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: Bill Sloman on 17 May 2010 07:39 On May 17, 7:05 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(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: <snip> > >The dislocation at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was > >especially traumatic since motive power meant so many human-muscle- > >powered occupations were displaced at the same time. Would it have > >been better to keep them all in subsidized green jobs making wagon > >wheels with sustainable, carbon-neutral technology, as they were, > >after all, before steam? > > No. Pre-steam life was NOT carbon neutral. That is one of the myths > used by liberals. It isn't, actually. Pre-steam life wasn't carbon-neutral, but the volume of coal being burned was too low to have much effect on the climate. Willian Ruddiman makes a case that other human activities had laready lead to appreciable global warming - just enough to put off the next ice age, which some authors beleive to be over-due. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman You do really go out of your way to prove that you don't know what you are talking about. James Arthur is just as bad. Today he had Germany's 1923 hyper-inflation taking place in the late 1930's. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Spehro Pefhany on 17 May 2010 08:14 On Sun, 16 May 2010 23:51:07 -0500, the renowned "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:20:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 16 May 2010 16:00:15 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:54:00 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[...] >>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>>not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>>VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>>at all. >>>> >>>>Gosh, are your savings all that significant? >>> >>>Many do have significant savings over their lifetimes. Having enough to live >>>on the rest of their lives, isn't uncommon. >> >>Actually it is quite uncommon according to BLS data. > >Balloney. > >>>>Don't you pay (an ever >>>>increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference. >>> >>>Compound interest tends to cancel inflation. >> >>Not all that well. It really fell behind during Carter era. > >And has recovered, quite nicely. You can prove any crackpot theory you want >if you cherry-pick the data. It's called a "lie". > >>Interestingly, credit card rates never came back down. > >Not so interestingly, it's completely irrelevant, particularly to this >discussion (millionaires tend to not pay credit card interest). We need a new word to replace millionaire. The guy who owns a hot dog wagon is probably a millionaire. My plumber certainly is. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Bill Sloman on 17 May 2010 08:17 On May 17, 5:57 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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.) Socialism didn't degenerate into tyranny in the UK in 1945-51 period when Labour ruled the country and nationalised the controlling heights of the economy, and it hasn't degerated into tyranny in Scandinavia. What you've got in the US at the moment certainly isn't socialism - nor anything like it - and the economic "rights" you seem to be losing would seem to be the right to be ripped off by a geedy and inefficient health insurance industry, which has been spending your money on an expensive campaign to depict Bismark's less-than socialist national health insurance scheme (which doesn't seem to compromise civil liberties in Frande or Germany) as some kind of communist plot. > > > > 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. You do have a strange idea of what constitutes socialism. You should try thinking about the content of the rubbish you regurgitate, though you might find the conclusions that you'd have to draw too embarassing to be acceptable. > > > 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 The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 - when Marx was thirty. It was the Year of Revolutions distinguished by many revolutionary up- risings. Marx was an innovative thinker who had many ground-breaking ideas, some of them good, useful and productive. His ideas about the politcal supremacy of the proletariat were not useful or helpfull and have subsequently been adopted by a number of groups who used them to justify stupid and evil actions. Marx was a fallible human being, and the communist manifesto isn't his best work. > 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. Political propaganda, like Dubbya's claim to be introducing democracy in Irak. It played well at the time, and served its short-term purpose. Treating it as gospel is rather stupid, but quasi-religious fanatics do do stupid thinks, as you regularly illustrate. > Econobabble, rationalizing self-interest. Like most politcally motivated rhetoric. > Like Al Gore's ecobabble. Al Gore doesn't speak of "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." He's more into reducing CO2 emissions before the consequences of global warming have much the same kind of effect. Since you don't have a clue about the science underpinning his chain of logic, you probably don't appreciate the distinction. > Marx was an idiot--a dangerous idiot--and a blowhard. Marx was a genius - a dangerous genius - and an all too effective blowhard. He huffed and he puffed and Russia fell down. His political ideas were lunatic, but his economic insights were supremely important and gave his daft political ideas a credibility that they didn't deserve, while frightening off the capitalists who really should have taken them seriously and acted on them at the time. It's taken a hundred years for his economic ideas to become common knowledge, and even now stupid Americans will reject perfectly sensible propostions because they think that they are associated with Marx. Your own aversion to Obama's health care bill - which has nothing to do with Marx, except that Bismark thought it up to take the wind out of the sails of some of Marx's political associates - is a case in point. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 17 May 2010 08:20 On May 17, 2:01 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Your first language IS English isn't it?? > > No, it is baffle-gab. An Academic language completely disconnected from > reality. Scarcely. I support my arguments with references to reality. You never do. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 17 May 2010 08:22
On May 17, 6:09 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. So why did the US need anti-trsut legislation, and why doesn't this mechanism protect us from evil trade unions? You can't do joined-up logic. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |