Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:26 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > >> > >> Being a Usenet PlonkTARD is likely worse. Announcing your filter > >> file edits plants you squarely at the bottom of the barrel. > > > > Oh, you mean like Unsettled does? > > And lots of the others here (/BAH, Terrell etc). It's intruiging how us 'socialists' don't have this yearning to cut ourselves off from opinions we may not agree with. On the subject of which, during a chat with a very intelligent mate of mine yesterday he reckoned I should cut my hair and join the Conservative Party ! He reckoned I'd go far. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:29 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't > > > >delved into why that is. > > > > > > It's possible that medical technology is too good. > > > > In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? > > Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into it. It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to social issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:38 krw wrote: > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> > > >> Once again, I'll ask you to think about administering your > > >> NHS to all of Europe. That is how the US has to work. > > >> We essentially 50 countries, each has its own politics, economy > > >> and different priority lists. > > > > > > It is a shame you have such a low opinion of the American people. > > > > It's also quite a shame that she has such a lack of understanding of the US > > Constitution, to think that no national program is possible. There are > > plenty of national programs in the US, and they work fine. > > All (not operated through the states) are unconstitutional, as > well. None come close to 17% of the GNP either, though you'd > likely be all for nationalizing the oil companies too. What would be the point of that ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:43 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. > > > >Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay open later > >than that ! > > --- > That's because they're so inefficient they have to. Idiot.
From: Ken Smith on 24 Nov 2006 13:48
In article <93e5c$456658ee$4fe70cd$27665(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ba10e$4565827a$4fe7682$23596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper around is the best >>>>sort of example. >>> >>>In every universal employment scheme this became an artform. >>>Sometimes the choice is whether to have them show up for >>>work and shuffle papers all day and pay them, or pay them >>>to sit at home because they are unemployed. >> >> >> You have ignored one of my favorite options on this. Continuous >> retraining is another way to keep them busy. By chance they may actually >> learn something that is useful. This is far better than the other two >> options. You don't have to cut down as many trees to keep them busy. > >Built into this are significant failures, hence waste. A Schottky diode drops 0.4V and a silicon diode drops 0.7V. Switching to the Schottky makes sensce. >Besides, how do you "retrain" AMOCO oil corporate management >personnel who already have an MBA? Do you now send them to >school to teach them to pump gas? Jet engine repair, movie set design and the like are better options. > >> [....] >> >>>So he terminated them en masse. The burden shifted, at least >>>for a while, from the private sector to the public sector >>>as those 200 collected unemployment. It woud be intereresting >>>to know how many in that class ever did find employment again. >> >> >> While they had the jobs, the odds of them finding useful work was near >> zero so a very low bar is set. Besides, there are other costs in >> providing worthless jobs. I have bumped into a "useless paper pusher" or >> two who were also "blockers". "Until form 1729-B is filled out requesting >> that we give you a form 1965-C, the shipment can't be inspected and packed >> for shipment....." It only takes a few of this sort to kill an operation >> if someone doesn't "kill" them first. > >Doesn't answer the problem posed above. You are asking for a perfect answer. There isn't one. I've proposed a better answer. [....] >>>They consumed, but the money, representing wealth, has passed >>>through. > >> No, we now have the same amount of money in the system chasing a reduced >> amount of goods and services. The money still exists but something got >> consumed and nothing got created to replace it. > >Inefficiency is inherent in every system involving people. Yes, but that wasn't the point. The point was that you need to keep your eye on the wealth not the money. If the CEOs produced something on their trip, that would be added to the wealth. They used up wealth making the trip. If the item they created was worth more than what they consumed, the result would be an overall increase in wealth. > >>>The goods and services they purchased with the money >>>they earned adds value back into the economy. > >> No, the money only goes back into the economy. The little bit of wealth >> has been consumed. > >Economic systems recognize this and function perfectly >well while allowing for it. If it starts happening on the large scale, you have "stagflation". [....] >> They are in general evolved not designed. Small bit of them get designed >> but this is sort of like designing a sadle for a horse. It, perhaps, >> makes the horse easier for someone to ride, but the horse is stillthe >> result of evolution. > >Cute, but what does that have to do with the issue(s) at hand? Things like banking law effect the economy. These are designed by governments. This is an area where the government can effect the efficiency. >>>If a government works hard to >>>eliminate inefficiencies, then what value are the people >>>supervising that effort adding to the economy? It becomes >>>a snake consuming itself. > >> Once you have a DC-DC converter running at 99% efficiency, there is little >> to gain by going after that last 1%. The same sort of decreasing returns >> happens in orginizations trying to improve efficiency. Up to a point it >> is profitable because the inefficiencies were costing more than the effort >> to remove them did. Beyond that point, there is a loss in continuing >> because it now cost more to remove the losses than the losses are losing. > >And executives golfing in Scotland falls into this class. No, they fall into the "efficiency = 1%" class better than into the "efficiency=99%". >> In the case we have been beating to death (healthcare), we have one bad >> system and one very-very bad system to compare. > >I don't accept that the US healthcare system is such a >disaster as several claim it is. Actually it isn't the health care system that has a problem, even though BAH seems to think it does in a major way. It is the "health care funding" system that is in trouble. It is creating increasing losses in the system. [...] >> But seriously I used it because nothing of value is produced. > >That all depends. You're setting a scenario that plays into >your game plan that's not only artificial but is also >unrealistic. You also fail to allow for human beings to >relax and vacation for its own sake. You left out the entire >story of my friend the salesman making deals while golfing >with customer executives. I tried to create a simple clear example to illustrate a point. Yes it is as you say artificial and it is indeed a massive over simplification. I left a lot out because I only wanted to use golf as an example. [....] >I understood your exagerated and mistaken point. I maintain that the point is not mistaken. The exageration was on purpose to make it clear. >> The food the CEOs eat [1] does not come back into existance. The money is >> in Scotland but barring the business deal, nothing is created to match up >> with the dollars. We now have the same dollars chasing less goods and >> services. > >> [1] I almost said and the booze they drink but then I though of beer and >> edited it out. > >You assume that the trip neither created economic value >which isn't critical, I can't figure out what the word "critical" in the above means. Do you mean that the point is not critical or that the economic value isn't critical. Once again, this is a simplification I made to make the point about wealth vs money. > but what's worse is that you're >tryig to make the dcision that the executive golfing >in Scotland didn't persoanlly value the experience. > >Perhaps you'd prefer to outlaw all tourism and tourist >activities not meeting with your approval? No, I'm suggesting that we should not delude ourselves into assuming that all economic transactions in the private sector increase wealth and that it is the flow of wealth not the flow of money that really matters. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |