Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 13:04 In article <4572DA38.59F7F34E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> If you've been reading the posts, you should be able to figure >> out why the extremists are winning. > >Eh ? > >Who says they are ? Those fanatical "C++" coders are going to take over the world. They hate us for our tight code and lack of memory leaks. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 13:09 Ken Smith wrote: > The economy can "seem" things that it isn't really. Military spending > drives the stock market up and gives everyone a job. This makes the > economy look good if you look at those numbers. If you instead look at > the contents of the average household you get a different picture. During > WW2, people drove the old car and used the old washing machine and didn't > buy that new TV. LOL, minor point. Consumer TV's didn't come on the market till the late 1940's. To keep the comparison fair, the machinery of that age was much better designed and wasn't on a short replacement cycle. Well after WW2 my mother didn't replace the washing machine till my parenst decided to buy a fancy new automatic washer. Even then the wringer washer was held as a spare in case the fancy one broke down. Eventually I pulled it apart for the motor which saw various uses for more than a decade afterwards. Cars were typically 1930's, solid, tanklike. With gas rationing they didn't wear a whole lot, and the superhighway had yet to be invented. Most people who owned a car used it on weekends. Oil changes were scheduled at 1000 miles. The average person could actually slide under tha car to drain the oil without needing ramps to raise it higher for access. The consumerist lifestyle was in the future. > The standard of living was on the average going down. Try telling that to the southern blacks who moved into the industrial belt during that period; many of them stayed, and their descendents are still there, now mostly unemployed. In fact you might say that a good part Michigan's unemployment problem today is a consequence of WW2. > What was being made in the factories was being destroyed on the battle > field. Wealth was being consumed. This is the second time we're at this juncture in the discussion. You seem to have missed the concept last time around The thing that's missing from your personal economic model is that everything ever made in any factory is destroyed, some parts more quickly than the other. Your idea of wealth actually always travels in one direction, from manufacture to the landfill / recycle_plant. Wealth in your model is imaginary because in your wealth model the copier never breaks down, the automobile never wears out, etc. We are wealthier today because the amount of human physical labor necessary to create $1 worth of finished product (unit of production) is significantly reduced from what it took in the past, and the products are generally consuming less in terms natural resources. One fallacy in your thinking about wealth is obvious in your discussion about civilians being unable to buy new cars and such during the war. You recognize that a constant flow of new (including new replacement) product is needed in order to have a healthy economy, but if that flow is into quick replacement product you proclaim the wealth "lost." Coupled into this discussion is a very interesting point about life in the FSU. Since there was little by way of consumer goods, and not much time for "shopping" as we know it today, and no interest bearing bank accounts, significant savings were stuffed into mattrasses where the money stayed for years. At the collapse of the FSU all that money disappeared into the sea of inflation. If money = labor units of production, how did the wealth resulting from all that labor get destroyed? Taking your view, whatever had been produced still existed, but the people were suddenly all poor, standing by the roads (see National Geographic of the period) selling off whatever they could in order to buy food. > There has also been a few very bad times in the economy during peace. The > 1930's would be an example. If you detect the minus peaks, you get a > different view of the wave form than if you detect the positive ones. I think you'll see a different world once you revisit and understand what wealth is. This isn't a simple concept. As an afterthought, consider the life of a newspaper, the primary medium for disseminating news, compared to the cost, including the lumber/paper industries. It was a *huge* business with most of the product having an effective life of 1/2 day or less. Think also about parts of the middle east that actually produce nothing, only pump oil out of the ground and sell it abroad.
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 13:19 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <26e4$45722fd5$4fe757d$18514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. >>>The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the >>>horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have >>>the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within >>>Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really >>>are. >>They remain in a medieval tribal mindset. Nothing else matters. > Actually a great deal else matters. The fact that they can't agree among > themselves makes them weak. They won't all follow any given leader. They > will fight among themselves. > So long as nothing unites them, the odds of them forming a world > government are zero. Not true. Rome gave up trying to conquer Scotland. Read Scottish history. Take Islam out of the picture for a moment and look at Ireland and those issues. Northern Ireland remains tribal. Protestants re descendents of Brits, Catholics are old Celts. The old Celts regularly war among theselves, but join forces against the "outsiders" at every turn. When you look at social structures you have to abandon the sort of formal logic you're used to using along with the predictability that generates. Replace that with historical observation. You can't use "hard science" approaches to solve sociological (soft science) problems. Well you can, but it doesn't work.
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 13:34 In article <3affd$457312fb$4fe70d7$29554(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> The economy can "seem" things that it isn't really. Military spending >> drives the stock market up and gives everyone a job. This makes the >> economy look good if you look at those numbers. If you instead look at >> the contents of the average household you get a different picture. During >> WW2, people drove the old car and used the old washing machine and didn't >> buy that new TV. > >LOL, minor point. Consumer TV's didn't come on the market till >the late 1940's. Ah yes but if there had been no war. >To keep the comparison fair, the machinery of that age was much >better designed and wasn't on a short replacement cycle. That means that a lot more was invested in it in the past. That moves the prewar bar up. > Well >after WW2 my mother didn't replace the washing machine till >my parenst decided to buy a fancy new automatic washer. Even then >the wringer washer was held as a spare in case the fancy one broke >down. Eventually I pulled it apart for the motor which saw >various uses for more than a decade afterwards. I can remember the wringer washer from the 1960s. The motor I had came from someone elses washer that had sprung a leak. It powered a wood lathe from time to time. My father had a motor that belonged to the lathe but I dare not touch it. >Cars were typically 1930's, solid, tanklike. With gas rationing I didn't mension the trips not taken during the war. [....] >The consumerist lifestyle was in the future. > >> The standard of living was on the average going down. > >Try telling that to the southern blacks who moved into the >industrial belt during that period; many of them stayed, and >their descendents are still there, now mostly unemployed. That is a smallish fraction of the population. There is always a variation around the average. They were the tops of the peak. >In fact you might say that a good part Michigan's unemployment >problem today is a consequence of WW2. Yes, I might say that, but only if I can't think of a way to blame a Republican. :) >> What was being made in the factories was being destroyed on the battle >> field. Wealth was being consumed. > >This is the second time we're at this juncture in the discussion. >You seem to have missed the concept last time around No, I think you missed the point. >The thing that's missing from your personal economic model is >that everything ever made in any factory is destroyed, some parts >more quickly than the other. Things get consumed. The stuff that people have like washers and driers raise the standard of living. While they remain in use, they are part of the wealth. When they are destroyed, they are no longer. A weapons system, however, never washes any dishes or dries any clothes. It never adds to the wealth. > Your idea of wealth actually always >travels in one direction, from manufacture to the landfill / recycle_plant. > >Wealth in your model is imaginary because in your wealth model >the copier never breaks down, the automobile never wears out, >etc. No, you've got it wrong. In the time that the machine is useful it is part of the wealth. When it breaks, its value goes down so there is a little less wealth. Things of no use at all have no period of time in which they add to the wealth. >We are wealthier today because the amount of human physical >labor necessary to create $1 worth of finished product >(unit of production) is significantly reduced from what it >took in the past, and the products are generally consuming >less in terms natural resources. I agree. You however have missed the point that if the finished product is not useful, it doesn't add to the wealth and also that inefficiencies in the system take away some of the wealth. >One fallacy in your thinking about wealth is obvious in your >discussion about civilians being unable to buy new cars and >such during the war. You recognize that a constant flow of >new (including new replacement) product is needed in order >to have a healthy economy, but if that flow is into quick >replacement product you proclaim the wealth "lost." No, you've got it wrong. It isn't the quick replacement that causes the loss of wealth. It is the product no longer being useful or not being useful or not being created at all that represents the actual loss. When you repair something, you are expending wealth to restore it to use. >Coupled into this discussion is a very interesting point about >life in the FSU. Since there was little by way of consumer goods, >and not much time for "shopping" as we know it today, and no >interest bearing bank accounts, significant savings were >stuffed into mattrasses where the money stayed for years. In the USSR and places like that, this wasn't a major problem to the economy. The money was truly just some funny colored paper. The real capital was political capital. Factories needed supporting people in high places etc to get raw materials. >At the collapse of the FSU all that money disappeared into >the sea of inflation. If money = labor units of production, >how did the wealth resulting from all that labor get destroyed? But money != labor units of production and wealth != money. The money was just funny colored paper. The amount of funny colored paper in existance was still the same. Suddenly the public tried to exchange that paper for real wealth. When that happened, the true value of that paper became evident. They was a lot of money and not much wealth so each increment of money was chasing a small amount of wealth. >Taking your view, whatever had been produced still existed, >but the people were suddenly all poor, standing by the roads >(see National Geographic of the period) selling off whatever >they could in order to buy food. What economy they had had collapsed. As per above the money had fallen to a low value because there wasn't much wealth. The only way they could get food was to trade items of real value for that food. By your logic they should have been just fine because they still had money. >> There has also been a few very bad times in the economy during peace. The >> 1930's would be an example. If you detect the minus peaks, you get a >> different view of the wave form than if you detect the positive ones. > >I think you'll see a different world once you revisit and >understand what wealth is. This isn't a simple concept. I will point that statement back at you. You seem to be the one confusing money with actual wealth. [....] >Think also about parts of the middle east that actually produce >nothing, only pump oil out of the ground and sell it abroad. They are getting poorer with time. Basically they are spending their savings. When the savings/oil runs out, they will be in trouble. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2006 13:44
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> There are people who like to think. That's one way to do so. > > > >There's plenty of others more useful and rewarding. > > Not if you enjoy coding, debugging, and making the iron > run through your hoops. I'm used to doing that too. Assembler isn't the only way you know. Graham |