Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 13:07 In article <ek9k74$8qk_001(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ek7g2j$hv4$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ek4cee$8qk_008(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <ek37ho$2pn$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[...] >>>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper >>> >>> >>>The paper is needed. >> >>No, *some* paper may be needed. > >You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of >paper was created to solve a problem. As you agree below, that problem may not exist anymore. It also may not have existed on the day it was "solved". > Each step and check of that >step was created to solve a problem. You are assuming no "blockers" were involved. Blockers create extra paperwork because they see paperwork as an ends not a means. > All processes, bit flows, >work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of >processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure >the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some >these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper >will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. So, you admit that there *is* needless paperwork. Now we can go back to the argument about what its effect is on the economy. >The fact that not many get weeded out is due to the dynamics >and psychology of people. They will protect their territory. It is also because once a system works at all many people will assume it is perfect. [.....] >What you do is investigate the history of that step. Learn how >it was implemented. Learn what problem it was to supposed to solve. >You may be surprised that the problem is still there but caged >by the paperwork delay. No, we were talking about the economic effect of the needless paperwork. As soon as we agree that some must exist, we can go onto the real core of the discussion about the economics. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 13:06 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <97b81$4567983d$4fe7021$3341(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: > > [...] > >>I don't understand how you folks have managed to >>lose touch with the realities. I have 3: >> >>"In the 1990s a program of share-holding and greater >>market orientation went into effect; however, state >>enterprises continue to dominate many key industries >>in China's 'socialist market economy.'" > > > I know some of these state enterprises were acting quite capitalistic when > I was there in the 1990s. I expect it is more true today. One of the > sections of the military bottled orange soda to help raise their operating > budget. The soda bottling had to run at a profit to remain in existance. > The lab that made scientific glassware also made xmass decorations. These > were sold in the market at a profit. > The oil and coal ministries were still fairly tightly held. State ownership is the key. >>http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0857293.html > > > ********* > Fact Monster content cannot be used commercially or on the Web without > first obtaining our permission. Please address your request to our contact > form. Make your request as detailed and specific as possible, and cite the > relevant URL. Note, however, that most of the maps and photos on our site > are obtained from third parties and we do not hold the rights to license > these. > ********* > > I won't tell on you. This isn't a commercial use. Read also the "fair use" doctrine where copyrights are concerned. Publishers always try to make it sound as though you can't resue a sequence of two words without their permission, but it's not enforcable. > Also I found this: > > **************** > Beginning in the late 1970s, changes in economic policy, including > decentralization of control and the creation of “special economic > zones” to attract foreign investment, led to considerable industrial > growth, especially in light industries that produce consumer goods. In the > 1990s a program of share-holding and greater market orientation went into > effect; however, state enterprises continue to dominate many key > industries in China's “socialist market economy.” In addition, > implementation of some reforms was stalled by fears of social dislocation > and by political opposition, but by 2004 economic changes had become so > great that the Communist party moved to add protection for private > property rights to the country's constitution. Major industrial products > are textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, machinery (especially for > agriculture), processed foods, iron and steel, building materials, > plastics, toys, and electronics. > **************** > > Notice that they have added the protection of private property. A > communists head would explode if they did that. Not true. As I mentioned someplace above, the FSU and Warsaw pact had a practice of turning over really badly running businesses to individuals to get them running well, Then they used to nationalize them again. The communist mindset isn't completely stupid. Have you ever read the constitution of the FSU? That is to say the second constitution as they had a sequence of two. Compare their constitutional protections with the historical information that came out of the FSU for the last 50 years of their existence, as well as since. Just because there's a law doesn't mean very much. Just as the name "People's Democratic Republic" doesn't mean much either. Yes people were able to vote. Indeed, in some places they were *required* to vote, for a single column of "candidates." And still Google provides special filters for Chinese participants on the internet. >>"Government - Type: Highly centralized communist state. > >>"North Korea introduced some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and >>has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the >>state-run distribution system has deteriorated. But the regime seems >>determined to maintain control." > > > The regime maintaining control does not make it a communist country. > There are lots of other types of tyranny. There's a major core error. Communism does not necessarily mean tyranny. It specifically means the state owns the means of production. It is the feudal system all over again, usually with central control and central planning, and generally a dictatorship. Communism as a good thing was exercised by the early Christians. Kibutz life in Israel was similarly organized. Also the Shakers are back in full fling after one settlement took a vacation for a couple of decades. In all these the means of production were/are communally held, and a minature local "government" is in place. Each of these exhibit the best of communism and make a very nice display of what life under communism *could* be like. The singular aspect that makes them work, while nations don't fare well, is that of scale. Communism can work wonderfully on a small scale, but it has never managed to scale up. So the experiment is done, and so far as those of us who undertand it, the impossibility of having an effective large scale communism is proved impossible. This is not the first time this discussion has has been published on usenet. I've read it several times. The danger with the progression towards strong socialism is that it generally deals well with the first few experimental programs. As it progresses, it eventually becomes unstoppable, and deteriorates into communism, which is taking civilization, as Hayek quite properly pointed out, on the road to serfdom. Somehow, the freedom from serfdom for ~156 years just doesn't seem enough.
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 13:09 In article <456856D8.D3AFF55F(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > >> >>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper >> >> >> >>The paper is needed. >> > >> >No, *some* paper may be needed. >> >> You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of >> paper was created to solve a problem. Each step and check of that >> step was created to solve a problem. All processes, bit flows, >> work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of >> processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure >> the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some >> these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper >> will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. > >Over here my GP now types his notes straight into a PC. No paper is needed. Mine does a bit of each. He marks up printouts of my last interaction with him. I don't think their computer system gives enough freedom to insert notes. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 13:10 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] > >>Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested >>contracts. > > > Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used instead. I'd wager that Osama is living with them in Saudi Arabia.
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 13:19
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > [.....] > >>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>certifications for a piece of gear? > > > I like radio just fine. > > Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another > state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal > government preemptive control. How many microwatts will cross the border when you're standing next to a state line with the transmitter? |