of the
receiving class as well.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
I dunno. I found it a rather vapid response.

That's because you're an ass.

On Oct 19, 11:11*pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).

tom watson

I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.

But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."

Thank God for accountants.

Thank God not all entrepreneurs are accountants.

Local business types that I know, are either buried in paperwork,
squeezing out a living, or some, like myself, hand off the time-
consuming details to those who know and like that kinda thing. The end
result, at least in my little cosmos, is far better when a business
can concentrate on what it does best. Bookkeeping and all those tax
forms and workman's comp forms, insurance crap and even simple stuff
like paying utility bills is just too time-consuming. Besides, it is
just not safe for me to go near my bank account.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:11 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.
(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).
tom watson
I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.
But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."
Thank God for accountants.
Thank God not all entrepreneurs are accountants.

Local business types that I know, are either buried in paperwork,
squeezing out a living, or some, like myself, hand off the time-
consuming details to those who know and like that kinda thing. The end
result, at least in my little cosmos, is far better when a business
can concentrate on what it does best. Bookkeeping and all those tax
forms and workman's comp forms, insurance crap and even simple stuff
like paying utility bills is just too time-consuming. Besides, it is
just not safe for me to go near my bank account.

All that said, I'm very sure you [and your acquaintances] know to buy
low and sell high.

On Oct 20, 12:26*am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:11 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.
(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).
tom watson
I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.
But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."
Thank God for accountants.
Thank God not all entrepreneurs are accountants.

Local business types that I know, are either buried in paperwork,
squeezing out a living, or some, like myself, hand off the time-
consuming details to those who know and like that kinda thing. The end
result, at least in my little cosmos, is far better when a business
can concentrate on what it does best. Bookkeeping and all those tax
forms and workman's comp forms, insurance crap and even simple stuff
like paying utility bills is just too time-consuming. Besides, it is
just not safe for me to go near my bank account.

All that said, I'm very sure you [and your acquaintances] *know to buy
low and sell high.

Mine is a value added business. I buy raw materials, apply magic with
my well-trained and skilful crew and execute a flawless installation.
For that, I add a modest margin of profit. I earn it.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 20, 12:26 am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:11 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.
(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).
tom watson
I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.
But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."
Thank God for accountants.
Thank God not all entrepreneurs are accountants.
Local business types that I know, are either buried in paperwork,
squeezing out a living, or some, like myself, hand off the time-
consuming details to those who know and like that kinda thing. The end
result, at least in my little cosmos, is far better when a business
can concentrate on what it does best. Bookkeeping and all those tax
forms and workman's comp forms, insurance crap and even simple stuff
like paying utility bills is just too time-consuming. Besides, it is
just not safe for me to go near my bank account.
All that said, I'm very sure you [and your acquaintances] know to buy
low and sell high.

Mine is a value added business. I buy raw materials, apply magic with
my well-trained and skilful crew and execute a flawless installation.
For that, I add a modest margin of profit. I earn it.

As it should be...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:20:53 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

As a matter of fact, since they benefit
disproportionately, it is in their interest to vote those into office who
promise the most. This is not a healthy situation in which our country
finds itself.

And since the 75% have more votes than the 25%, a fact of which
professional politicians are most certainly aware, I don't see the
situation correcting itself without constitutional amendment. And,
since the pro pols have a large influence on that process, I don't
think it's wise to hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:46:31 -0500, David G. Nagel wrote:

It should be noted that several years after he wrote Das Capital (sp)
Karl Marx decided that communism would not work as a practical matter.
In 1991 he was proven right by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Very few people would claim that the Soviet Union practiced communism.
They were just another dictatorship that used communism as a prop.

However, Marx was right when he said it wouldn't work. Its main fallacy
was ignoring human nature.


Like you, I don't claim that pure communism is practiced anywhere.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).

tom watson

I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.

But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."

Thank God for accountants.

The tax system provides money for government to perform it's constituted
duty. Redistribution of wealth is what Robin Hood was claimed to do.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I was directing that more at main stream media and various
congressional propagandists who, when tax cuts were announced (as an
across-the board percentage) complained that the "rich" were going to
benefit more, citing how the "rich" would be able to buy a car with
their tax decrease while those with only lower incomes would be able
to buy a muffler. That both groups received the same percentage
decrease was lost on (or ignored by) these propagandists, labeling
this as unfair to those with lower income.

It's an interesting situation perhaps made especially so by our
preoccupation with and confusion of "fairness" (same rules apply to all)
with "justice" (equity in all transactions - social as well as financial).

Regardless of the economic theory one espouses, there is a point at
which observers note that whatever system is not working when those at
the top of the scale receive compensation in excess of what they can
reasonably enjoy while those at the bottom of the scale are unable to
meet basic needs regardless of effort expended.

When/if that happens, the issue becomes one of justice - and it is not
the level of taxation that is called into question, but rather the worth
of the entire social structure that fails to provide equity.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

David G. Nagel wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).

tom watson

I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.

But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."

Thank God for accountants.

The tax system provides money for government to perform it's constituted
duty. Redistribution of wealth is what Robin Hood was claimed to do.

