On 11 May 2024 11:24:22 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
(with regard to Americathon)

I have never even heard of this movie. There is a trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY

It looks like a present day version of Idiocracy.

The premise is kind of different, and basically takes the 1970s oil crisis
a bit farther. I saw it in a theatre when it came out and at some point
when I was running the Arisia film program I was able to get a 35mm print
of it from the archives and a lot of people talked about how they'd seen it >as kids but that the film seems to have disappeared.

It's available on DVD:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004G14XN4/

I've had it on my Amazon wishlist for years, hoping someone would get
it for me for Christmas. I saw Americathon on cable a bunch of times
when I was around 13 or 14 years old and loved it. Don't know how
well it would hold up, but I'd like to see it again someday.

-- Bob

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life >>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
long slavery to the state", right?

When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
Which is very ... tiresome.

As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
that was Canuck bucks too....

Different systems, different rules.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14 May 2024 02:42:11 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

In article <v1u767$ei8$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:

Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well, >>>perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
part to the current deficits.

Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.

What decreases in revenue? Here are the OECD figures for US Tax Revenue
from 1965 through 2022 (https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REVUSA):

1965 167 022
1966 186 065
1967 208 577
1968 218 623
1969 261 468
1970 276 727
1971 278 738
1972 313 091
1973 348 794
1974 389 542
1975 415 386
1976 450 017
1977 525 970
1978 588 261
1979 662 519
1980 730 672
1981 832 930
1982 871 205
1983 872 628
1984 973 472
1985 1 069 914
1986 1 127 958
1987 1 247 323
1988 1 334 154
1989 1 447 778
1990 1 552 413
1991 1 592 211
1992 1 678 736
1993 1 779 819
1994 1 915 493
1995 2 028 327
1996 2 183 329
1997 2 357 489
1998 2 525 496
1999 2 690 195
2000 2 900 519
2001 2 884 730
2002 2 733 431
2003 2 805 008
2004 3 025 257
2005 3 402 866
2006 3 699 160
2007 3 868 612
2008 3 787 415
2009 3 317 018
2010 3 517 144
2011 3 706 690
2012 3 887 233
2013 4 291 752
2014 4 542 584
2015 4 773 680
2016 4 837 633
2017 5 192 729
2018 5 131 484
2019 5 372 512
2020 5 419 799
2021 6 178 036
2022 7 041 876

The problem is not revenue, or tax cuts decreasing revenue.
The government just spends too much.

The problem is more likely to be that you are not adjusting for
inflation.

But let's wait until those 5M auditors the Republicans are whining
about get done getting the Republicans' rich buddies to pay the
/correct/ amount of tax for the past six years or so and see what
/that/ produces.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13 May 2024 23:19:35 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:

Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well, >>perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
part to the current deficits.

Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.

However, it should be pointed out that although reductions in tax rates
were not combined with increases in productivity like Mr. Reagan
predicted and this has increased the deficit a lot... the actual source of >much of that initial deficit comes from overspending on the War on Vietnam.

This is an interesting page:<https://www.investopedia.com/us-national-debt-by-year-7499291>

1980 $ 908 (billions, rounded)
1988 $2,602 (billions, rounded)

which is not what I have been led to believe, but it still tripled
under Reagan.

This is, of course, ignoring inflation.

The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
the social security system was created.

The Social Security system is supposed to be kept independent from the >general budget and so Social Security witholding isn't supposed to be
a tax. Unfortunately due to some fiddling with the budget in the eighties, >it has become that way. Fixing this should be a priority, and without
fixing it, it can be hard to figure out what the real deficit is.

The only way to fix it for for Congress to /pay the money back/ to
Social Security. Since neither Party appears willing to do /that/, the remaining solutions will all turn out to be unacceptable, so far as I
can tell.

"Unacceptable" here means that /the voters won't like them/. And
riled-up voters are a force to be, if not reckoned with, at least
appeased.

The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
even worth responding.

I dunno. I got shot on the street minding my own business. Mind you, it >was by a police officer, so that might not be quite what the original
poster was thinking.

If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
support future retirements without any modifications.

Bingo.

The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.

Yes. The Social Security program was intended to be a safety net
in order to cover people who fell between the cracks. It was not
intended to be a universal pension but when it got to the point
where the country needed a universal pension, it became one.

Alternately, since pretty much everyone contributed to it (or at least
was supposed to be doing so) and would eventually draw it, it
inevitably became a part of Retirement Planning, affecting any other
parts (penstions, IRAs/401(k)s, etc) by reducing how much income they
had to produce.

Sort of like of Earned Income Credit supports not paying adequate
wages because the gummint makes up (some) of the difference.

For a brief period, I "chased refunds" (as we called it) for the IRS.
I encountered people whose entire year was based on working for, to be
fair, most of the year and then get their EIC-enhanced refund and live
on that for a few months. They were /very/ unhappy when a glitch
occurred and the refund was delayed.

And, no, they weren't schoolteachers.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <s8v64j1kojpfbumdqvfch8c5dt6pv5hu60@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life >>>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life >>>long slavery to the state", right?

When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
Which is very ... tiresome.

This is a solved problem. Expected American lifespan dropped from 79
in 2019 to 76 in 2021. Since trends can be extended without limit,
it follows that US lifespans will keep dropping by a year per year
until 2098, when it reach be zero.


--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 13 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Thank you scott, I actually appreciate the information since what I wrote
is from a swedish perspective and not a US perspective. If what you're
saying is true, it does, in my opinion, shift the needle a tiny bit in
your direction.

There is hardly any comparison between the US and Swedish systems. The Swedish system was designed for universal coverage by people who realized that keeping people alive and well was good for the economy in the end.
It's got some issues but I am just shocked at the good condition of people when I visit Sweden.
--scott

That's not my view of things, having lived in sweden for at least 2
decades. Can you tell me more of what you experienced in sweden?

Needless to say, there is a reason I moved to another country, and that is because swedens systems are comind apart and society is breaking up. In
sweden people will stay wage slaves until they are 72 unless they are part
of the golden generation born after WW2 who basically stole everything and
left debts to the rest.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 14 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
long slavery to the state", right?

When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
Which is very ... tiresome.

No, you can change the assumptions, funding, or invest the money more
wisely. What you are saying is just tired platitudes from politicians who
are funded by the tax payers seeking the easy way out.

Modern citizens in western european countries are nothing more but wage
slaves who exist to feed the public sector.

I think the most sustainable way forward is to abolish social security and
let everyone take care of themselves.

As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
that was Canuck bucks too....

Different systems, different rules.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

That's not my view of things, having lived in sweden for at least 2
decades. Can you tell me more of what you experienced in sweden?

I didn't see any homeless people. Of all the people that I met on the
street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly
low-paying jobs and they don't worry from day to day about whether they
will keep their job and whether their apartment will still be available tomorrow. In doubtful neighborhoods in Stockholm and Gothenburg nobody
came up to me trying to sell me an empty spray can or a stolen cellphone.

Admittedly I have only been for a few months in a couple cities and in
the country near Varberg, but compared with Italy and large chunks of the
US, things seemed stable and well-run.

Needless to say, there is a reason I moved to another country, and that is >because swedens systems are comind apart and society is breaking up. In >sweden people will stay wage slaves until they are 72 unless they are part
of the golden generation born after WW2 who basically stole everything and >left debts to the rest.

Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a secure wage slave than an insecure one.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 14 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

That's not my view of things, having lived in sweden for at least 2
decades. Can you tell me more of what you experienced in sweden?

I didn't see any homeless people. Of all the people that I met on the

Come to Stockholm and I can show you plenty of homeless people. There's an invasion of gypsies who earn their living by begging, selling drugs,
stealing and prostitution. There's also the odd mentally ill person and
drug addict in the subway walking from subway car to subway car.

There's been an increase the last couple of decades.

street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly

This is tricky. I've been to the US more times than I can imagine, and
when I see crazy people on the street I don't know if they have untreated medical conditions or not. Is that what you mean? Mental illness?

low-paying jobs and they don't worry from day to day about whether they
will keep their job and whether their apartment will still be available

This is true, in my opinion, compared with the US. In sweden, salaries are
low, and workers rights are so strong that companies are less and less competitive internationally. If you're crafty you can live your entire
life on government money. Many immigrants from the middle east could net
3000 EUR per month in government money for decades.

That is what paying the worlds highest taxes brings you.

tomorrow. In doubtful neighborhoods in Stockholm and Gothenburg nobody
came up to me trying to sell me an empty spray can or a stolen cellphone.

Has never happened to me in the US either. But! I have not been to the US
for at least 5 years and I mostly visited Chicago, Las Vegas, Boston and Orlando, so could be that other cities I never visited have these
problems.

In sweden, if you want to buy stolen phones or drugs, you do it through
tiktok or whatsapp. The dealers don't want to get caught, so you won't
find them on the street corner but more online. Also goes for
prostitution.

Admittedly I have only been for a few months in a couple cities and in
the country near Varberg, but compared with Italy and large chunks of the
US, things seemed stable and well-run.

I give you this. I think swedens public sector is better run than italys.
It is way more wasteful, there's more dead-meat in the form of people who
do nothing in the public sector all their life, but on the whole, it kind
of works, although services have gotten a lot worse the last couple of
decades.

Needless to say, there is a reason I moved to another country, and that is >> because swedens systems are comind apart and society is breaking up. In
sweden people will stay wage slaves until they are 72 unless they are part >> of the golden generation born after WW2 who basically stole everything and >> left debts to the rest.

Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a secure wage slave than an insecure one.

Being a secure wage slave is a short step away from being a secure slave.
It is so far away from my core values to build my life around safety, that
it is difficult to describe.

I'd much rather be free than safe. But, this is a matter of taste, and to
a certain amount, of economics. Science has shown that economically free societies are better off in the long run, than socialist planned
economies.

But, yes, the socialist planned economies were "safer", but that's a
safety I would never want in my life. I value being free and doing what I
want with my life too much for any amount of safety.

Oh, and just to be clear, safe/unsafe does not mean taking stupid risks,
but I think that should be obvious. But just pointing out to be clear.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 15 May 2024 08:30:22 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/11/2024 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

For those who are interested in the future long term financial
apocalypse of the USA

More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.

Yup, just like reality.

USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. >>>> That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a >>>> hit man instead, much cheaper.

Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
has screwed us all.

Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
American public.

As others have pointed, they are. And, if this one or that one isn't,
it's going find itself in deep kimshee.

OTOH, requiring them to determine what they would be paying their
robotic workers if they were replaced by humans and paying payroll
taxes on /that/ might be one way of funding Social Security and
Medicare [1]. And ... adjust ... the cost/benefit analysis of
replacing humans with robots a bit.

[1] If they are already doing this, feel free to tell me. If this is
not practical politically, I agree. Have a nice day.

What's a 'robot worker'? Replacement usually isn't going to be firing
a human, and putting a humanoid robot in his/her place. How many humans
did a farm tractor replace? An electronic database vs clerks and file
cards?

There's not a one-for-one equivalent.

An article about one of the smaller (population-wise) States -- the
States devastated by the export of jobs -- the States filled with
red-blooded white American males itching to work for a living --
explored this.

A factory opened and started a 10-person line. After trying for
months, they found a total of 8 locals (out of a much larger number of unemployed potential workers) who were willing and able to show up
clean and sober five days a week and work 8 hours a day. Everybody
else preferred ... a different lifestyle. Including most white
American males. The 8 did the work, but with a lot of jumping from
position to position.

So the brought in two robots to finish the line. The /article's/ point
was that reality and Republican dogma are at variance. No news there.
My point is that the business should be paying their payroll taxes for
the two robots just as if they were humans. Based on whatever they pay
the humans, or paid them in the past, adjusted for inflation if no
current human employees exist to provide an amount.

The goal, after all, is to keep Social Security going. Allowing robots
to replace workers isn't going to help with that if payroll taxes are
only paid on the humans. And the cost of the payroll taxes should
affect the cost/benifit analysis of when and where to use them.

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:00:11 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

In article <s8v64j1kojpfbumdqvfch8c5dt6pv5hu60@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life >>>>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life >>>>long slavery to the state", right?

When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
Which is very ... tiresome.

This is a solved problem. Expected American lifespan dropped from 79
in 2019 to 76 in 2021. Since trends can be extended without limit,
it follows that US lifespans will keep dropping by a year per year
until 2098, when it reach be zero.

Huh. I'm 77. I've exceeded expectations!

More seriously, when I retired OPM was kind enough to compute the
pro-rated refund of the amount I contributed to the pension. This is
because the money I contributed was taxed going in and so not taxable
coming out.

That is, each month a certain amount of what I get is not taxable.
Using that amount and the total contribution it is easy to compute
what I presume to have been my life expectancy, per OPM, back when I
retired (nearly 20 years ago now): 84.5. Not quite a 1yr/yr drop over
nearly 20 years. But perhaps the rate of decrease is accelerating ...
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:19:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 14 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
long slavery to the state", right?

When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
Which is very ... tiresome.

No, you can change the assumptions, funding, or invest the money more >wisely. What you are saying is just tired platitudes from politicians who >are funded by the tax payers seeking the easy way out.

No amount of increased funding or investments will work if the number
of years you must pay out steadily increases. Especially if, as at
present and for some time past, a really large generation such as the
Boomers are retiring.

That's part of the problem: not enough workers even /exist/ to pay in
to provide enough to pay out. There are also shortages of staff in the
sort of things old people need most: caregivers. There just aren't
enough non-old people to go around. Well, except by importing them
from other countries. Whereupon the Republicans scream because it gets
them votes.

Modern citizens in western european countries are nothing more but wage >slaves who exist to feed the public sector.

And you think Egypt or Assyria or Chaldaea or the Medes/Persians or
Rome were any better?

And what makes you think this applies only to Western Europe? Were
people better off under the Communists in the East? Has Japan ceased
to try to work its employees to death?

I think the most sustainable way forward is to abolish social security and >let everyone take care of themselves.

That's not how it works in traditional cultures.

Adults, with a life expectancy of 60 or so, would find themselves in
their 40s supporting both their children and their aged parents. This
is expected of them -- indeed, it is part of "honor your father and
your mother".

Only 1%-ers can afford to take care of themselves. Everybody else
depends on people they do not own outright.

As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
that was Canuck bucks too....

Different systems, different rules.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 15 May 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!

I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.

UBI is dead from the start. It is proven by the simplest of calculations
and by history what happens with UBI schemes.

The best way is to return to the foundation of wester wealth, capitalism
and imprison all the socialists who are the reason why we are where we
are.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 15 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

No, you can change the assumptions, funding, or invest the money more
wisely. What you are saying is just tired platitudes from politicians who
are funded by the tax payers seeking the easy way out.

No amount of increased funding or investments will work if the number
of years you must pay out steadily increases. Especially if, as at
present and for some time past, a really large generation such as the
Boomers are retiring.

Depends on how you fund it, the ROI and especially on how prices and
cost of living decrease if we avoid politics and focus on technology and optimizing processes.

That's part of the problem: not enough workers even /exist/ to pay in
to provide enough to pay out. There are also shortages of staff in the
sort of things old people need most: caregivers. There just aren't
enough non-old people to go around. Well, except by importing them
from other countries. Whereupon the Republicans scream because it gets
them votes.

See above.

Modern citizens in western european countries are nothing more but wage
slaves who exist to feed the public sector.

And you think Egypt or Assyria or Chaldaea or the Medes/Persians or
Rome were any better?

Does not compute.

And what makes you think this applies only to Western Europe? Were
people better off under the Communists in the East? Has Japan ceased
to try to work its employees to death?

Did I say it did?

I think the most sustainable way forward is to abolish social security and >> let everyone take care of themselves.

That's not how it works in traditional cultures.

Things can change. If tradition is seen as a reason not to change, we'd
still be living in caves.

Adults, with a life expectancy of 60 or so, would find themselves in
their 40s supporting both their children and their aged parents. This
is expected of them -- indeed, it is part of "honor your father and
your mother".

I don't understand.

Only 1%-ers can afford to take care of themselves. Everybody else
depends on people they do not own outright.

Incorrect. It depends on education, technology, discipline and how the
money is managed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 15 May 2024 21:37:52 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!

I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.

UBI is dead from the start. It is proven by the simplest of calculations
and by history what happens with UBI schemes.

I was unaware that any culture had actually tried it. Indeed, I am
unaware of any culture that is so automated that 99% of the population
are not needed to produce value because robots do it all.

I am aware that actual tests have indicated that your sort of
viewpoint is far too ideological to be considered realistic. This
includes tests showing that /social workers cost more than welfare
frauds steal/ and that /paying the homeless causes them to find
housing and jobs/ (the easier cases, not those with mental problems or
career criminals).

And your buddies the Republicans have no problems with paying money to
people -- as long as they are rich people and it is a large amount of
money. It is only paying modest amounts to The Rest of Us that they
object to.

The best way is to return to the foundation of wester wealth, capitalism
and imprison all the socialists who are the reason why we are where we
are.

Capitalism does so well that it is constantly screwing up to the point
that laws are required to produce anything resembling proper behavior. Anti-trust laws. Child-labor laws. Anti-adulteration laws. Deceptive advertising laws. The list is endless.

And, with most wealth belonging to the 1%-ers, why should the Rest of
Us care about producing any more of it for them?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 16 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2024 21:37:52 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples, >>>> of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!

I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.

UBI is dead from the start. It is proven by the simplest of calculations
and by history what happens with UBI schemes.

I was unaware that any culture had actually tried it. Indeed, I am
unaware of any culture that is so automated that 99% of the population
are not needed to produce value because robots do it all.

I am aware that actual tests have indicated that your sort of
viewpoint is far too ideological to be considered realistic. This
includes tests showing that /social workers cost more than welfare
frauds steal/ and that /paying the homeless causes them to find
housing and jobs/ (the easier cases, not those with mental problems or
career criminals).

And your buddies the Republicans have no problems with paying money to
people -- as long as they are rich people and it is a large amount of
money. It is only paying modest amounts to The Rest of Us that they
object to.

The best way is to return to the foundation of wester wealth, capitalism
and imprison all the socialists who are the reason why we are where we
are.

Capitalism does so well that it is constantly screwing up to the point
that laws are required to produce anything resembling proper behavior. Anti-trust laws. Child-labor laws. Anti-adulteration laws. Deceptive advertising laws. The list is endless.

And, with most wealth belonging to the 1%-ers, why should the Rest of
Us care about producing any more of it for them?

I was unaware we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have today
is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population at
large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization compared
with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, quality of
life etc.

I could recommend Johan Norbergs book the capitalist manifesto that shows
why this is with data, but I suspect you are more interested in ideology
than science.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have today is >> a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is far from
capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most cosy with
politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population at
large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization compared with >> 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

That can be explained in two ways.

1. What we enjoy now, was built up during times of much lower taxes and
much fewer regulations.

and

2. It shows that despite the enormous destructive forces of central
planning we have today, the market still enables us to live at the level
we do.

So my interpretation is that we are in the short term (and we have)
sliding down due to socialism, but in the long term, once we get back on
track, we'll see further improvements.

Probably we need a global crash or two so that people are reminded of what happens with high taxes and regulations, and then a lot of socialist and sleeping civil servants will be kick out and we can have the next growth
cycle.

Also note that if you are a bit contrarian, this can also be used as an excellent foundation for investment decisions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

So my interpretation is that we are in the short term (and we have)
sliding down due to socialism, but in the long term, once we get back on >track, we'll see further improvements.

I talk to a lot of young kids who say they "don't believe in capitalism"
and when I try to remind them the benefits of the capitalist system they
stare at me like I am an alien. And I realized that this is because I
am old and I remember when capitalism worked well, whereas all they have seen in twenty years has been rich people getting richer and poor people
getting poorer.

Capitalism can work, and I have seen it work. But taking the hands off
the system and letting the market do everything results in disaster. Corporations work together both by collusion and forming trusts and in consolidation to try to eliminate competition. They see competition as
bad for them individually, but in fact competition is what makes capitalism work.

And we, as people who are old enough to remember capitalism working, damned well better start making it work again before those kids take over, as they eventually will. Eisenhower warned us all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a "planned economy".


--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen the horrors
of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance (https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 18 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

So my interpretation is that we are in the short term (and we have)
sliding down due to socialism, but in the long term, once we get back on
track, we'll see further improvements.

I talk to a lot of young kids who say they "don't believe in capitalism"
and when I try to remind them the benefits of the capitalist system they stare at me like I am an alien. And I realized that this is because I
am old and I remember when capitalism worked well, whereas all they have seen in twenty years has been rich people getting richer and poor people
getting poorer.

Capitalism can work, and I have seen it work. But taking the hands off
the system and letting the market do everything results in disaster. Corporations work together both by collusion and forming trusts and in consolidation to try to eliminate competition. They see competition as
bad for them individually, but in fact competition is what makes capitalism work.

And we, as people who are old enough to remember capitalism working, damned well better start making it work again before those kids take over, as they eventually will. Eisenhower warned us all.
--scott

But it is the government and corporation influencing it that demolishes capitalism. Like you, I've seen it work well, but my belief is that improvements never happen in a straight line. It fluctuates, sometimse
goes down, followed by a rise.

If we zoom out to the level of 100s of years, the historic trend is clear.

So the reason the young see what they do, is that the government (and
corporate lobbyists) have interfered with the market, so we have less capitalism and not more.

But, when it comes to your warning I agree. It is an interesting question
how we can educate people in the blessings of capitalism, so they do _not_
grow up into politicians who want to "fix" the market and by fixing it,
they destroy it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:35:30 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a >"planned economy".

One suspects that D is a wanna-be 1%er who is upset that he can't
reach his goal if any laws of any sort, type, or kind exist.

It is clear that his version of "capitalism" includes such features
as: trusts/syndicates/market-cornering/squeezing everybody else,
competition without any restrictions, no labor unions, abundant child
labor, adulteration as need to increase profits, and so on. /That/ is
the "capitalism" he supports.

He also appears to have swallowed the "peak of civilization" "high
culture" /restricted to white Western Europeans/ myth.

This isn't unique, of course. Tillich, after WW2, was appalled at how
quickly Germany, "the most civilized society on Earth", had fallen
into barbarism. He failed to realize that what he called "civilized
behavior" was merely the behavior of the Upper and Upper-Middle
classes (who could afford special clothes for going to plays and
concerts, and the carriages needed to get there and back) -- a
paper-thin covering over the abyss of reality.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance (https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/19/2024 10:28 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 19/05/2024 12.05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO
of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

  Can't have a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from
whacking someone else over the head and taking their things.

That's just showing initiative! Innovation!

Whoever whacks last is CEO!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or legal >>> restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
"planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse results. >> On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of studying
socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a more free
country, that it is easier to come to the belief that government "fixes"
all the problems of the market when you have not seen the horrors of
socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone else over the head and taking their things.

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be further
from my mind and my position than banning two people who voluntarily
transact to come up with their contracts.

I recommend you to have a look at mises.org for loads of information that explains to you how that works and the benefits, if you are genuinely interested.

If you argue based on ideology, then for the love of god, please do _not_
check that web site, since it will only make you angry.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:35:30 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
"planned economy".

One suspects that D is a wanna-be 1%er who is upset that he can't
reach his goal if any laws of any sort, type, or kind exist.

You will never know. But I do find your guesses and interpretations very entertaining, so please continue. =)

It is clear that his version of "capitalism" includes such features
as: trusts/syndicates/market-cornering/squeezing everybody else,
competition without any restrictions, no labor unions, abundant child
labor, adulteration as need to increase profits, and so on. /That/ is
the "capitalism" he supports.

Let's content ourselves with less is more. Some of the above is good, some
of the above was good, some of it is necessary along the development of capitalism, and some is untenable in a free market, and only exists today because of hte government.

I was not aware of your level of ignorance, but now that I am, I can
understand that socialism seems workable to you.

If you would like to educate yourself, I recommend that you have a look at mises.org. You'll find plenty of good and solid free market material there
to enlighten you.

He also appears to have swallowed the "peak of civilization" "high
culture" /restricted to white Western Europeans/ myth.

It is true. European science and technology is the foundation of our
modern civilization and has basically won. Granted, there are local
cultures left, but on the whole, the western mentality, science nad
mindset has been proven to be the most utilitarian.

Only woke people insist on not realizing this, and that is why we are in a political incline since everything european and white is labeled as bad,
and we see the enormous destruction of this mindset.

But the public will wake up eventually, and then we'll move on to higher
levels of european civilization.

This isn't unique, of course. Tillich, after WW2, was appalled at how
quickly Germany, "the most civilized society on Earth", had fallen
into barbarism. He failed to realize that what he called "civilized
behavior" was merely the behavior of the Upper and Upper-Middle
classes (who could afford special clothes for going to plays and
concerts, and the carriages needed to get there and back) -- a
paper-thin covering over the abyss of reality.

Nonsense and completely unrelated to anything I've said. Please do make an effort at least, or else this will become very tedious very quickly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start >stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

But it is the government and corporation influencing it that demolishes >capitalism. Like you, I've seen it work well, but my belief is that >improvements never happen in a straight line. It fluctuates, sometimse
goes down, followed by a rise.

Right. And in a democracy, the people who are responsible for that in
the end comes down to us, the voters.

So the reason the young see what they do, is that the government (and >corporate lobbyists) have interfered with the market, so we have less >capitalism and not more.

Right, although I am not sure I would say "less capitalism" but I would
say "less fairness in capitalism."

But, when it comes to your warning I agree. It is an interesting question
how we can educate people in the blessings of capitalism, so they do _not_ >grow up into politicians who want to "fix" the market and by fixing it,
they destroy it.

All we can do is to make it work by example.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Come to Stockholm and I can show you plenty of homeless people. There's an >invasion of gypsies who earn their living by begging, selling drugs,
stealing and prostitution. There's also the odd mentally ill person and
drug addict in the subway walking from subway car to subway car.

That's fine. Those folks will always be with us. I am talking about people who have jobs but live in their car or in a tent city because making minimum wage even as a hard worker is not enough for them to be able to afford a
studio apartment.

street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious >> untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly

This is tricky. I've been to the US more times than I can imagine, and
when I see crazy people on the street I don't know if they have untreated >medical conditions or not. Is that what you mean? Mental illness?

No, although that is a thing that is more of a problem in the US than in
most European countries. I am thinking about people with physical issues.
Take a trip on the city bus here, and you'll see people with goiters, contagious pink eye, untreated skin infections, etc. Often things that
would not be difficult or expensive to cure. How the hell do people get goiters in the 21st century anyway?

Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a
secure wage slave than an insecure one.

Being a secure wage slave is a short step away from being a secure slave.
It is so far away from my core values to build my life around safety, that
it is difficult to describe.

I've been unsafe enough that I do tend to value safety. Not to the
exclusion of everything else, but I'd like for other people not to have to
go through some of what I went through. And I am okay paying a little more taxes for that.

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely different from place to place.

I'd much rather be free than safe. But, this is a matter of taste, and to
a certain amount, of economics. Science has shown that economically free >societies are better off in the long run, than socialist planned
economies.

You're saying one extreme is better than the other. But there are a huge,
huge number of possibilities between those two extremes and most of them
are better than either one. Exactly where in that range is optimal is something that can be argued about because people differ.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist"
and a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit"
of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US
or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO
of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have
a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
someone else over the head and taking their things.

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.

So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
you think a government is?)
So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
the government?
The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
the government?
The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
labor should not be regulated by the government?
The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/05/24 13:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
snip

So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade?  (What exactly do
you think a government is?)
So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
the government?
The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
the government?
The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
labor should not be regulated by the government?
The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

Of course. Based on history to date, wealth and power do not lead to immortality but do make it extremely unlikely to be exposed to wage
slave labour. Given that we old white guys aren't going to be here for
more than a few more decades, it makes sense to use our wealth for
shorter term gains and how else can the great unwashed be kept occupied
without drugs and guns? You should have thought this through before
rushing to reply.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start >stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
cheap energy.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy >>>>>>> rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or >>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist"
and a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit"
of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US
or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO >>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have
a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
someone else over the head and taking their things.

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.

So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
you think a government is?)
So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
the government?
The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
the government?
The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
labor should not be regulated by the government?
The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a >manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

D is quoting from mises.org. From wikipedia:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics,
or Mises Institute, is a nonprofit think tank headquartered
in Auburn, Alabama, that is a center for Austrian economics,
radical right-wing libertarian thought and the paleolibertarian
and anarcho-capitalist movements in the United States.

It was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell, chief of staff to Texas
Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

"It favors a "Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen
as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of
social justice is destructive".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19 May 2024 22:55:44 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it >>doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start >>stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >>marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone >>else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it >less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called >"anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people >espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be >on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

As Ayn Rand once pointed out, the /extremes/ of Left and Right are ...
very much the same, despite their ideological differences.

The anarchists re-branded themselves antifa but their behavior (hide
in a legitimate demonstration, change to all-black clothes, dart out
and attack store windows, fade back in) never changed. Nor did their
ideology: during the demonstrations, a poster appeared explaining why
/breaking downtown department store windows/ was a necessary part of
/defunding the police/. Note that it is precisely the rise in crimes
against retail businesses that, in Seattle, produced a few changes
since the last election.

That and the development of what appears to be a better way to clear
homeless encampments than having the police wade in with batons waving
and confiscating whatever possessions the occupants may possess. Not
that we've reached Nirvana yet, to be sure.

And the tea party was a picnic compared to the semi-fascist ultra-MAGA
types. Or even many of the less extreme MAGA types. Still, trimming
the Republican Party of both groups and Democratic Party of the
Friends of Bernie would be very helpful to the country.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott

Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but
the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just
say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
enforced by contracts. There is no need for a government, you can have
rules and regulations without it.

Is that feasible? That's a different discussion, but this is the
difference between left anarchists and right anarchists or "anarcho-capitalists".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

But it is the government and corporation influencing it that demolishes
capitalism. Like you, I've seen it work well, but my belief is that
improvements never happen in a straight line. It fluctuates, sometimse
goes down, followed by a rise.

Right. And in a democracy, the people who are responsible for that in
the end comes down to us, the voters.

In theory, in practice in the west, I'd say that the power rests with
parties, career politicians, lobbyist and the captains of industry. The
regular voters are given the illusion of choice, but in reality they don't really make any big changes.

So the reason the young see what they do, is that the government (and
corporate lobbyists) have interfered with the market, so we have less
capitalism and not more.

Right, although I am not sure I would say "less capitalism" but I would
say "less fairness in capitalism."

Hmm, maybe.

But, when it comes to your warning I agree. It is an interesting question
how we can educate people in the blessings of capitalism, so they do _not_ >> grow up into politicians who want to "fix" the market and by fixing it,
they destroy it.

All we can do is to make it work by example.
--scott

That is very much true! =)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Come to Stockholm and I can show you plenty of homeless people. There's an >> invasion of gypsies who earn their living by begging, selling drugs,
stealing and prostitution. There's also the odd mentally ill person and
drug addict in the subway walking from subway car to subway car.

That's fine. Those folks will always be with us. I am talking about people who have jobs but live in their car or in a tent city because making minimum wage even as a hard worker is not enough for them to be able to afford a studio apartment.

Ahh ok. I understand. No, this I have not seen in Stockholm nor in any
other european city. I have seen it outside the cities though, usually in
the country side.

street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious >>> untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly

This is tricky. I've been to the US more times than I can imagine, and
when I see crazy people on the street I don't know if they have untreated
medical conditions or not. Is that what you mean? Mental illness?

No, although that is a thing that is more of a problem in the US than in
most European countries. I am thinking about people with physical issues. Take a trip on the city bus here, and you'll see people with goiters, contagious pink eye, untreated skin infections, etc. Often things that
would not be difficult or expensive to cure. How the hell do people get goiters in the 21st century anyway?

Ahh, I see. Based on my experience, I agree with you. Granted, I don't
watch too close in public transport, but no, not that many medical
problems except for gypsies who illegally immigrated from romania who use
it to get more sympathy while begging in the streets.

Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a >>> secure wage slave than an insecure one.

Being a secure wage slave is a short step away from being a secure slave.
It is so far away from my core values to build my life around safety, that >> it is difficult to describe.

I've been unsafe enough that I do tend to value safety. Not to the
exclusion of everything else, but I'd like for other people not to have to
go through some of what I went through. And I am okay paying a little more taxes for that.

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

This is the great irony of the anarcho-capitalist position. Socialists and communists are more than welcome to live in an anarcho-capitalist world,
as long as they force no one to live with them, but like minded people,
pelase go ahead.

I, however, am not allowed to live in the socialists world, because then
I'll be thrown in prison. I think this is a very clear example of the difference between an ideology of freedom and one of authoritarianism.

I'd much rather be free than safe. But, this is a matter of taste, and to
a certain amount, of economics. Science has shown that economically free
societies are better off in the long run, than socialist planned
economies.

You're saying one extreme is better than the other. But there are a huge, huge number of possibilities between those two extremes and most of them
are better than either one. Exactly where in that range is optimal is something that can be argued about because people differ.
--scott

I think you are way too adult and mature to have a good, honest, "trolly" discussion with! Yes, it is not a binary question, you are of course
right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy >>>>>>> rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or >>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a >>>>> "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of >>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a >>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen >>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of >>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of regulation >>> and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start stripping away >>> all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that you can't _HAVE_
capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have a marketplace if
there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone else over the
head and taking their things.

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be further
from my mind and my position than banning two people who voluntarily
transact to come up with their contracts.

So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do you think a government is?)

Sure they can, as long as they don't violate their contracts with their employers.

So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by the government?

Exactly! Instead it would be "regulated" by the owner of the property
where the sale takes place. Absent an owner, no regulation at all.

The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by the government?

Exactly! Now you're getting it! Except, see above.

The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave labor should not be regulated by the government?

Kidnapping violates the right of the individual being kidnapped and will
be protected against with personal weapons, nieghbourshood watches,
security companies etc.

In theory, although I doubt anyone would agree, someone can sell himself
as a slave, but probably the nr of persons doing that would be close to
zero.

Also note that financially slave labour does not make sense. Companies employing people perform better than organizations employing slaves.

