The idiocy of Tom Sherman

Bill C? wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:24 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Nature doesn't give a **** about humans.
Does nature excrete semi-solid waste?

We are part of a natural
system, and humans are natural omnivorous predators. There'll always
be something to cry about, or that you think we should all feel guilty
about.
The person who does not feel guilt is either perfect or immoral.

Here we come to the part where you get up on your pedestal. What
makes humans any different from any other animal? What is "morality"
and who gets to define it? Seems to me there's lots of competing
versions.

Well, throw out all the "morality" based on superstition. The rest is
obvious, no?

You run your life and I'll allow you to do that quite happily,
I'll run mine and you had need to keep your authoritarian, elitist,
paws out of mine. If I chhose to aid others, that's my choice, and for
whatever reasons I choose to do so, If not that's my choice too.
butbutbut, the real goal of a significant subset of the very rich IS to
rule over the masses, and to make that rule hereditary. Has worked for
centuries in quite a few societies.

Yep some people will be successful, others wont. Works all throughout
the animal kingdom.

The difference is that human societies are set up to make some
successful despite their incompetence and sloth, while others are not
provided with a chance to succeed despite hard work and ability. The
promoters of the political right attempt to justify this as fair and
morally correct, with false claims of meritocracy. "Social Darwinism" is
only for those born to the lower and middle classes.

Maybe you oughta spend some time getting your life together before
trying to run everyone elses, and maybe you can tell us what makes you
so godlike that we should allow you to run our lives.
Why does Bill C say this about Java Man?

swerve, swerve, swerve yor boat....

Maybe Bill C. should pay more attention to who's post he is responding to.

Fascism, communism, theocracy, it's all the same authoritarian BS
whit a handful of self appointed "saints", and "geniuses" at the top
playing god with all the rest of the people.
Bill C forgets to list oligarchy, which is the goal of a significant
subset of the very rich.

May very well be, but there's a hell of a lot more freedom for
everyone, and that includes freedom to fail, in the western model you
hate so much, as opposed to your lowest common denominator proison
camp model. I'll settle for working to get by and having freedom,
thanks.

What is "proison camp"? Does Bill C. mean prison camp? Please cite where
I advocated prison camps - or is this just another case of Bill C.
claiming people wrote something they did not?

Those born to the lower classes in most of the world have little choice
but to work to enrich the already wealthy, and this is due to a system
created by the wealthy. But apparently greed causing misery does not
bother Bill C., since he had the foresight to choose parents in better
circumstances.

Don't like any of them, don't like Tom.
Whooooo Hooooo! A compliment (considering the source).

PLEASE HONOR THE SIGNATURE SEPARATOR.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 23, 6:21*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bill C? wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:35 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

Imagine that. *Investors don't labor at figuring out an allocation of
resources that will ultimately, directly or indirectly, be desired by
consumers and in turn return a benefit to them for laboring and making
good decisions regarding the allocation of those resources. *In your
world, no one makes, or needs to make, decisions regarding the
allocation of resources, and doing so is "worthless non-labor."
Bizarro.

The IRS definition is arbitrary nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The other bit that's garbage is that, pretty much everyone who
invests, consistantly, successfully does a lot of homework before
choosing to invest, and where. If that research isn't labor then lots
of academics, financial planners, media researchers, etc...are out of
luck in Tom's world.

No silly, these people are doing the research labor for the rich investor..

Almost everyone I know does at least a bunch of their own research to
verify their brokers ideas, of they use the broker for trades only and
do their own work, and make their own decisions. At some level they
will hire folks to do this, and in your world the vast majority of
those folks would qualify as rich, and to be penalized, or shot.

Labor isn't always physical, and more frequently
in the developed world, it's much less likely to be.

And I never claimed differently. Duh.

It just depends on whether it's skull sweat YOU approve of then?

