Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 11:41 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. > >> It eliminates wage competition. > > Only at the bottom end. Everyone else still competes. The idea that increasing a rate of $5 / hour modestly would eliminate competition is laughable. The UK minimum wage is already ~ ?5 / hour ( nearly twice as much ) and despite shreiks of protest at the time has done none of the things it was alleged it would to reduce productivity. Graham
From: |||newspam||| on 10 Nov 2006 11:42 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <8EG4h.11567$B31.466(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >news:eiv9vl$8qk_003(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> These people came from an economic system where the only property > >> owners (I think) were farms. The only people who knew how to > >> make things go were property owners. When the above people envisioned > >> the manufacturing and industrial revolution, did they also anticipate > >> where people would only own 1/8 acre with a hut on it? > > > >You mean like all of the people in Europe who lived in the cities already > >had? > > They didn't own. Oh yes they did at least in the UK - and those with a certain modest amount of land got to vote too. The poorest were usually tennants of a rich landowner (and that still persists to some extent in rural areas). Private rental property is still very common on mainland Europe and it has nothing at all to do with promigenture(sic). Successful merchants and tradesmen tended to acquire enough wealth to own their premises and if relevant some land to go with it. > Europe is based on promigenture and that's very > different from the way the US operated. Are you dyslexic or something? ITYM Primogeniture - the entire estate (especially for the seriously rich) going to the eldest surviving male heir. I can see why believing this would conflict with your misandry but I can't see how it is remotely relevant. It isn't true either. A rough guide to how goods & chattels were divided according to the law of thirds is at: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OLD-ENGLISH/2006-01/1137061033 And a longer more complex description at: http://www.bahs.org.uk/14n2a1.pdf Bess of Hardwick was a notable example of a very powerful woman who amassed a huge fortune by marriage. And out living various husbands. Hardwick Hall, near Sheffield is well worth a visit. http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hardwickhall/ Second most wealthy woman in England after Queen Elizabeth I. > I suspect that the > reason these fears of the founders didn't surface is because > the US got rid of promigenture. That is real property ownership > where its disposal and use is solely the decision of the owner > and not some outdated inheiritance laws based on kingships. Primogeniture inheritance was done primarily to keep the large landed gentry estates of the aristocracy intact. And even then estates were bought and sold as the new super rich of the industrial revolution came along. The cash poor, asset rich landed gentry were smart enough to acquire money by marriage into the upcoming new industriallists. Regards, Martin Brown
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 11:42 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4554A897.707AE7BC(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > >> >>What good are the other rights if you're dead? >> > >> > Reread the sentence. They are only talking about insurance >> > being a right, not getting medical care. There is a difference. >> >> Well, the difference would be kinda moot to the millions of Americans who >> do >> not have insurance and cannot afford medical care, now wouldn't it? > > What really perplexes me about this issue is that Americans seemingly > almost > take some perverse pride in overpaying for limited medical cover ! I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. I would have put it differently...it's the same people that like to show off their $5000 watches that also treat being able to afford good health care as a "status symbol" only to be afforded by the wealthy. > Who else would cover pre-existing conditions FFS ? All three of the companies for whom I've worked have provided insurance that paid for treatment of new and pre-existing conditions equally, but I have had to ask at each new employer, because that is indeed becoming less and less common. > And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. The mindset that it is insurance is indeed part of what we need to change. Call the government-supplied military "providing for the common defense", and everybody accepts it. Call it "war insurance" and suddenly it takes on a different tenor, as in "hey, you couldn't afford war insurance, I guess it's your turn to die today." Or to take this comical analogy one step further, why not consider health care to be a "war on disease". There are parallels to actual war...everybody is affected, it kills lots of people, and it has great societal costs if not taken care of. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 11:51 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. > > The mindset that it is insurance is indeed part of what we need to change. > Call the government-supplied military "providing for the common defense", > and everybody accepts it. Call it "war insurance" and suddenly it takes on > a different tenor, as in "hey, you couldn't afford war insurance, I guess > it's your turn to die today." Or to take this comical analogy one step > further, why not consider health care to be a "war on disease". There are > parallels to actual war...everybody is affected, it kills lots of people, > and it has great societal costs if not taken care of. Interesting analogy. I've seen no-one suggest that the Army, Navy and Air Force be put under private ownership. What's the big issue with Health Care ? Graham
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 11:55
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4554AE27.CBE6D283(a)hotmail.com... > I've seen no-one suggest that the Army, Navy and Air Force be put under > private > ownership. Well...actually, I have begun to see people talk about this in the US...and I think it would be a *spectacularly* bad idea. Fortunately, I think the idea will have difficulty gaining any traction. Eric Lucas |