Text 120, 268 rader
Skriven 2004-09-19 13:58:05 av Bob Lawrence
     Kommentar till en text av Bob Klahn
Ärende: Fantastic fantasy!
==========================
BL> Employment, working for someone else, only makes the
BL> someone-else rich.

BK> I believe one of the greatest causes of our current economic
BK> problems is the drive by so many to become rich, rather than to
BK> earn a good living.

 That's an interesting thought, Bob... too much individuality is
undesirable?

 I don't agree. I think it's the other way around... a failure to
provide full employemnt for those *incapable* of becoming rich.
Society is mostly made of plodders and incompetents. The reality is
that these people are the ones who *built* what we have now, who
actually swung the axe and the shovel. Modern business has no need for
plodders... except to mow your lawn and clean your pool.

 It can't last.

BK> All wealth is produced by those who actually produce some
BK> "thing". Those who get rich all too often do so by controlling
BK> the wealth produced by others.

 I agree. No comment, you nailed it.

BL> An overview shows that most wealth comes from "exploiting" the
BL> ones doing the actual work. I have no problem with that
BL> exploitation. People driven to make a profit out of their
BL> fellow man do great good for society overall, but they need to
BL> be taxed to even it out a bit.

BK> I find your interpretation a bit screwed up.

 Thank you.

 Giving wealth to the exploited ones who created it has bene tried.
t was called Communism, and it didn't work. On the other hand,
Capitalism works really well, becasue lies, laziness, and greed are an
essential part of human nature. Hey... I just go with the flow. Give
me a population of angels and I'll come up with something better.

BL>> The rich want it all, and that is the correct attitude for
BL>> creating wealth

BK>> Actually, it's not. The rich, all too often, do not create
BK>> wealth, they just manage to get control of it. I do not see
BK>> that Bill Gates has actually inovated much of anything.

BL> I agree in theory, but in reality innovation rarely creates
BL> wealth unless it can be stolen, refined, made practical, and
BL> marketed... all of which need capital. I

BK> Which does not dispute what I said in the least.

 It does, actually. Without Bill Gates, the wealth "created" by IBM
would have gone the way of CP/M... nowhere. Gates did not create the
product itself, but he did turn it into actual wealth that IBM did
not understand existed. It's the classic example of the inventor
versus the entrepreneur. Who creates the wealth? Who, if removed,
causes the wealth not to exist? The answer is the entrepreneur, who
will just find another product to steal...and turn into wealth.

 It's not fair, it's not ideal, it sucks... but that's how it is in
the world of human beings who are basically lazy, and therefore cheat,
lie and steal to get ahead. I'm still waiting for the genuine genius
who not only creates, but is really good in the cheat, lie and steal
department. My guess is that such a person would rule the world.

BL> agree that many inventors are discouraged by the meagre return
BL> for their work, and refuse to sell out to a entrepreneur like
BL> Gates... but they don't count.

BK> Yeah, they do. They produce much of the advancement of our
BK> culture. Very often they do bring their products to market,
BK> then they are put out of business by such as Gates, who take
BK> over their inovation.

 Name one...

 I can name you ten of the other variety, starting with Gates, Ford,
Kriesler, Carnegie, basically anyone who succeeded. Of course we
all liek to think of the Albert Sweitzers and Mother Theresas, but
what the hell did they do anyway? Certainly, no wealth was created...

BK> Wealth does result. The concentration in the hands of Bill
BK> Gates has little to do with the actual production of wealth.

 But, it does! An idea is worth *nothing*, unless it can be brought
to market.

BK> Pretty much everything he does comes from someone else's
BK> original ideas. His disc compression software is a prime
BK> example. Stacker was the innovator, and they had a good
BK> business, producing wealth. Gates stole their idea. Gates lost
BK> the lawsuit, but he then put investment into developing his own
BK> software. It was no better, but it came with DOS, so he put
BK> Stacker, the real wealth producer, out of business.

 Another frayed edge in Earth's vast tapestry... no wealth resulted.

 *Every* invention brings more wealth to the marketeers than to the
inventor. I can't think of *one* example where the original genius
inventor was the one who created the wealth. The *most* an inventor
can hope for is one-twentieth of the total wealth created by the ones
who exploit it. Usually, it is much less than 5%, and often negative.

BK> Taxation is an unreliable and inefficient method of
BK> redistributing wealth. ...

 What else is there? How else do you take from the rich to give to
the poor? Robin Hood is doing time in Joliet.

BL> Unfortunately, the way of the world. My guess is that the guy
BL> who invented the wheel was screwed too... probably by someone
BL> named Ford.

BK> But the inventor of the Wheel was the real wealth producer. ...

 Henry Ford was the one who created the *wealth*. Your inventor only
created the idea, or perhaps the prototype. In fact, Didn't Ford
actually steal a carburettor?

 Wealth... look it up in the dictionary. It says ntohing about ideas,
inventions, etc. It's basically money and property, and the first
thing the rich steal on their way to creating wealth is someone else'e
property. Of course, the inventor has the *moral* right... but that
does not put money in the bank. Sadly, it often sends him broke
fighting the theft.

 What I said originally is how it works. The "rich" attitude of
wanting it all (cheat, lie and steal) is the best and most efficient
way of creating wealth. Brains and good ideas are a dollar-a-dozen.

BL> I don't agree with subsidising small business.

BK> The best way to subsidize small business is through a
BK> prosperous economy with low unemployment.

 I agree with that. In prosperity, people go more to service than
price, and Walmart loses out. Hard times suit the big boys...

BL> Oz was when the Taxation Office assessed a tax avoidance bill
BL> of $250M against our richest man, and then years later having
BL> spent $20 million in legal fees, he settled by paying them
BL> $200,000!

BK> Which is why I say taxation is an unreliable method for
BK> redistributing wealth.

 Then simplify tax laws to put lawyers out of the equation...

BL> In my own case they sent an unfair bill for $1,200 and I paid
BL> (as they knew I would), rather than fight it in court. The law
BL> is mocked while big companies (and

BK> Got me for $900. On a bill for my wife back in '95. How the
BK> hell are we gonna fight that?

 Bad law, designed by lawyers to keep lawyers in work...

BL> wood-burning in winter?

BK> I think it's ok in remote areas, or in areas where you are no
BK> where near you neighbor. However, we have some dolt in this
BK> city who stinks up the neighborhood with his wood burning every
BK> winter.

 How is it different from cigarette smoke?

BL> Or do you believe that it is the tobacco plant alone that has
BL> carcinogens when burned?

BK> I object to having smoke inflicted on me because I don't like
BK> it. The carcinogens should be a crime.

 Then ban wood fires and cars, along with smokers...

 Where do we draw a line on the "rights" of others that are mostly
imagined anyway? If my car offends your nose, does that mean I have to
walk, or do *you* have to wear a mask? Life is a risk until you die.
If we want to be totally safe, do we kill everyone?

BL> I'd rather take my chances with a psychotic poodle than a
BL> psycho with an M-16.

BK> Since the law requires checks by gun dealers to insure that
BK> psychos don't get M-16s, that's another matter.

 Gee... and that works so well, too. Pity about Columbine (and a
thousand others). If you want the freedom to bear arms, then you
*have* to accept the risk of a psycho with an M-16 shootign you. No
law is going to make a psycho, sane. It amuses me that you accept
*that* risk (or pretend that it doesn't exist), but worry about a
vicious poodle or secondary smoke causing cancer. Maybe it's me...

BK> I've seen dogs that were friendly and playful turn vicious.
BK> That's enough to say all dogs *CAN* turn vicious. AFAIC.

 I've seen a brown dog, therefore all dogs can be brown?

 I am talkign about risk. Safety, chance, odds... what's the chance
of my dog attacking me in a serious way? Zero sounds about right.
What's my chance of being mugged in the street at night by a man with
a gun, in Oz? Not much. In Los Angeles... no thanks, too risky, I'll
drive. What's my chance of lung cancer or heart disease from casual
secondary smoke? Zero sounds about right. What about 30-a-day? No
thanks, too risky.

 Therefore... locking up small dogs is silly, gun control is a good
idea, smoking outside is okay. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I
assess risks. Why shoudl I insist on restricting someone else's
freedom if there is no risk to me, and no benefit? I don't count a
mere nusiance enough reason...

BL> ROFL! A trained attack cat! This is going from the sublime to
BL> the ridiculous, Bob. Are you having a lend of me, or what?

BK> I take it you don't have much experience with cats. Try to take
BK> one down from a tree when it doesn't want to come down. Be sure
BK> to wear padding. Those claws really work.

 I know they do... at first hand (no pun intended) but it didn't rip
my throat out or anything like that. I didn't need plastic surgery and
a week in intensive care. In fact it was funny. The feral kitten had
run up the tree and was terrified, so I got out the ladder like a nice
human being, and like an idiot I didn't think of leather gloves. When
I pried the cat off the tree it ripped my hand... so I threw it out of
the tree! ROFL! Poor puss.

 I ended up calling her Lucky, and she was always a vicious cat.
She terrorised my dog, Jess (who took it and didn't tear the cat apart
once... another reason why I rate Jess a zero health risk). Lucky
pounced on me, too, but I held off training her as an attack cat in
case people laughed.. and besides, how do you train a cat? Even when
they like you, they hate you.

 BTW, I do have some experience with cats, dogs, rabbits, parrots,
magpies... all the vicious, high-risk animals but hardly any lions or
tigers.

BK>> Would you allow mice to run free around your children?

BL> I'd rather do that than put them on a leash. People would
BL> giggle at me.

BK> I just step on them.

 I thought there was a law against stepping on children. They're
safe on leash. Kids can be realyl vicious if you let them run free
around mice in particular. They'll eat them!

BK> Like the assault weapons ban, in this country, that expires
BK> tonight?

 That's what inspired me to mention guns. How mad is that? Why does
anyone want an assault rifle anyway... what *legal* reason? After
WWII, Military rifles were cheap and good with cheap ammunition, and
it made sense, but that no longer applies. The Chinese were selling
cheap SKS assault rifles in Oz, but that dried up even before they
were made illegal in Oz. Nowadays, an AK-47 costs more than a proper
hunting rifle... and is a mile less accurate. What are they good for?

Regards,
Bob
      

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5
 * Origin: Precision Nonsense, Sydney  (3:712/610.12)