The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

Depends on who owns the land. Some land will be destroyed (like today,
both by governments and private individuals and companies) and some land
will be protected. Eliminate the commons and you also eliminate the
tragedy of the commons.

Did I manage to convince you? =)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone >>> else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
"anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people >> espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be >> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott

Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but >the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just >say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and >enforced by contracts.

How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
its own?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <5sN2O.32877$SNzd.8147@fx40.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone >>>> else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it >>> less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called >>> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be >>> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott

Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but >>the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just >>say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and >>enforced by contracts.

How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
its own?

Through compelling moral gravitas. Suppose for example, you sign
a contract with Ea-Nasir for some copper. Further suppose the
copper delivered was subpar or even wood painted copper. Wave the
contract at him and surely he will instantly be shamed into providing
the copper he promised. Probably there would a clay tablet commissioned
to commemorate the event.

Alternatively, suppose Doug the developer would like to purchase D's
land. He sends Leg Breaker Leon and Excessively Homicidal Phil around
to make a fair offer. D accepts the fair offer. While he is recovering
in hospital, he discovers that his beloved family home has been torn
down (with his family inside) and construction has begun, but no funds
were transfered to his account. All he need do is admonish Doug and
present the contract, at which point he will mysteriously fall down a
flight of stairs seventeen times before being hurled off the top of
a sky scapper, because this is magical fairy libertopia, there are
no cops, and Leg Breaker Leon and Excessively Homicidal Phil got
their names for a reason. Everyone wins, and there's no need for a
nanny state.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their >> share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely >> different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are
being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.) --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/20/2024 11:44 AM, D wrote:

Did I manage to convince you? =)

Yes, but not of what you wanted to convince me of.

*PLONK*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/20/2024 9:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and >>>> a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen >>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of >>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
cheap energy.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

The current ECONOMY is based on non-renewable hydrocarbons. Whatever
replaces that economy will likely still be a CAPITALIST society.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/20/2024 11:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

Oh no, another Peak Oiler !

Rather than name calling (and in fact, Dr. Murphy is a physicist),
why don't you address the facts in that post?

It is about preparing for the inevitable decline in petroleum production;
which pretty much everybody, except you apparently, know is coming.

The point of the article is that it takes energy to make energy,
and the EROEI ratio (energy produced to energy consumed to produce it)
has been dropping rather precipitously for fossil fuels (from 100:1
a century ago, to less than 3:1 for e.g. oil sands).

If the cost to produce one unit of energy is two units of
energy, you can see the trap closing on your feet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/20/2024 9:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

  we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy >>>>>>> rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or >>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and >>>>> a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of >>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a >>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen >>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of >>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone >>> else over the head and taking their things.

Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
cheap energy.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

The current ECONOMY is based on non-renewable hydrocarbons. Whatever >replaces that economy will likely still be a CAPITALIST society.

Infinite growth seems physically impossible (at least within the
context of a single planet); absent some magic technology,
humanity has only the finite planet earth.

A steady-state economy may or may not meet the definition of
capitalist (and I suspect that it wouldn't).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

?? we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and >>>> a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen >>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where B??rje Ekholm, CEO of >>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
cheap energy.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

I disagree. I think we'll continue to grow when we start with asteroid
mining, deep sea mining etc. We're not even close to the end. Eventually
we'll colonize other planets.

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped
or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Last but not least, with increased automation, there's also the aspect of
doing more with less.

In terms of what eventually will replace capitalism, I imagine some kind
of post-scarcity society � la Star trek with nano-technology, ubiquitous
solar power, 3d-printing and so on. But that is of course today just
science fiction and speculation.

But you can tell that I am short term negative, but long term extremely optimistic about the human race and its future. =)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

?? we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have

today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is >>>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most >>>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population >>>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization >>>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, >>>>>>>>> quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of >>>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy >>>>>>>> rather than capitalism.

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or >>>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" >>>>>> and a "planned economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" >>>>> of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US >>>>> or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that >>>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where B??rje Ekholm, CEO >>>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance >>>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist.?? Never has.?? There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.?? When you start >>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.?? Can't have >>>> a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
someone else over the head and taking their things.

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>> they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.

So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
you think a government is?)
So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
the government?
The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
the government?
The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
labor should not be regulated by the government?
The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

D is quoting from mises.org. From wikipedia:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics,
or Mises Institute, is a nonprofit think tank headquartered
in Auburn, Alabama, that is a center for Austrian economics,
radical right-wing libertarian thought and the paleolibertarian
and anarcho-capitalist movements in the United States.

It was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell, chief of staff to Texas
Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

"It favors a "Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen
as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of
social justice is destructive".

That's a joke and it teaches us the political bias of wikipedia and why it should never be used as a serious reference. Let me contrast that with
this text from mises.org:

"The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics, and individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of
Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard".

Now you can go there yourself and form your own opinion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone >>>> else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it >>> less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called >>> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be >>> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott

Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but >> the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just >> say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
enforced by contracts.

How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
its own?

Depends on how it is written. You can refer to private enforcing agencies, arbitrators, courts etc. It is being done today and there are many non-governmental courts which you can use in your contracts to settle disagreements.

You can also contract how enforcement should be done. There are private security companies who can assist with that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon.

This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new building with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?

William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can recommend excellent books.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely >>> different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.) --scott

So you are saying that the only reason you like paying taxes is if all
other people around you are forced to do so as well.

If no one was forced to pay taxes, you would be equally happy, because no
one would be forced?

It is therefore more important to you that everybody should be equal, than
any positive effects you would derive from unequal treatment?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/20/2024 11:44 AM, D wrote:

Did I manage to convince you? =)

Yes, but not of what you wanted to convince me of.

*PLONK*

=( Well, at least I tried! ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,

Please don't post MIME. This is usenet, not farcebook.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

I disagree. I think we'll continue to grow when we start with asteroid >mining, deep sea mining etc. We're not even close to the end. Eventually >we'll colonize other planets.

Dr. Murphy addresses those topics as well. You are clearly suffering
from wishful thinking. Colonization of any planet is currently
way beyond our capabilities - it's not even clear that humans can survive
on any planet other than earth using only in-situ resources. Even
Mars, which would be the most likely candidate, suffers from the lack
of a van allen belt and thus the radiation at the surface pretty much
precludes any substantial settlement by humans.

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped
or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Please enlighten us with exactly how those problems have been
solved, and exactly which regulations you think are standing in
the way.

There is no alternative form of energy production (including nuclear
and fusion) that can support the historic growth in energy consumption.

In terms of what eventually will replace capitalism, I imagine some kind
of post-scarcity society � la Star trek with nano-technology, ubiquitous >solar power, 3d-printing and so on. But that is of course today just
science fiction and speculation.

And likely will remain so.

A more comprehensive survey of all your proposed solutions is
discussed here, with supporting math.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <44938613-85d8-1f1d-4bd6-88f47993161e@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>> they agree upon.

This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when >> you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even >> know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an >> agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new >building
with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when >> he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just

how much

Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your >customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can >recommend excellent books.

And yet, not only did such things frequently happen in the past, they
happen now. It's almost as though your model does not actually reflect
reality.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely >>>> different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are
being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)

So you are saying that the only reason you like paying taxes is if all
other people around you are forced to do so as well.

No, that is not what I am saying. You are asserting the contrapositive. --scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your >customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can >recommend excellent books.

It's a very effective strategy when you have a seemingly-endless set of
new customers available to you, and when you can keep a low enough profile
that potential customers and survivors of former customers cannot identify
you.

The two examples given were good ones that happened in the US long ago,
but you can see plenty of examples in China today where safety legislation
does not exist and the market is either not sufficiently informed to realize they are using toxic materials or have no other alternatives.

It's also worth looking at the example of the American tobacco industry. --scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/21/2024 12:10 PM, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is
what they agree upon.

This being  a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your
decisions when you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do
you even know it is there?   In what sense is your consumption of
Plaster of Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of
knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you  rent a room in a new
building with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to  rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds
of Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his
tenants when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep
silent on just how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers.

Your conclusion is contradicted by reality.  This strategy worked for decades, and in other contexts, works now.

 I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.

Aside from the time travel, this all happened.  There was plaster of
Paris in the bread, Arsenic in the wallpaper.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted it, but they got it.  Free market!

If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how,

Oh, I love that "really".  After "really" ignoring the facts I gave
above, you point me to "excellent books".

The facts of history directly contradict your claims.  But you prefer theory.

Correction, he prefers fairy tales.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024, James Nicoll wrote:

In article <44938613-85d8-1f1d-4bd6-88f47993161e@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>>> they agree upon.

This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when >>> you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even
know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an
agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new

building

with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when
he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just

how much

Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
recommend excellent books.

And yet, not only did such things frequently happen in the past, they
happen now. It's almost as though your model does not actually reflect reality.

Governments have killed more people that private businesses so I think
from that angle, we can say for sure that businesses are safer and less
likely to kill their customers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are >>> being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)

So you are saying that the only reason you like paying taxes is if all
other people around you are forced to do so as well.

No, that is not what I am saying. You are asserting the contrapositive. --scott

What are you saying? I do not understand what you are saying.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,

Please don't post MIME. This is usenet, not farcebook.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not >>> be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

I disagree. I think we'll continue to grow when we start with asteroid
mining, deep sea mining etc. We're not even close to the end. Eventually
we'll colonize other planets.

Dr. Murphy addresses those topics as well. You are clearly suffering
from wishful thinking. Colonization of any planet is currently
way beyond our capabilities - it's not even clear that humans can survive
on any planet other than earth using only in-situ resources. Even
Mars, which would be the most likely candidate, suffers from the lack
of a van allen belt and thus the radiation at the surface pretty much precludes any substantial settlement by humans.

There is no fundamental law that makes it impossible for human beings to colonize other planets, and I did not state that this will take place
tomorrow.

Needless to say, I disagree with you, and I have not seen anything which
seems to make that possibility impossible. We are talking long time scales here, but I thought that was easily understood, but let me just state it
for the sake of clarity.

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped
or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Please enlighten us with exactly how those problems have been
solved, and exactly which regulations you think are standing in
the way.

Nuclear power. The regulative burden of building nuclear power is well
known in many countries in western europe. I think I've heard about 5
years from plan to production in south korea, but I'm not sure. Cutting regulations and moving to cutting edge SMR:s should cut that.

Basically, we could expand nuclear massively, absent politicians, and of
course complement that with solar/wind where possible and desirable.

Looking at gasoline, that's another cheap source of energy and where I
live taxes on it is 50%, those could be removed.

I could go on and on, and yes, I guess you might say it's wishful thinking
or that those regulations keep us safe, and I disagree with both. I think
it is absolutely possible to give everyone plenty of technology at a low
cost with current technology.

There is no alternative form of energy production (including nuclear
and fusion) that can support the historic growth in energy consumption.

Nuclear, sun, wind, oil, all combined can absolutely support massive
energy growth. We can mine thorium as well, and with modern technology
reuse spent fuel.

In terms of what eventually will replace capitalism, I imagine some kind
of post-scarcity society ? la Star trek with nano-technology, ubiquitous
solar power, 3d-printing and so on. But that is of course today just
science fiction and speculation.

And likely will remain so.

I disagree.

A more comprehensive survey of all your proposed solutions is
discussed here, with supporting math.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

I cannot see where he says that anything is impossible and I cannot see
where he discusses thorium supply and SMR:s. Can you point me to those
sections please?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
recommend excellent books.

It's a very effective strategy when you have a seemingly-endless set of
new customers available to you, and when you can keep a low enough profile that potential customers and survivors of former customers cannot identify you.

Lots of ifs and buts here. I disagree with you, and given the nr of
businesses that exist, street food vendors etc. in non-regulated
countries, we all seem to be doing just fine.

Thing is, when people start to die around a business people tend to
notice. It is not so easy to kill at the level of governments and hide it.

The two examples given were good ones that happened in the US long ago,
but you can see plenty of examples in China today where safety legislation does not exist and the market is either not sufficiently informed to realize they are using toxic materials or have no other alternatives.

It's also worth looking at the example of the American tobacco industry. --scott

And yet here we are, and China is more prosperous than ever, while europe,
the master of regulations is sliding down into socialism.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

On Tue, 21 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>>> they agree upon.

This being  a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions
when you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you
even know it is there?   In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of >>> Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is
there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you  rent a room in a new
building with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to  rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants
when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just >>> how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers.

Your conclusion is contradicted by reality. This strategy worked for decades, and in other contexts, works now.

Incorrect. We are more people than ever on this planet right now.

I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.

Aside from the time travel, this all happened. There was plaster of Paris in the bread, Arsenic in the wallpaper.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted it, but they got it. Free market!

Fewer people have died by criminal companies than by governments. So I
prefer to trust a business accountable to its customers. Yes, people have
died, but that is hardly the fault of the free market. As stated,
governments have killed far more, so by that logic, we should ban
governments as quick as possible.

If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how,

Oh, I love that "really". After "really" ignoring the facts I gave above, you point me to "excellent books".

The facts of history directly contradict your claims. But you prefer theory.

Incorrect, see above.

William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/21/2024 12:10 PM, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>>>> they agree upon.

This being  a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions >>>> when you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you >>>> even know it is there?   In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of >>>> Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is
there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you  rent a room in a new
building with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to  rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of >>>> Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants >>>> when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just >>>> how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers.

Your conclusion is contradicted by reality.  This strategy worked for
decades, and in other contexts, works now.



 I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.


Aside from the time travel, this all happened.  There was plaster of Paris >> in the bread, Arsenic in the wallpaper.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted it, but they got it.  Free market!

If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how,

Oh, I love that "really".  After "really" ignoring the facts I gave above, >> you point me to "excellent books".

The facts of history directly contradict your claims.  But you prefer
theory.

Correction, he prefers fairy tales.

No, as explained in previous message. But let's ban governments, they kill
far more people historically, than modern businesses.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

Dr. Murphy addresses those topics as well. You are clearly suffering
from wishful thinking. Colonization of any planet is currently
way beyond our capabilities - it's not even clear that humans can survive
on any planet other than earth using only in-situ resources. Even
Mars, which would be the most likely candidate, suffers from the lack
of a van allen belt and thus the radiation at the surface pretty much
precludes any substantial settlement by humans.

There is no fundamental law that makes it impossible for human beings to >colonize other planets, and I did not state that this will take place >tomorrow.

I never said that. I did say that there is no known, or anticipated technological advance that will make Mars habitable sufficent to support
more than a few people at any one time. Perhaps you
have been reading too much Science Fiction?

There are 140 million babies born each year. What would it take to
transport that many people each year to another planet, and how long
would it take? And how much would it cost? And without the governments
that you lambast, who would pay for it?

Keep in mind that the population of Earth is projected to reach
10 billion in three decades. If the per-capita planetary energy
consumption remains the same, we'll require eight or nine thousand TWh additional generation capacity (2022: the world consumed 25,398 TWh)
on top of any generation capacity build to replace fossil fuels.

Needless to say, I disagree with you, and I have not seen anything which >seems to make that possibility impossible. We are talking long time scales >here, but I thought that was easily understood, but let me just state it
for the sake of clarity.

We don't have long timescales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_extinctions_in_the_Holocene

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/02/unsustainable-goose-chases/

Vertebrate popluations have declined by 70%, 96% of all mammal
mass on the planet is humans and livestock, 85% of primary forest
is gone.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/the-simple-story/

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped >>> or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Please enlighten us with exactly how those problems have been
solved, and exactly which regulations you think are standing in
the way.

Nuclear power. The regulative burden of building nuclear power is well
known in many countries in western europe. I think I've heard about 5
years from plan to production in south korea, but I'm not sure. Cutting >regulations and moving to cutting edge SMR:s should cut that.

There is not enough nucelar fuel to replace any substantial fraction of the current
fossil fuel sources. Not to mention the outright cost of building nuclear plant. Current known fissionable uranium reserves are about 90 years
--for the existing fleet of a few hundred reactors--, at 1GW per reactor,
it will take something like 20,000 new reactors to replace oil, gas and coal.

Those 20,000 reactors will require huge amounts of concrete, high-priced specialty metals and other materials such as copper. All the easily
(and inexpensively) obtained copper, iron and other required minerals
have been already exploited, the remaining sources become more expensive
to extract. The process of obtaining those resources will require
massive amounts of energy, and will have consequential environmental
impacts - cement production, for example, releases large amounts of
carbon into the ecosysten. These resource and energy requirements will be in addition to the current annual worldwide consumption, rather than displacing it given the current growth-based economic system.

Looking at vogtle 3&4 for current cost estimates, each 1GW reactor
would cost $15 billion dollars. And these two were not greenfield
sites. Do the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

Thorium, aside a couple of 60's test reactors, has not yet been shown
to be commercially feasible. Regardless, it would be decades before
any substantial fleet of such reactors would be available for use.

The current Small Nuclear Reactor craze is disappearing as the startups
run out of funding and cancel projects.

Fusion is always 50 years away, with no guarantees that it will ever
generate enough power to displace fossil fuel generation.

Yes, nuclear fission will be part of the power mix. No, it cannot be the
only source.

Basically, we could expand nuclear massively, absent politicians, and of >course complement that with solar/wind where possible and desirable.

No, it is not physically possible given planetary resource limitations.

Completely leaving aside the considerations and costs of waste disposal.

Looking at gasoline, that's another cheap source of energy and where I
live taxes on it is 50%, those could be removed.

How would you pay for the roads? Petroleum reserves are not increasing
at the same rate of production - it should be clear that as the ratio reductions continue, the cost of production will necessarily rise.

I could go on and on, and yes, I guess you might say it's wishful thinking
or that those regulations keep us safe, and I disagree with both.

Feel free. Yes, this is a science fiction newsgroup and it is good
to be optimistic about the future, but don't confuse the future with
fiction - understand the physical limitations that apply to life on
and off earth and consider them carefully.

Nuclear, sun, wind, oil, all combined can absolutely support massive
energy growth. We can mine thorium as well, and with modern technology
reuse spent fuel.

Just FYI - if the growth in energy consumption (which has been about
2.8% annually for the last century) continues for just four hundred more
years, the waste heat alone from energy production will have raised the
average temperature of the earth to 100C/212F. That's just physics.

I cannot see where he says that anything is impossible and I cannot see
where he discusses thorium supply and SMR:s. Can you point me to those >sections please?

In the chapter on energy alternatives.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/20/2024 8:02 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely >>>> different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are
being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)
--scott

Lazarus Long kept on moving out further every time the tax system became >onerous. Onerous was about 2%.

Lazerous Long is a fictional character.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/05/24 04:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:

On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:

D is quoting from mises.org.

So "D" stands for Dishonest as well as Dim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

...

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped >>>> or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Please enlighten us with exactly how those problems have been
solved, and exactly which regulations you think are standing in
the way.

Nuclear power. The regulative burden of building nuclear power is well >>known in many countries in western europe. I think I've heard about 5
years from plan to production in south korea, but I'm not sure. Cutting >>regulations and moving to cutting edge SMR:s should cut that.

There is not enough nucelar fuel to replace any substantial fraction of the current
fossil fuel sources. Not to mention the outright cost of building nuclear plant. Current known fissionable uranium reserves are about 90 years
--for the existing fleet of a few hundred reactors--, at 1GW per reactor,

Scott, you're back again with your nonsensical claims based on a
self-published Malthusian doomsayer. As was established last time,
there is plenty of uranium out there (in the oceans if not elsewhere).
And as was established last time, the 90 year estimate of reserves is
in no way a scientific estimate of the amount of uranium out there to
be mined (except in the minds of doomsayers). It is purely an
commercial recognition of what is economical to search for at this
time; it's not worth looking for any more right now. That amount is
not evidence to back up your claims at all.

it will take something like 20,000 new reactors to replace oil, gas and coal. Those 20,000 reactors will require huge amounts of concrete, high-priced specialty metals and other materials such as copper. All the easily
(and inexpensively) obtained copper, iron and other required minerals
have been already exploited, the remaining sources become more expensive
to extract. The process of obtaining those resources will require
massive amounts of energy, and will have consequential environmental
impacts - cement production, for example, releases large amounts of
carbon into the ecosysten. These resource and energy requirements will be in addition to the current annual worldwide consumption, rather than displacing it
given the current growth-based economic system.

Looking at vogtle 3&4 for current cost estimates, each 1GW reactor
would cost $15 billion dollars. And these two were not greenfield
sites. Do the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

Thorium, aside a couple of 60's test reactors, has not yet been shown
to be commercially feasible. Regardless, it would be decades before
any substantial fleet of such reactors would be available for use.

The current Small Nuclear Reactor craze is disappearing as the startups
run out of funding and cancel projects.

Fusion is always 50 years away, with no guarantees that it will ever
generate enough power to displace fossil fuel generation.

Yes, nuclear fission will be part of the power mix. No, it cannot be the only source.

and as the next sentence states, you two are in violent agreement on that.

Basically, we could expand nuclear massively, absent politicians, and of >>course complement that with solar/wind where possible and desirable.

No, it is not physically possible given planetary resource limitations.

You have presented no evidence of this. You have presented reasonable
arguments that just nuclear power expansion is not economically
feasible, though it is much more feasible than you state. (Capitalism
(to get back to the subject) will reduce the cost of nuclear plants
immensely once you start building even a dozen a year.)

Completely leaving aside the considerations and costs of waste disposal.

Looking at gasoline, that's another cheap source of energy and where I
live taxes on it is 50%, those could be removed.

How would you pay for the roads? Petroleum reserves are not increasing
at the same rate of production - it should be clear that as the ratio reductions continue, the cost of production will necessarily rise.

I could go on and on, and yes, I guess you might say it's wishful thinking >>or that those regulations keep us safe, and I disagree with both.

Feel free. Yes, this is a science fiction newsgroup and it is good
to be optimistic about the future, but don't confuse the future with
fiction - understand the physical limitations that apply to life on
and off earth and consider them carefully.

Nuclear, sun, wind, oil, all combined can absolutely support massive
energy growth. We can mine thorium as well, and with modern technology >>reuse spent fuel.

Just FYI - if the growth in energy consumption (which has been about
2.8% annually for the last century) continues for just four hundred more years, the waste heat alone from energy production will have raised the average temperature of the earth to 100C/212F. That's just physics.

A funny thing about predicting the future based on the past, you can
really get different results depending on your starting point. I'll
take your word on 2.8% annually for the last century. If you had
started 2 centuries ago, it would have been much higher. If you had started
3 centuries ago, it would have been much much higher. Which is more accurate? Why does a century matter?

What matters is the future. The current estimate for the US is to
grow between 0 and 15% by 2050.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040
I couldn't easily find European predictions, but energy growth was
flat between 2005 and 2020 before diminishing significantly due to
external factors in the past few years.
https://www.enerdata.net/estore/energy-market/european-union/

Growth will be much, much smaller over the next 400 years than 2.8%
annually. I do agree that waste heat will be a limit eventually -
in fact I would claim long before we run out of energy sources!
Energy sources are not a limiting feature.

Chris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <caab2103-7ef9-2005-f035-b0858fb20f1b@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024, James Nicoll wrote:

In article <44938613-85d8-1f1d-4bd6-88f47993161e@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>>>> they agree upon.

This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when
you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do

you even

know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of

Paris an

agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new

building

with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of >>>> Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his

tenants when

he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just

how much

Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment. >>> If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
recommend excellent books.

And yet, not only did such things frequently happen in the past, they
happen now. It's almost as though your model does not actually reflect
reality.

Governments have killed more people that private businesses so I think
from that angle, we can say for sure that businesses are safer and less >likely to kill their customers.

Ah, we've reached the moving the goal posts part of the game.


--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:

On 2024-05-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

...

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped >>>>> or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Please enlighten us with exactly how those problems have been
solved, and exactly which regulations you think are standing in
the way.

Nuclear power. The regulative burden of building nuclear power is well >>>known in many countries in western europe. I think I've heard about 5 >>>years from plan to production in south korea, but I'm not sure. Cutting >>>regulations and moving to cutting edge SMR:s should cut that.

There is not enough nucelar fuel to replace any substantial fraction of the current
fossil fuel sources. Not to mention the outright cost of building nuclear >> plant. Current known fissionable uranium reserves are about 90 years
--for the existing fleet of a few hundred reactors--, at 1GW per reactor,

Scott, you're back again with your nonsensical claims based on a >self-published Malthusian doomsayer. As was established last time,
there is plenty of uranium out there (in the oceans if not elsewhere).

Yes, there is a lot of U in seawater. The question is not whether it
is there, but whether it can be 'mined' from the seawater using less
energy than it will produce.

And as was established last time, the 90 year estimate of reserves is
in no way a scientific estimate of the amount of uranium out there to
be mined (except in the minds of doomsayers).

You didn't establish anything other than a bald assertion.


ns.

You have presented no evidence of this. You have presented reasonable >arguments that just nuclear power expansion is not economically
feasible, though it is much more feasible than you state. (Capitalism
(to get back to the subject) will reduce the cost of nuclear plants
immensely once you start building even a dozen a year.)

Ah, vague assertions about "capitalism". You sound like D - there
will be pie in the sky, by and by (RAH).

A funny thing about predicting the future based on the past, you can
really get different results depending on your starting point. I'll
take your word on 2.8% annually for the last century. If you had
started 2 centuries ago, it would have been much higher. If you had started >3 centuries ago, it would have been much much higher. Which is more accurate? >Why does a century matter?

Because the exploitation of fossil fuels didn't start until the
mid 18th century, and really didn't take off until the 20th century.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

You are always with the bad vibes ! Be happy, dude !

Oil is so great for lubrication and as a plastics precursor that we are
going to be needing it for a very long time. It seems a shame to waste the stuff we have just burning it for fuel.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024 23:51:45 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 5/21/2024 12:10 PM, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon.

This being� a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions >>>>> when you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you >>>>> even know it is there?�� In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of >>>>> Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is >>>>> there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you� rent a room in a new >>>>> building with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to� rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of >>>>> Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants >>>>> when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just
how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your >>>> customers.

Your conclusion is contradicted by reality.� This strategy worked for
decades, and in other contexts, works now.



�I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.


Aside from the time travel, this all happened.� There was plaster of Paris >>> in the bread, Arsenic in the wallpaper.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted it, but they got it.� Free market!

If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how,

Oh, I love that "really".� After "really" ignoring the facts I gave above, >>> you point me to "excellent books".

The facts of history directly contradict your claims.� But you prefer
theory.

Correction, he prefers fairy tales.

No, as explained in previous message. But let's ban governments, they kill >far more people historically, than modern businesses.

Which is to say, /well-regulated/ businesses.

Which are /not/ the sort of businesses you idolize. The sort of
businesses /you/ idolize are the ones adulterating food and imposing
as much of their costs as possible on other people. Among many other
bad -- not for business, but for the rest of us -- practices.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 May 2024 04:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what >>>> they agree upon.

This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when
you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even
know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an
agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new building
with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when
he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just how much
Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
recommend excellent books.

History shows that it works just fine.

Well, ignoring a little thing like the French Revolution, caused in
part by the quality of the bread the poor could afford.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024 17:12:42 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it >>>>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start >>>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that >>>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a >>>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone >>>>> else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if >>>> they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it >>>> less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called >>>> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott

Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but >>> the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just >>> say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
enforced by contracts.

How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
its own?

Depends on how it is written. You can refer to private enforcing agencies, >arbitrators, courts etc. It is being done today and there are many >non-governmental courts which you can use in your contracts to settle >disagreements.

So, instead of a government, we would have ... a government. Just not
called a government.

You can also contract how enforcement should be done. There are private >security companies who can assist with that.

I can just imagine the street battles as each side hires/forms its own
security company to enforce what it wants enforced and prevent it from
being forced to do what it doesn't want to do.

Contracts without law are meaningless -- and law is intrinsic to
government. Simply by mentioning "court" you revoke your own argument.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 May 2024 22:33:20 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

Dr. Murphy addresses those topics as well. You are clearly suffering
from wishful thinking. Colonization of any planet is currently
way beyond our capabilities - it's not even clear that humans can survive >>> on any planet other than earth using only in-situ resources. Even
Mars, which would be the most likely candidate, suffers from the lack
of a van allen belt and thus the radiation at the surface pretty much
precludes any substantial settlement by humans.

There is no fundamental law that makes it impossible for human beings to >>colonize other planets, and I did not state that this will take place >>tomorrow.

I never said that. I did say that there is no known, or anticipated >technological advance that will make Mars habitable sufficent to support
more than a few people at any one time. Perhaps you
have been reading too much Science Fiction?

There are 140 million babies born each year. What would it take to >transport that many people each year to another planet, and how long
would it take? And how much would it cost? And without the governments >that you lambast, who would pay for it?

If he had been reading enough SF, he would have learned long ago that
moving lots of people to anywhere else is impractical. Moving seed
populations which then grow naturally might be, but the Earth itself
will on a path which does not appear to have a turning.

<snippo good stuff, but the post is long>

Basically, we could expand nuclear massively, absent politicians, and of >>course complement that with solar/wind where possible and desirable.

No, it is not physically possible given planetary resource limitations.

This sounds reasonable, given the stuff I snipped.

Completely leaving aside the considerations and costs of waste disposal.

Ah. You are ignoring his "absent politicians" and so lack of
regulations. No long lead times, no pesky building standards, waste
released into the environment so "someone else" can handle it.
Problems solved!

Add in a few meltdowns and the very /concept/ of nuclear power will be discredited for a very long time. We might even see a few Angry Mobs
stringing up the Excutives in highest five levels of Management of the companies involved (not just the power companies, their owners as
well).

After all, without a government, Angry Mobs are free to do whatever
they want. Whether it makes sense or not.

Decoding D-think isn't so hard after all.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21 May 2024 19:09:25 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are >>> being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)

So you are saying that the only reason you like paying taxes is if all >>other people around you are forced to do so as well.

No, that is not what I am saying. You are asserting the contrapositive.

Given
(everyone else is paying their share) => (I am okay paying my share)
the contrapositive would be
(I am /not/ okay paying my share) => (everyone else is /not/ paying
their share)
provided I recall my logic correctly.

He appears to be asserting that you are saying:
(all other people around you are forced [to pay taxes)) => (you like
paying taxes)
which is a distortion of what you are saying.

He, OTOH, appears to be working with the proposition
(I only pay taxes because I am forced to do so) => (everyone who pays
taxes is forced to do so)
at least as far as I can tell.

This is not a person who has any significant connection to reality.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21 May 2024 01:02:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely >>> different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your >>position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are >being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.) >--scott

Realistically what other species do we have to compare with?

My cat figures she should be fed 24x7 and my dog always wants to run
towards the nearest bush or sleep by the sundeck window..

How would you suggest I verify when my cat is resentful for not having
her bowl refilled whenever she wants it? (which as I said is 24x7 at
least during her wakng hours...)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <v2llou$1blem$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/22/2024 10:57 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024 22:33:20 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

...

I never said that. I did say that there is no known, or anticipated
technological advance that will make Mars habitable sufficent to support >>> more than a few people at any one time. Perhaps you
have been reading too much Science Fiction?

There are 140 million babies born each year. What would it take to
transport that many people each year to another planet, and how long
would it take? And how much would it cost? And without the governments >>> that you lambast, who would pay for it?

If he had been reading enough SF, he would have learned long ago that
moving lots of people to anywhere else is impractical. Moving seed
populations which then grow naturally might be, but the Earth itself
will on a path which does not appear to have a turning.

...

SPOILER ...

If you read the Bobiverse books, there will be a massive world wild
nuclear war on Earth in the 22nd century. The resulting nuclear winter
will kill off 99.999% of the people on Earth as the glaciation moves to
the equator.

The Bobiverse books are mildly amusing fiction with tremendously
shitty science.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <v2lth1$1d21g$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/22/2024 3:52 PM, James Nicoll wrote:

In article <v2llou$1blem$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/22/2024 10:57 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024 22:33:20 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

...

I never said that. I did say that there is no known, or anticipated >>>>> technological advance that will make Mars habitable sufficent to support >>>>> more than a few people at any one time. Perhaps you
have been reading too much Science Fiction?

There are 140 million babies born each year. What would it take to >>>>> transport that many people each year to another planet, and how long >>>>> would it take? And how much would it cost? And without the governments >>>>> that you lambast, who would pay for it?

If he had been reading enough SF, he would have learned long ago that
moving lots of people to anywhere else is impractical. Moving seed
populations which then grow naturally might be, but the Earth itself
will on a path which does not appear to have a turning.

...

SPOILER ...

If you read the Bobiverse books, there will be a massive world wild
nuclear war on Earth in the 22nd century. The resulting nuclear winter
will kill off 99.999% of the people on Earth as the glaciation moves to
the equator.

The Bobiverse books are mildly amusing fiction with tremendously
shitty science.

Um, please detail the bad science according to you. For instance, are
you talking about Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Winter, 3D Printers, or
something else ?

Among other things, the author grossly underestimates how difficult relativistic travel is. His solar systems appear to be the size
of Paramount backlots. SF often has scale issues but this author
has them in spades.

(Well, ansibles can't work and if they did they'd be time phones)


--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

If the lack of lubrication oil is very needful, we can always reverse
the CO2 process and make oil from the trace amount of CO2 in the air.
We can do this already, the current cost is around $15 to $20 per gallon >(SWAG). The majority of the cost is the expensive catalysts and the
high energy requirement. Also, the process makes a lot of glycerine
(1/3 to 2/3) which is usually landfilled.

Yes, there are precision oils that are synthesized in a fashion not TOO different (polymerization of ethane). Also all these new ester oils which
are basically synthetic whale oil and make disk drives and high speed
shutters far more reliable. But this is expensive. Nye 140B is more like
$15 to $20 for a half-ounce at Grainger.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

What are you saying? I do not understand what you are saying.

There are many things that need to be in place for me to feel good about
paying taxes. Fairness in taxation is one of them. But there are many others; if a large portion of the taxes go to funding Mr. Mobutu, I and
many others feel less good about paying taxes, for instance. Fairness in taxation is not the only thing but it is certainly an imporant thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)