From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!geac!reptiles.org!lsuc.on.ca!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!golden.org!usenet Wed Jul 5 01:07:45 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2085 can.talk.guns:581 ont.general:2262 sci.environment:2158 tor.general:1990 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!geac!reptiles.org!lsuc.on.ca!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!golden.org!usenet From: Steve Bydeley Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Date: 2 Jul 1995 23:48:15 GMT Organization: Golden Triangle On Line Lines: 9 Message-ID: <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp0.golden.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) To: Bob,Allisat When talking about balance and "natural" animal population levels we too often forget that man is part of that balance. Balance comes - after adjustment. The seal population for example is now out of the "balance" because man was taken out of the picture. Man hunts. He (she) hunts the woods and waters for animal or fish. He (she) also hunts the grocery store isles for animal parts to fill the need. Vegetarian too take the life of a living plant organism to sustain life. All that lives does so by the death of something else. Life exists on death. From elastic!elastic.org!fche Wed Jul 5 01:11:41 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2089 can.talk.guns:583 ont.general:2267 sci.environment:2182 tor.general:1994 Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Path: elastic!elastic.org!fche From: fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Followup-To: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Sender: news@elastic.org (C-News System) Organization: Elastic BBS, Toronto, Canada Message-ID: References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> Cc: fche@elastic.org X-Nntp-Posting-Host: elastic.org Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 05:07:29 GMT Steve Bydeley (bydeley@golden.org) wrote: : [...] : All that lives does so : by the death of something else. Life exists on death. I'd say this is false. Life, like economics, is not a zero-sum game. This is because in the former case, we get a continued supply of energy from the Sun, which, were we efficient enough, we could use for living without killing anything. (As an aside, in the economics case, the rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer idea is based on a similar assumption. This assumption ignores the wealth-creating nature of human effort, and assumes instead that total wealth is constant and is merely shifting ownership.) -- Frank Ch. Eigler // fche@elastic.org // eigler@vnet.ibm.com // fche@db.toronto.edu From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler Fri Jul 7 08:26:24 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2100 can.talk.guns:585 ont.general:2278 sci.environment:2281 tor.general:2006 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler) Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Date: 6 Jul 1995 00:39:26 GMT Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 34 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3tfbbu$1ia@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca In article , fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes: |> Steve Bydeley (bydeley@golden.org) wrote: |> : [...] |> : All that lives does so |> : by the death of something else. Life exists on death. |> |> I'd say this is false. Life, like economics, is not a zero-sum |> game. This is because in the former case, we get a continued |> supply of energy from the Sun, which, were we efficient enough, |> we could use for living without killing anything. (As an aside, |> in the economics case, the rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer |> idea is based on a similar assumption. This assumption ignores |> the wealth-creating nature of human effort, and assumes instead |> that total wealth is constant and is merely shifting ownership.) In its very simplest form, the "rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer" idea may assume a zero sum game with constant total wealth, but the idea doesn't necessarily rely on this assumption. While total wealth does not remain constant, in practice its rate of growth is bounded. If the rich get richer at a rate much higher than this rate of growth, then the poor may get poorer in the process. While it is certainly possible for a poor person to increase the total wealth (at the same time increasing his/her wealth) through human effort, the rich are at a distinct advantage because they tend to have greater control of the means of production. Take a look around. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (as a general trend). This is not meant as a tirade against the rich, but to point out that while economics may not be a zero sum game, there are limits and tradeoffs (would it be possible for all people in the world to be simultaneously as rich as Bill Gates?). -Roland From elastic!fche Sun Jul 9 03:08:42 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2112 can.talk.guns:587 ont.general:2289 sci.environment:2306 tor.general:2017 Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Path: elastic!fche From: fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Followup-To: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: Elastic BBS, Toronto, Canada Message-ID: References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> <3tfbbu$1ia@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 14:37:02 GMT Roland Mechler (mechler@cs.ubc.ca) wrote: : [...] : In its very simplest form, the "rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer" idea : may assume a zero sum game with constant total wealth, but the idea : doesn't necessarily rely on this assumption. I cannot decode this. The idea makes an assumption, but the idea does not need the assumption? That's a strange idea. : While total wealth does : not remain constant, in practice its rate of growth is bounded. Total wealth is bounded; most things are bounded. Does not matter. : If the : rich get richer at a rate much higher than this rate of growth, then the : poor may get poorer in the process. "If" ... "then" ... "may" ... If the poor have enough wealth to let the big boys get fatter faster than these produce, then the poor probably aren't all that poor. : While it is certainly possible for : a poor person to increase the total wealth (at the same time increasing : his/her wealth) through human effort, the rich are at a distinct advantage : because they tend to have greater control of the means of production. Advantage does not matter either. As long as the poor get richer, the claim is false. No matter what other people do. The contentions of the `rich-richer poor-poorer' line are that the first implies the last, and rich-poorer and poor-richer possibilities are excluded or very rare. The zero-sum assumption, as well as a few other dubious ones, are necessary to make this sort of reasoning work. : Take a look around. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting : poorer (as a general trend). Repeating this mantra does not increase its believability. I don't see this happening. Where should I look for it? : This is not meant as a tirade against the rich, but to point out that : while economics may not be a zero sum game, there are limits and tradeoffs I cannot decode this, I am sorry. : (would it be possible for all people in the world to be simultaneously as : rich as Bill Gates?). Sure, sounds good to me. -- Frank Ch. Eigler // fche@elastic.org // eigler@vnet.ibm.com // fche@db.toronto.edu From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!io.org!interlog.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler Tue Jul 11 19:10:49 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2141 can.talk.guns:608 ont.general:2325 sci.environment:2426 talk.environment:111 tor.general:2054 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!io.org!interlog.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler) Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Date: 10 Jul 1995 19:00:40 GMT Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 81 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3trtco$5jl@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> <3tfbbu$1ia@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca In article , fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes: |> Roland Mechler (mechler@cs.ubc.ca) wrote: |> : [...] |> : In its very simplest form, the "rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer" idea |> : may assume a zero sum game with constant total wealth, but the idea |> : doesn't necessarily rely on this assumption. |> |> I cannot decode this. The idea makes an assumption, but the idea does |> not need the assumption? That's a strange idea. I am saying that only the simplest, naive approach to the idea relies on this assumption. In general, the idea of the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor does not rely on the constant total wealth assumption. |> : While total wealth does |> : not remain constant, in practice its rate of growth is bounded. |> |> Total wealth is bounded; most things are bounded. Does not matter. Why not? |> : If the |> : rich get richer at a rate much higher than this rate of growth, then the |> : poor may get poorer in the process. |> |> "If" ... "then" ... "may" ... As a general trend, this is what is actually happening. |> If the poor have enough wealth to let the |> big boys get fatter faster than these produce, then the poor probably |> aren't all that poor. This is nonsense. You are ignoring increased productivity due to improved technology (the fruits of which tend to go to the owners of the technology), and the decreasing demand for labour which drives down wages. The rich aren't necessarily taking money directly out of the pockets of the poor, it's more a matter of the poor having less opportunity to take part in the economy. |> : While it is certainly possible for |> : a poor person to increase the total wealth (at the same time increasing |> : his/her wealth) through human effort, the rich are at a distinct advantage |> : because they tend to have greater control of the means of production. |> |> Advantage does not matter either. As long as the poor get richer, the |> claim is false. No matter what other people do. |> |> The contentions of the `rich-richer poor-poorer' line are that the first |> implies the last, and rich-poorer and poor-richer possibilities are |> excluded or very rare. The zero-sum assumption, as well as a few other |> dubious ones, are necessary to make this sort of reasoning work. I'm not saying "rich-richer" implies "poor-poorer". I have no problem with both rich and poor getting richer, as long as it does not entail destruction of the environment and excessive depletion of resources. |> : Take a look around. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting |> : poorer (as a general trend). |> |> Repeating this mantra does not increase its believability. I don't see |> this happening. Where should I look for it? How about starting with corporations whose executives get big salary increases while employees get laid off. |> : This is not meant as a tirade against the rich, but to point out that |> : while economics may not be a zero sum game, there are limits and tradeoffs |> |> I cannot decode this, I am sorry. Me too. |> : (would it be possible for all people in the world to be simultaneously as |> : rich as Bill Gates?). |> |> Sure, sounds good to me. You really think this is possible? If so, I think you're living in a dream world. -Roland From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!decwrl!its.hooked.net!usenet Tue Jul 11 19:20:51 1995 Xref: elastic sci.econ:1388 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!decwrl!its.hooked.net!usenet From: a@b.c (Bum Bill Bee) Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky,sci.econ Subject: Re: Capitalism w/o EXPANSION: IS IT POSSIBLE?? (Was: Capitalism w/o advertising: IS IT POSSIBLE??) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 02:48:46 GMT Organization: Hooked Online Services Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3tson1$1q5@its.hooked.net> References: <3s6uov$o72@decaxp.harvard.edu> <1995Jul1.063016.1428@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3t44d5$5dp@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3t6m44$q18@news.globalone.net <3ts122$bfk@tribune.usask.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: also.hooked.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 choy@skorpio3.usask.ca (Henry Choy) wrote: >How would you know that when G7 citizens consume less others have >more? Where do others get more? OK, Hank "One-Liner" Choy. If the wealthy countries spent less time on mindless, corporate-driven consumption, those resources could be directed in lifting the level of economic status of the less-fortunate. If you'd think twice before blowing your money on the latest "must-have" piece of junk, there would first be less junk and second, more dough available for organizations like Oxfam, for example. From elastic!fche Wed Jul 12 08:07:37 1995 Xref: elastic sci.econ:1394 Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky,sci.econ Path: elastic!fche From: fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: Capitalism w/o EXPANSION: IS IT POSSIBLE?? (Was: Capitalism w/o advertising: IS IT POSSIBLE??) Followup-To: alt.fan.noam-chomsky,sci.econ X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950515BETA PL0] Lines: 17 Organization: Elastic BBS, Toronto, Canada Message-ID: References: <3s6uov$o72@decaxp.harvard.edu> <1995Jul1.063016.1428@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3t44d5$5dp@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3t6m44$q18@news.globalone.net <3ts122$bfk@tribune.usask.ca> <3tson1$1q5@its.hooked.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:20:45 GMT Bum Bill Bee (a@b.c) wrote: : [...] If the wealthy countries spent less time on : mindless, corporate-driven consumption, those resources could be directed : in lifting the level of economic status of the less-fortunate. If you stop speaking in the passive voice, we could get to the bottom of this sooner. Who would direct the economic resources to the less fortunate? By what right? At whose expense? : If you'd think twice before blowing your money on [some toy] : there would first be less junk and second, more dough available : for organizations like Oxfam, for example. Are you suggesting that instead of spending money to my benefit, you want me to just hand it over to someone who hasn't earned it? (If I refuse, I'd suppose you'd want to tax it out of me?) -- Frank Ch. Eigler // fche@elastic.org // eigler@vnet.ibm.com // fche@db.toronto.edu From elastic!fche Wed Jul 12 08:11:01 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2151 can.talk.guns:631 ont.general:2336 sci.environment:2443 talk.environment:121 tor.general:2070 Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Path: elastic!fche From: fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Followup-To: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950515BETA PL0] Lines: 75 Organization: Elastic BBS, Toronto, Canada Message-ID: References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> <3tfbbu$1ia@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> <3trtco$5jl@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 12:07:02 GMT Roland Mechler (mechler@cs.ubc.ca) wrote: : [...] In general, the idea of the rich getting richer at the expense of : the poor does not rely on the constant total wealth assumption. Remember this sentence. : |> : While total wealth does : |> : not remain constant, in practice its rate of growth is bounded. : |> Total wealth is bounded; most things are bounded. Does not matter. : Why not? *Of course* the rate of growth is bounded. It cannot be one gazillion percent. So its boundedness is a truism, and an uninteresting one at that. : |> : If the : |> : rich get richer at a rate much higher than this rate of growth, : |> : then the poor may get poorer in the process. : |> "If" ... "then" ... "may" ... : As a general trend, this is what is actually happening. Repeating the mantra again does not convince. : |> If the poor have enough wealth to let the : |> big boys get fatter faster than these produce, then the poor probably : |> aren't all that poor. : : This is nonsense. Well, your imagined scenario of wealth accumulating at a much higher rate (at the evil rich pockets) than it's growing (in total in the economy) is pretty strange to begin with. : [...] : I'm not saying "rich-richer" implies "poor-poorer". Now recall the sentence at the top, reproduced here for your reading pleasure: # [...] In general, the idea of the rich getting richer at the expense of # the poor does not rely on the constant total wealth assumption. This latter idea is what we're talking about. So, Roland, how do you square your two comments? : I have no problem with : both rich and poor getting richer, as long as it does not entail destruction : of the environment and excessive depletion of resources. Whose environment, whose resources? What a wormy topic to bring up when the discussion started with the wealth-generating nature of human effort, not of mining. Are you going to claim that total wealth can increase only at the cost of environmental doom and gloom? : |> [where is this happening?] : How about starting with corporations whose executives get big salary : increases while employees get laid off. Yawn, a company that does this *on an irrational basis* is harming itself. It's a blip in a market economy. : [...] : You really think this [everyone with Gates' riches] is possible? If so, I : think you're living in a dream world. There is no principle (that I am aware of) that would prevent a great deal of wealth in a lot of hands. The difficulty is simply the lack of that brilliance and drive in almost `everyone' that let Gates earn his money. -- Frank Ch. Eigler // fche@elastic.org // eigler@vnet.ibm.com // fche@db.toronto.edu From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!hookup!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bc726 Thu Jul 13 00:06:46 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2154 can.gov.general:224 can.politics:2195 can.taxes:185 ont.general:2339 sci.econ:1398 tor.general:2073 Newsgroups: tor.general,ont.general,can.general,can.taxes,can.politics,can.gov.general,ncf.general,ncf.government.ont-elect.general,ncf.federal-election.national,alt.conspiracy,sci.econ Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!hookup!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bc726 From: bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Turmel) Subject: Re: TURMEL: The Third Way Message-ID: Sender: bc726@freenet3.carleton.ca (John Turmel) Reply-To: bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Turmel) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 08:30:41 GMT Lines: 135 Subject: Re: TURMEL: The Third Way On Jul 10 16:44, 1995, fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote: :John Turmel (bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote: :[...] :: >Well, if I were playing with your proposed system, I could borrow :: >money now against my entire lifetime's earnings, and spend it all. :: >If others do the same, we'd have an explosion of the money :: >supply, no? Immediate inflation, no? (And corporations have no :: >lifetimes to limit them.) :: Spend it all on what? If you buy a house, the house is the :: collateral for the chips issued. If you buy a car, it is too. All :: we ask is that you repay your loan as fast as the collateral :: depreciates. [...] : :How about spending it on entertainment, going boating, going to the :moon and back, hiring a dozen masseurs with accompanying :belly-dancers. In other words, *services*. Or perhaps *renting* :equipment or a home. I'd own no more physical property than before :the massive loans. (Thus I don't have to repay the loan on the :account of depreciation.) But I could enjoy the value of the money :regardless! All for a loan that's given against my iffy future :income. : So if you joined a Greendollar barter system where people trust that if you obtain services from them, you'll service them back, you're saying you'd enjoy the value of the money and not bother trying to pay those services back. It's true that Greendollar systems have experienced problems from people who act like you say you would but they're quickly thrown out and people won't trade with them. But such welchers are very rare. Most people are quite prepared to repay work for work and that is the trust we count on. But Greendollar systems don't allow people to have their whole life's potential earnings to blow so they can stiff the system for the maximum amount. Yet, I think that liberating the industrial capacity of those who want to work will produce so much abundance that just as we won't mind golden-agers spending their twilight years or slower cousins living decent lives on an open credit line provided for by the youth, I don't even think many will mind the odd lazy drone who wants to end his life's score-card in the negatives with the slower cousins. :: Sure there would be an explosion on the money supply but all :: backed up with collateral or markers. : :Not necessarily! : And when the weaker members of society and the drones die, we can take their negatives and spread them throughout the whole database of producers deducting a small amount from each of the more worthwhile members. That's how we can take care of the old and the weak and the useless without getting in the way of the workers. :: >In other words, the borrow/owe relationship is inverted for a :: >net lender when compared with a net borrower. :: :: Of course, when I say that people borrow 100 and owe 110, it :: necessarily implies that the banker loaned out 100 and is owed :: 110. : :Yes, and your scenarios consistently exclude the banker as one :of the players, leading to the seeming imbalance. : I just don't know where you see balance between money and debt. Count up the debts of the world and count up the money and you'll see there's just no balance. Besides, this is the most unheard of suggestion I've ever heard. :: But to say that because the person owes an extra 10 which :: was never issued into circulation and because the bank is to get :: an extra which was never issued into circulation doesn't mean :: the loans therefore balance. : :Why not? It seems to exactly add up, if you agree that the :bankers are just one of the bunch. : Again, this is ridiculous. No one can possibly believe that because the bankers are owed what the borrowers don't have makes things balance. :: Besides, the banks do not lend out their depositors funds. :: [...] So if they're lending out new money, they're not lending :: out their depositors old money. : :Why does this matter? : It matters because all new money coming into circulation is matched with a debt which grows beyond the original amount. On Mon Jul 10 12:00, 1995, Steve_Salter@mindlink.bc.ca (Steve Salter) wrote: :: Besides, the banks do not lend out their depositors funds. :: :: Each and every time a bank makes a new loan, new bank credit is :: created, brand new money. (Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of :: Canada to the Banking Committee in 1939) Check any Economics :: textbook on how banks create new money. So if they're lending out :: new money, they're not lending out their depositors old money. :: J.C. Turmel : :Banks don't lend out their depositors' funds? :Read an annual report from any of the banks, then report back to :this newsgroup with your findings. I notice that my bank has :this big old sock lying in the back of the employee coffee room. :I wonder.....!!!?? : If the banks are not lending out new money when they make loans, the money supply would not go up. I say that the money supply goes up when they make loans and hence, they're not lending out depositors funds. That they've made up a rule that says they can't lend out new money until new money has been deposited has fooled many people into thinking that they loans they are getting are the deposits the bankers were seeking in order to enable them to make the loans of new money. Quite a scam. Since the newspapers regularly report that the money supply goes up and down, if you say it isn't when banks make loans, then tell us when the new money is authorized and where it comes from. :Back to school J.C. : All you have to do is read any elementary Economics text- book on how banks create new money making loans through the fractional reserve system. Back to school, Steve. John "The Engineer" Turmel From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!io.org!interlog.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler Fri Jul 14 07:45:48 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2159 can.talk.guns:639 ont.general:2343 sci.environment:2479 talk.environment:183 tor.general:2078 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!io.org!interlog.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler) Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Date: 12 Jul 1995 17:20:45 GMT Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 86 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3u109d$kbh@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> <3tfbbu$1ia@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> <3trtco$5jl@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca In article , fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes: |> Roland Mechler (mechler@cs.ubc.ca) wrote: |> : [...] In general, the idea of the rich getting richer at the expense of |> : the poor does not rely on the constant total wealth assumption. |> |> Remember this sentence. |> |> |> : |> : While total wealth does |> : |> : not remain constant, in practice its rate of growth is bounded. |> : |> Total wealth is bounded; most things are bounded. Does not matter. |> : Why not? |> |> *Of course* the rate of growth is bounded. It cannot be one gazillion |> percent. So its boundedness is a truism, and an uninteresting one at |> that. Repeating the mantra again does not convince. |> |> : |> If the poor have enough wealth to let the |> : |> big boys get fatter faster than these produce, then the poor probably |> : |> aren't all that poor. |> : |> : This is nonsense. |> |> Well, your imagined scenario of wealth accumulating at a much higher |> rate (at the evil rich pockets) than it's growing (in total in the |> economy) is pretty strange to begin with. First of all, who said anything about the rich being evil? Secondly, what we've seen lately is a growth in economic output with very little (if any) accompanying growth in employment or wages. While this does not confirm that my scenario is taking place, it lends it some plausibility. |> : [...] |> : I'm not saying "rich-richer" implies "poor-poorer". |> |> Now recall the sentence at the top, reproduced here for your reading |> pleasure: |> |> # [...] In general, the idea of the rich getting richer at the expense of |> # the poor does not rely on the constant total wealth assumption. |> |> This latter idea is what we're talking about. So, Roland, how do you |> square your two comments? I don't see a conflict. NOT(R-R --> P-P) does not prevent R-R at the expense of the poor, it only says that the rich can also get richer without it being at the expense of the poor. Simple logic. Complex world. |> : I have no problem with |> : both rich and poor getting richer, as long as it does not entail destruction |> : of the environment and excessive depletion of resources. |> |> Whose environment, whose resources? Everyone's, present and future. |> What a wormy topic to bring up when the |> discussion started with the wealth-generating nature of human effort, not of |> mining. Are you going to claim that total wealth can increase only at the |> cost of environmental doom and gloom? Of course not. Read my statement again. It implies that total wealth *can* increase without environmental doom and gloom. |> : |> [where is this happening?] |> : How about starting with corporations whose executives get big salary |> : increases while employees get laid off. |> |> Yawn, a company that does this *on an irrational basis* is harming itself. If a company increases its efficiency by laying off employees, the higher ups can take a slice of the increased profits with no net harm to the company. I am not making a moral judgement here. From the point of view of the company, total economic output, global competitiveness, efficiency is a good thing. But there is a social cost in terms of increased unemployment and downward pressure on wages. |> It's a blip in a market economy. It was only an example, not the whole picture. -Roland From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!gatech!EU.net!Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.ACO.net!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!tshaynes Fri Jul 14 07:46:04 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2160 can.gov.general:227 can.politics:2198 can.taxes:188 ont.general:2344 sci.econ:1450 tor.general:2079 Newsgroups: tor.general,ont.general,can.general,can.taxes,can.politics,can.gov.general,ncf.general,ncf.government.ont-elect.general,ncf.federal-election.national,alt.conspiracy,sci.econ Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!news.uoregon.edu!gatech!EU.net!Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.ACO.net!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!tshaynes From: tshaynes@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Timmy) Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables? Message-ID: Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner) Nntp-Posting-Host: noether.math.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo References: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:27:53 GMT Lines: 18 In article , Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >John Turmel (bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote: >: [...] >: >Religion is based on faith, mathematics on true science. >: Who says religion can't be based on true science too? > >I do for example. Religion is by definition irrational, I think what you mean to say is "super-rational". (As in, supernatural.) >while science is by definition rational. There seems to me >to be quite a difference. -- _ _ __ ___________ ____ ___ __ | "Cast all your anxiety on Him, because _ ___ \__ _\ \ \/ \ \/ \ \/_/ | He cares for you." I Peter 5:7 [NIV] _ __ `--\_\-\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\\_\ | - - `-' `-"-"-"-'-"-"-'`-' | U(W), you will not break me. From elastic!fche Fri Jul 14 07:50:16 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2163 can.gov.general:228 can.politics:2206 can.taxes:189 ont.general:2346 sci.econ:1488 tor.general:2082 Newsgroups: tor.general,ont.general,can.general,can.taxes,can.politics,can.gov.general,ncf.general,ncf.government.ont-elect.general,ncf.federal-election.national,alt.conspiracy,sci.econ Path: elastic!fche From: fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables? Followup-To: tor.general,ont.general,can.general,can.taxes,can.politics,can.gov.general,ncf.general,ncf.government.ont-elect.general,ncf.federal-election.national,alt.conspiracy,sci.econ X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950515BETA PL0] Lines: 11 Organization: Elastic BBS, Toronto, Canada Message-ID: References: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:49:47 GMT Timmy (tshaynes@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote: : >[...] Religion is by definition irrational, [...] : : I think what you mean to say is "super-rational". (As in, : supernatural.) If by `super' you mean some notion akin to `superset' then you are wrong -- religious principles outright contradict scientific ones. If by `super' you mean `disconnected from' or `above' or somesuch, then my irrational label is correct. -- Frank Ch. Eigler // fche@elastic.org // eigler@vnet.ibm.com // fche@db.toronto.edu From elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!news.cerf.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler Sun Jul 16 15:34:41 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:2190 can.talk.guns:716 ont.general:2372 sci.environment:2593 talk.environment:329 tor.general:2109 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!gts!westonia!pagesat.net!news.cerf.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!mechler From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler) Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,ont.general,tor.general,talk.environment,sci.environment Subject: Re: species extinctions (was re: Allisat on hunting/Fishing rights) Date: 16 Jul 1995 00:19:56 GMT Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 16 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3u9lvc$46@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> References: <3r4gs3$en6@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3r7eee$m99@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <3t7b7v$c15@golden.org> <3tfbbu$1ia@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> <3trtco$5jl@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> <3u109d$kbh@nnrp.cs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca In article , fche@elastic.org (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes: |> |> : [...] |> : I don't see a conflict. NOT(R-R --> P-P) does not prevent R-R at the expense |> : of the poor, it only says that the rich can also get richer without it being |> : at the expense of the poor. Simple logic. Complex world. |> |> But you've argued all along that R-R is occurring `at the expense of' P-P. |> That phrase indicates that you think that they are not coincidental, or |> even merely correlated. An `expense' is a necessary cost. So while a |> logical implication is little too strong, isn't `R-R -(in general)-> P-P' |> what you have been saying (i.e., contradicting your NOT() sentence) ? Nice try. No cigar. -Roland From elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!noc.tor.hookup.net!baisa Sat Oct 7 07:40:47 1995 Xref: elastic can.general:11395 can.gov.general:417 can.politics:10650 soc.culture.canada:2140 talk.politics.libertarian:14670 Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!noc.tor.hookup.net!baisa From: baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,can.general,can.gov.general,can.politics,can.talk,soc.culture.canada Subject: News Release: TORONTO WRITER CALLS FOR ABOLITION OF CRTC Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 01:18:54 GMT Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Lines: 114 Message-ID: <45203u$vj5@noc.tor.hookup.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: baisa.tor.hookup.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 ***** News Release ***** Brad Aisa tel (416) 423-4075 393 O'Connor Dr. fax (416) 423-8050 Toronto, Ontario email: baisa@hookup.net Canada M4J 2W2 http://www.hookup.net/~baisa FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 4, 1995, 1800 EDT Contact: Brad Aisa (416) 423-4075 Related article: _Freedom or Censorship?_ copies available from Brad Aisa, or on-line at: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa. TORONTO WRITER CALLS FOR ABOLITION OF CRTC Toronto writer and computer consultant Brad Aisa today called for the privatization of broadcasting frequencies and the abolition of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in a presentation entitled _Freedom or Censorship?_ made to the CRTC Hearings on Television Violence, at the Plaza II Hotel in Toronto. Mr. Aisa offered a reasoned and often passionate defense of freedom of speech, which CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer described as "stirring." Mr. Aisa mercilessly attacked the champions of television censorship, whom he repeatedly referred to as "Social Engineers." Mr. Aisa began by offering a principled defense of two types of children's programming which are currently under attack: violent cartoons, and action/adventure shows, such as the recently banned _Mighty Morphin Power Rangers._ On cartoon violence, Mr. Aisa said, "What any 5 year-old would tell [the censors] is obvious: cartoons are make-believe, and the characters in them are doing things you either can't or aren't supposed to do in reality. That is precisely why they are so funny. ...five year-old Johnny understands this." Mr. Aisa went on to defend shows like _Power Rangers_ as valuable inculcators of a moral view of existence, and as harmless popular entertainment. On the sometimes violent content of these shows, Mr. Aisa pointed out, "There is a big difference between the force initiated by an evil person against the innocent, versus the retaliatory force used by the agents of justice, such as the Rangers." In contrast to social determinists, who often decry violence regardless of context, Mr. Aisa insisted that children evaluate and understand what they see. "...the message delivered [by action shows] is not that violence is good, but that crime is bad, and I submit children understand this." Mr. Aisa then proceeded to offer a philosophic defense of full unrestricted freedom of speech, based on man's need to use his faculty of reason to achieve the values upon which his survival depends. The arguments were based on the philosophic ideas of novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, who CRTC Chairman Spicer complimented as being one of his "favorite philosophers." The defense of freedom of speech offered by Mr. Aisa took great pains to emphasize the need of this freedom as an absolute principle. "Let's get this straight," Mr. Aisa said bluntly, "In the entire history of ideas, men have always been fully free to agree. There has never been any society anywhere, no matter how repressive or primitive, in which you didn't have the unrestricted, absolute right to agree with the accepted wisdom of the day, and the opinions of sovereign, church, dictator, or chief... The thing which has been lacking throughout history is the right to _disagree_." On the question of the basic cause of criminal violence in society, Mr. Aisa made a provocative claim, at odds with that of many social scientists: "...I believe the fundamental cause of [violence in society] is the basic principle on which our current society is built: collectivism. The welfare/interventionist state is founded on a profoundly violent premise: that man does not belong to himself, but to the state, which may use coercion [against him] to any end deemed in the collective's interests. The welfare state ... legitimizes violence." After decrying censorship being, "not the answer to any of our problems," Mr. Aisa went on to point out that adequate means already exist for viewers to exercise choice with regard to what they watch. "The most obvious tools of exercising choice are: the channel changer, the video machine, the off button, or ... absence of ownership." He then pointed out that content is also restrained by threat of boycott or complaint on the part of viewers, using Kelvin Klein's recent withdrawal of his controversial ad campaign as an example. Mr. Aisa ended his presentation with some radical and even startling recommendations. He called for the privatization of broadcasting waves and the elimination of the broadcasting commission. ("...I completely disagree with the existence of such a thing as a broadcasting commission in a free society...") He also repudiated the claim of a government right to regulate broadcasting conducted over privately owned cable facilities. Mr. Aisa went on to "...urge the commission to move to an unconditional form of licensing, which would not call into question the content of broadcasters." He claimed that, "Licensing itself is a form of censorship -- there is no such thing as freedom of expression by permission." - end - -- Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada "The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand baisa@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa