conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanencewhen power-offed?
Next: Analog Circuits (world class designs) B. Pease
From: John Larkin on 16 May 2010 23:43 On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 14, 2:31�am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> On 14/05/2010 06:16, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > � �Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep, >> > a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels. �Engels in turn >> > coasted off the family business. �Marx made his living guilt-tripping >> > Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists >> > today. >> >> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their >> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were >> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on >> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety >> relief valves they would not pay out. >> >> It was common practice to overstoke the fire before the first shift and >> add weight to the pressure relief valve - this resulted in several large >> scale boiler explosions destroying big mills in the early morning and >> killing many workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. > >Destroying your factory is a bad business model. That quickly self- >limits. Besides, nowadays we sue or jail those people. Too much, in >fact. > >> http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/technical-steam/historic-steam-boiler-expl... >> >> Articles on the history of boiler insurance show that the US had a worse >> record despite having the advantage of seeing the innovations in UK >> boilers. Some element of NIH played a part but mostly it was that >> industrialists greed was paramount and the workers powerless. eg. >> >> http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed15/15407.pdf >> first page and page 7 under Normal Loss Hazard > >Interestingly and ironically enough, that emphasizes the need to >identify defects and eliminate high risk insureds to minimize >underwriting loss rates. > >"Experience has also shown that the scientific examination and >inspection of insured boilers produces a >declining loss ratio." > >> > � �"To each according to need" really means "From you to me." �"Dear >> > Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo >> > P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM" >> >> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work >> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. >> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. >> >> In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker >> families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some >> household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer. >> >> But most of the rest were complete bastards who built large factories >> and employed the equivalent of bonded labour stuck very high density >> slum housing. It was not surprising that unions were formed in some >> cases the manager really did hold the whip hand - literally. > >As John pointed out, that was a transient effect, an unusual, historic >dislocation. Machines meant that few could farm what had previously >required the toil of many. So there were lots of workers looking for >work. > >Short term, that's painful. Long term, that's creative destruction, >society re-allocating resources from something no longer needed, to >something people do want and need. The pattern repeats: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/15/BUPJ1DEGG1.DTL Manufacturing seeks cheap labor and makes lots of stuff. Pretty soon, that labor isn't cheap any more. Eventually the world may run out of places with cheap labor. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 16 May 2010 23:57 On May 16, 8:53 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On May 15, 11:05 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 14, 4:49 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > The Bolshevik version of Marxism, with its emphasis on the "leading > > > role of the party" has damaged a lot of countries, and killed a lot of > > > people. > > > The problem isn't with Marxism, but the concentration of power > > > into the hands of an unrepresentative and irresponsible elite - Like politicians, whom you'd have save us all with their wisdom. Socialism inevitably degenerates into tyranny. (That's what's happening here, as we lose civil and economic rights.) > > > the > > > Communist party in Stalin's Russian, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's > > > Cambodia killed a lot of people, but the Nazi Party in Hitler's > > > Germany, the Fascist parties in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain > > > weren't far behind, despite their violently anti-Marxist ideologies. You say violently anti-Marxist, but Fascism is just government control of industry, instead of socialism's government ownership of same. Fascism is just socialism, leveraged. > > What? Your GOD didn't foresee the greedy > > limitations in the real world? An ACADEMIC?? Nah. > > That Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot used Marx's writings to justify > mass murder doesn't say much about Marx, To say that, you haven't understood the first word of his Manifesto, which advocates nothing less. "The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality." (Which, Marx then acknowledges, is his goal.) "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. "Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. "These measures will, of course, be different in different countries." --The Communist Manifesto Marx speaks of the need of separating children from their families, husbands from wives, of destroying nations and their cultures, eliminating all old morality, law, and religion, and seizing and socializing (spreading) the wealth of nations. That's the very recipe Pol used in his pot. Of course it's all just despotism and tyranny, under color of morality. Econobabble, rationalizing self-interest. Like Al Gore's ecobabble. Marx was an idiot--a dangerous idiot--and a blowhard. James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 00:06 On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:25:57 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:32:24 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >[snip] >> >>Please notice, Slowman produces _NO_ economic activity and cannot be >>expected to know anything about it. > >And he'd go nuts and die if he didn't have you to "converse" with. > >I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's >disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most >unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-) > I responded to Jeorg. I don't see Slowmans posts.
From: dagmargoodboat on 17 May 2010 00:09 On May 15, 9:27 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On May 14, 10:52 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On May 14, 5:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> On May 14, 9:51 am, John Larkin > > > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:49 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > >On May 13, 5:02 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> > >> On May 13, 8:20 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> > >> The argument for progressive taxation is usually put in terms of those > > >> > >> with the broadest shoulders carrying more of the load. > > > >> > >Right. That's how the Little Red Hen got a hold of all the other > > >> > >animals' bread, greedy thing that she was. She had broad shoulders. > > > >> > >> This falls a > > >> > >> long way short of Marx - > > > >> > >Marx was kind of an idiot. > > > >> > >"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., > > >> > > that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely > > >> > > requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer." > > >> > > --The Communist Manifesto > > > >> > > See what I mean? > > > >> > Yeah, he wouldn't understand a female plumber making $150K. > > > >> > What created our modern wealth was engineers applying science. > > > >> Yep. They made machines to relieve human toil, to improve the human > > >> condition. > > > >> Evil capitalists. Marx the Moocher should've stopped 'em. > > > >Some of the capitalists were quite evil, as Martin Brown has pointed > > >out elsewhere in this thread. Trade unions were one of the mechanisms > > >that reigned in the greedy, evil, short-sighted minority. > > > No. Competition did. > > Comptetion was one of the other mechanisms, once anti-trust > legislation had forced the greedy, evil and shorted sighted > capitalists to compete rather than conspire. Conspiring is harmful. Why, though, is it bad for capitalists, yet infinitely good for labor? Conspiracies among competing capitalists are inherently unstable. Like OPEC, the players have competing interests; squabble, the alliances fall apart, and they resume competing for advantage. It's a beautiful thing. James Arthur
From: Michael A. Terrell on 17 May 2010 00:10
"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > Where have the aliens taken Slowman? Who cares, as long as they don't bring him back. |