Text 3534, 131 rader
Skriven 2006-07-07 14:19:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4007.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <aftqa29hsnt5dgqr5ruaiob9ehh20ufu19@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-966167.16130201072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:53:38 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j90ma21e75sblvmcllpk6pssiqmvtd9hqh@4ax.com...

>> >> way: Give the world a single diamond, and it will be worth a king's
>> >> ransom. Give the world a hundred diamonds, and it will be a duke's.
>> >> Give the world a diamond for every man, woman, and children, and it
>> >> will be worth nothing. Same diamond, same contribution, but it's value
>> >> is independent of its intrinsic worth.
>> >
>> >For a long time, Aluminum was quite valuable due to its difficulty in
>> >extraction.
>> >Finally, a process was created that could extract the metal efficiently,
>> >greatly reducing its cost.
>> >The value of a diamond is dependent upon its rarity, and the value added
>by
>> >the cutter.
>>
>> As I understand it, it's actually dependent on the artificial scarcity
>> created by the diamond cartel.
>
>Ahh...of course. Another conspiracy.

[snip remark of which the moderators would not approve]

Rather than making a sarcastic misrepresentation concerning something
you obviously know nothing about, you might consider educating
yourself by doing a search on "De Beers Cartel."

Apologies will be gracefully accepted.

>> >> That's true of labor, too. Labor is a commodity, and there's economic
>> >> value in that. But the laws of supply and demand were made for
>> >> minerals and cattle, not people and society. Within reason, they
>> >
>> >They work so nicely for labor too.
>> >Picking up trash is valuable to society, but darned near anyone can do
>it.
>> >A neurosurgeon who can remove brain tumors, correct aneurysms, without
>> >damaging effects, has far greater value since tere are so few folks who
>can
>> >do it. Also nicely recognizes the greater skill required.
>>
>> Right. But people aren't commodities: they have to eat, and they have,
>> I hope, a value greater than that of shiny rocks. Furthermore, for any
>
>They may indeed.
>
>> number of reasons, the economic system doesn't always reward work at
>> its market value. Isaac Asimov, for example, had to stop writing
>> science fiction books in his prime because he couldn't make enough
>> money at it. James Joyce lived in poverty. And yet I think most of us
>
>That can happen.
>
>> would agree that Asimov and Joyce have given us a lot more than the
>> neighborhood garbageman does. Conversely, no one looking at what's
>> happened to the compensation of CEO's can suppose that the market is
>> in play here, as opposed to the decision of businessmen to pay
>> themselves more money than they're worth and the compliance of
>> "compensation consultants" -- who ever hired a compensation consultant
>> who recommended low compensation? -- and boards which are glad to do
>> their friends a favor.
>
>And ideally, answerable to their shareholders. A good CEO can greatly
>increase the company's value by making good decisions. A poor one can run
>the business into the ground.

Ideally, unfortunately, isn't the case: take a look at the
compensation of some of the ground-runners.

>> Markets are good, markets are important, but no one should assume that
>> they're always in play, that they're always right, or that they're the
>> only thing that counts.
>>
>> >> benefit us and provide incentive; taken too far, they create human
>> >> hardship and social rot. It is from this observation -- practical,
>> >> emotional, and philosophical -- that the capitalist welfare state is
>> >> derived. It seeks to preserve incentive and reward the individual
>> >> without cruelty and without the sacrifice of social stability or the
>> >> denial of the role the group has in educating, nurturing, and
>> >> protecting the individual. Insofar as we ignore incentive, we create
>> >> economic stasis. But insofar as we ignore the proper role of
>> >> government, we create hardship, damage the social fabric, and reduce
>> >> the social stability and economic strength of the state as a whole.
>> >>
>> >> In this case, I'm calling for the protection of a tax that serves both
>> >> sides of the equation: the market side by restoring incentive to the
>> >> children of the rich, and the social side by transferring assets from
>> >> the aristocracy to the working citizenry, or to socially productive
>> >> endeavors.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ok, explain via a flow, how the assets from an estate is transferred to
>the
>> >"working citizenry".
>>
>> >I know I've not received a check ;-)
>>
>> Because when government taxes an estate, it doesn't have to tax you as
>> much, or can provide more services.
>>
>
>Or wasted.

Damn, wouldn't want that. I mean, it could have been invested in
Enron.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)