No. Robin Hood (claimed to) return to the poor that which had been
stolen from them by the rich. The supporters of wealth redistribution
via taxation claim they're doing the same thing. They're not. They're
stealing from the upper middle class and rich and giving it to everyone
else, thereby buying votes.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I vote that you admit that both Marxism and liberal/progressive politics
have a common cornerstone: The willingness to violate personal rights
and personal property in the name of the "greater good". Whether
we call it "the collective", "society at large", "the people", or
whatever the code words du jour are, this fact is inescapable.
You want to not be associated with Marxism? Quit supporting its
central tenet: That the group has a right to violate the individual.

Are you seriously arguing that conservative politics, as commonly practiced,
does not do the same? As far as I can see, the only difference is what rights
they wish to violate.
-- Doug

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.

Morris Dovey wrote:
Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
themselves educated in a subject area.

This reminds me when I was a younger man and running Unix System V which
came with a ton of utilities including AWK, a text processing language.
The documentation for AWK was about 2 pages double spaced. It was the
most amazing and concise documentation I've ever come across. Many
books have been written to teach AWK programing, but if you were smart
enough, and determined enough, about everything was contained in those 2
pages of super concise writings.

Any how, any goof that thinks he needs to read that list of crap Tom
posted to get a working definition of socialism has some sort of
learning deficiency.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=1&q=socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?Se...!&Language=ENG
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...fine=socialism

Shouldn't take more than a few minutes reading any of the definitions of
socialism to understand whats up with it. Moreover, if Tom wants to
discuss a definition or explain what he's learned after reading all that
crap, he should say something other than give people a reading list. If
what he's learned differs from what any of the above sources define as
socialism, then he is free to make his case.

A good compromise solution might be to boost short-term capital gains
taxes (to discourage disruptive speculation) and simultaneously
decreasing long-term capital gains taxes (to encourage responsible
investment).

There is already a different rate for short and long term capital gains.
Not sure what problem boosting that will solve, other than pushing the
fast and loose gambler to the government run gambling casinos and
lotteries? Personally, I think they should boost short term capital
gains taxes by elimination of long term capital gains taxes.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I vote that you admit that both Marxism and liberal/progressive politics
have a common cornerstone: The willingness to violate personal rights
and personal property in the name of the "greater good". Whether
we call it "the collective", "society at large", "the people", or
whatever the code words du jour are, this fact is inescapable.
You want to not be associated with Marxism? Quit supporting its
central tenet: That the group has a right to violate the individual.

Are you seriously arguing that conservative politics, as commonly practiced,
does not do the same? As far as I can see, the only difference is what rights
they wish to violate.
-- Doug

I am arguing no such thing. The so-called "conservatives" today are
just about as guilty as the the liberals of this kind of thing, simply
in other matters, as you point out. They only thing that redeems them
at all is at least they still argue for the protection of the
individual's money (however poorly their policies actually end up
doing that), whereas - as best as I can tell - the current crop of
liberals protects *nothing* of the individual's from the predations of
the state/collective. Well ... that's not quite true. Liberals love to
protect the imagined rights of foreign invaders, illegal aliens, and
almost anyone *not* a legitimate US citizen or resident.

It used to be you could count on the liberals to defend civil
liberties and the conservatives to work to limit the power and size of
government. Both have sold us out completely in this regard.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 20, 2:04*am, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:26 pm, t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
People can understand and do amazing things with very little in-depth
study or practise.
Flying 757's comes to mind.
Yeah - but the dude flying the 757, albeit badly, had to have had at
least a modicum of intelligence.

(oh my, i'm sure that i will now be accused of supporting terism
(sic)).

tom watson

I'm also looking for somebody to explain the difference between the
tax system and redistribution of wealth.
I admit I have never read any in-depth Lenin/Marks et al, I barely had
the patience for Cliff's Notes. I find economics as interesting as
watching somebody make blood-pudding.

But it reminds me of the two brothers. The older one an MBA from
Harvard, the younger not educated at all.
The MBA brother lived in a nice house in the burbs and his younger
brother came to visits him. The uneducated brother drives up in an
immaculately restored Bentley. His 20-year old model girlfriend
dripping in diamonds and both dressed to the nines in Mackie and
Armani.
The older bother asked how his brother got to be so filthy rich.
"Well, I don't know much about high finance." he told his MBA brother,
"But I bought this huge warehouse full of millions and millions of
pairs of socks at an auction for 2 cents per pair. Then I sold them
all for 9 cents per pair... and I got to tell ya, it is amazing how
much money you can make on a 7 percent profit margin."

Thank God for accountants.

The tax system provides money for government to perform it's constituted
duty. Redistribution of wealth is what Robin Hood was claimed to do.

Ah. That's known as bailing out the wealthy with money from Joe
Average...something like the recent trillion bucks arranged by our
government. Oh. Wait. Robin Hood was supposedly for taking from the
wealthy and giving to the poor. Today, it's take from the poor so the
wealthy can have more.

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:

Everybody wants to know where the bottom of the DOW is....

6330

Only 1200 points to go.