*All those folks and sites that promote "responsible", "Progressive",
or "Green" investing must be guilty too. Skullsweat is just as valid
as a form of labor as me putting on your roof, D-y hooking up your
shower, or some guy digging ditches.

Bill C. continues to attempt to put words in the mouths of others? Why
does he feel the need to do that constantly in these discussions?
Curious, eh?

Same thing.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill C

Bill C? wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:21 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bill C? wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:35 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
Imagine that. Investors don't labor at figuring out an allocation of
resources that will ultimately, directly or indirectly, be desired by
consumers and in turn return a benefit to them for laboring and making
good decisions regarding the allocation of those resources. In your
world, no one makes, or needs to make, decisions regarding the
allocation of resources, and doing so is "worthless non-labor."
Bizarro.
The IRS definition is arbitrary nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The other bit that's garbage is that, pretty much everyone who
invests, consistantly, successfully does a lot of homework before
choosing to invest, and where. If that research isn't labor then lots
of academics, financial planners, media researchers, etc...are out of
luck in Tom's world.
No silly, these people are doing the research labor for the rich investor.

Almost everyone I know does at least a bunch of their own research to
verify their brokers ideas, of they use the broker for trades only and
do their own work, and make their own decisions. At some level they
will hire folks to do this, and in your world the vast majority of
those folks would qualify as rich, and to be penalized, or shot.

Gee, Bill C. just can not stop inventing falsehoods about what other
people write. His Usenet behavior is approaching a pathology.

Send in that résumé to Fox News.

Labor isn't always physical, and more frequently
in the developed world, it's much less likely to be.
And I never claimed differently. Duh.

It just depends on whether it's skull sweat YOU approve of then?

All those folks and sites that promote "responsible", "Progressive",
or "Green" investing must be guilty too. Skullsweat is just as valid
as a form of labor as me putting on your roof, D-y hooking up your
shower, or some guy digging ditches.
Bill C. continues to attempt to put words in the mouths of others? Why
does he feel the need to do that constantly in these discussions?
Curious, eh?

Same thing.

PLEASE HONOR THE SIGNATURE SEPARATOR.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 23, 6:39*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bill C? wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:24 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Nature doesn't give a **** about humans.
Does nature excrete semi-solid waste?

We are part of a natural
system, and humans are natural omnivorous predators. There'll always
be something to cry about, or that you think we should all feel guilty
about.
The person who does not feel guilt is either perfect or immoral.

*Here we come to the part where you get up on your pedestal. What
makes humans any different from any other animal? What is "morality"
and who gets to define it? Seems to me there's lots of competing
versions.

Well, throw out all the "morality" based on superstition. The rest is
obvious, no?

You run your life and I'll allow you to do that quite happily,
I'll run mine and you had need to keep your authoritarian, elitist,
paws out of mine. If I chhose to aid others, that's my choice, and for
whatever reasons I choose to do so, If not that's my choice too.
butbutbut, the real goal of a significant subset of the very rich IS to
rule over the masses, and to make that rule hereditary. Has worked for
centuries in quite a few societies.

*Yep some people will be successful, others wont. Works all throughout
the animal kingdom.

The difference is that human societies are set up to make some
successful despite their incompetence and sloth, while others are not
provided with a chance to succeed despite hard work and ability. The
promoters of the political right attempt to justify this as fair and
morally correct, with false claims of meritocracy. "Social Darwinism" is
only for those born to the lower and middle classes.

*Maybe you oughta spend some time getting your life together before
trying to run everyone elses, and maybe you can tell us what makes you
so godlike that we should allow you to run our lives.
Why does Bill C say this about Java Man?

swerve, swerve, swerve yor boat....

Maybe Bill C. should pay more attention to who's post he is responding to..

*Fascism, communism, theocracy, it's all the same authoritarian BS
whit a handful of self appointed "saints", and "geniuses" at the top
playing god with all the rest of the people.
Bill C forgets to list oligarchy, which is the goal of a significant
subset of the very rich.

*May very well be, but there's a hell of a lot more freedom for
everyone, and that includes freedom to fail, in the western model you
hate so much, as opposed to your lowest common denominator proison
camp model. I'll settle for working to get by and having freedom,
thanks.

What is "proison camp"? Does Bill C. mean prison camp? Please cite where
I advocated prison camps - or is this just another case of Bill C.
claiming people wrote something they did not?

Those born to the lower classes in most of the world have little choice
but to work to enrich the already wealthy, and this is due to a system
created by the wealthy. But apparently greed causing misery does not
bother Bill C., since he had the foresight to choose parents in better
circumstances.

*Don't like any of them, don't like Tom.
Whooooo Hooooo! A compliment (considering the source).

PLEASE HONOR THE SIGNATURE SEPARATOR.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dude it's a waste of time. Your rhetoric is the same spouted by
Stalin's folks for establishing the Gulags, It' was behind Mao's
"great leap". It was used while Che tortured, then summarily executed
folks for crimes against the people. You are saying, and srguing for
the same things that bathed the last century in blood. I was amused
that one of our local "Peace Camp/Organic Farm"'s has added "re-
education camp" to the name on the sign out front this summer.
Depending on who's figures you use between 30 and 90 million people
were killed in the name of the crap you continue to spout, and that's
just for the Soviet Union, and China.
You weasel well, while spouting hate. It's about equivalent to
arguing with a white supraemacist.
YOUR morality is self evident to YOU, and you we are all supposed to
live by it.
I don't like ant hills. I like that you can post Bush is a POS here
because you can't post that about the leaders in your model States.
Again. In my world you are free, in yours I'm either in stripped of
my freedom, in prison for crimes against the State, or against the
wall.
Sorry you spout the exact same rhetoric used by folks in the past we,
reasonably look at those examples for their results.
As for me and my background it's really funny that you make that
accusation. Usually it's I'm way too much of a militant blue collar
loving populist redneck hillbilly idiot.
You want my story dig it out of the archives on Google groups. It's
not what you think, it is.
I walked away from millions, literally, because my old man was a
thieving POS and everything you bitch about and I wouldn't play that
game.
You would've gone back to him. It's amazing how many "social justice"
activists joined the neocons and Republicans once they got rich.
Bill C

In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article ,
cyclintom@yahoo. says...
"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" wrote in message
ble.net...
On the other hand, I think there's
something wrong with the idea that the majority should be able to
legislate that I can't keep what I earn -- they don't think of it as *my
money*, they think of it as *theirs*.
Many people, like a few here, believe that somehow it is THEY who have
allowed you to make money and that you therefore owe something to them for
all of your hard work.
Especially those who don't like the market's judgements about the value
added by capital, leadership, innovation and vision.

You forget legislative favors ("pork"), no-bid government contracts and
"consulting" fees, exploitation of the third world (enforced by the US
military), monopolistic practices, executive overcompensation, etc.

For which you blame "the rich". Nasty, aren't they all? ;-)

Who else but the rich have the money and influence to do these things?
No one, of course.

They don't all fall in the same category.

Pork? Senators grubbing for votes.

No-bid government contracts? They should be illegal.

Exploitation of the third world? It's fruitless to discuss this with
anyone who attributes no value to capital, leadership, vision, personal
risk, and managerial work.

And what is particularly strange - most of these same
people would fight tooth and nail to keep what they have after fighting
tooth and nail to steal what's yours.
"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too".
I know I annoy some by harping on stereotyping, but what got me started
was the number of people who made harsh but ignorant judgements about
the rich when I know many rich people who serve on boards, giving their
precious time very generously to worthy causes.
Here's the bottom line on "wealth" - usually it is obtained by one lucky and
talented individual in a family. He passes it around upon his death. It
almost always disappears in two generations.
Yes, it's a common pattern. It's often said that a family-owned or -
controlled company lasts 3 generations or less. It may take longer when
an exceptional pool of capital has been amassed. And there are other
exceptional cases where the children inherited not only the company, but
also the founder's talents and appetite for hard work.

That is why the very rich hire lawyers, accountants and investment
advisor's to amass more wealth. The "three generations" applies more to
middle and upper middle class families.

And you think this should be . . . what . . . illegal?

Why is Java Man asking ridiculous questions? What I wrote was a
statement of fact, not an opinion of what should be.

Your posts are full of confusion about what is a "fact" and what is an
opinion. I was merely trying to understand what your opinion is. But
you apparently don't want to say.

There are exceptions of
course - if the person is so successful and his inheritors conservative
enough and lucky enough to properly invest the inherited money, the family
fortune can grow. But this isn't usual and shouldn't be taken as a natural
law as people such as Tim McNamara and Tom Sherman appear to believe.
They are rare exceptions, to be sure. Of the millions of companies
started by entrepreneurs in the US in the past 50 years, a small
fraction remain family owned and successful.
Meanwhile, ignorant morons assume that because they don't see
what these people gave, they gave nothing.
What's worse is that the ignorant morons believe that the rich have the
responsibility to give and they have the right to demand.

Too often true.

Show me a person who created tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in
added value of goods or services solely through their own efforts.

That would be fruitless with you. You've already shown that you don't
accept the market's judgements about the value of people's
contributions.

The market is rigged by those with power and influence to their benefit.

The world is stacked against you. You may as well quit. ;-)

Java

In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Why have speculators been allowed to drive the prices of housing beyond
the reach of so many?

I wasn't aware that is the case. Is it? How do you know this?

When large numbers of new houses and condominiums are bought by people
who have no intention on living there, but rather intend to "flip" the
property for profit, it is a good indication. This was common in
Chicagoland and SE Wisconsin in recent years, and stopped only with the
recent decline in housing prices.
Markets generally include speculators, but whether speculation causes
significant market distortion depends on how much of the buying and
selling they're doing. Aside from your observation that "large
numbers" of homes were bought by speculators, what evidence do you have,
if any, that they were a large enough component of the market nationally
to cause distortions?
It was bad enough that municipalities in the Chicagoland area were
considering tax penalties for new houses and condos held less than 6
months by the original purchasers.

Was that a political response to voter panic or was it actually based on
facts?

There was certainly a very high turn-over on new property purchases.
Normal people do not do that unless circumstances (e.g. job loss or
transfer) dictate.

Good work -- never let the lack of data get in the way of a conclusion!

Of course now the new housing market has practically collapsed in the
region, with developers suspending or canceling projects, and design and
construction firms laying off employees left and right.

And how much of that is because of stupid people taking out sub-prime
mortgages from stupid loans officials working for stupid managers?

Stupid or greedy?

What do you think? Anyone who puts their own financial future at risk
by doing something that can be foreseen as excessively risky is stupid.

But the people doing so are mainly risking the money of others.

And you don't think that's stupid???

People who take out loans they can't afford to pay back are stupid.
Senior managers who take inordinate risks with the equity of their
shareholders are stupid. Senior managers who risk their jobs by doing
so are stupid.

Besides,
the government has usually been there to bail out the rich (e.g.
Chrysler Corp, the S&Ls of the 1980's, Bear Stearns) when they foolishly
speculate.

They don't bail out the rich. They bail out the companies, but the
shareholders are usually severely punished by the market, as they should
be.

Personally, I have a problem with governments bailing out companies
except in very exceptional circumstances, and so do most of the rich.

Personally, I think some of the bankers who set the qualifying criteria
for these sub-prime mortgages should be sued by their shareholders.

Why? Is not the federal government bailing out the lenders (while
letting the individuals fend for themselves)?

It hasn't bailed out the shareholders in the financial institutions that
have been decimated by these predictably stupid practices. And why
shouldn't the shareholders sue these dumbasses?

Because this is America, and corporate leaders can do no wrong!

More of your well-established bias.

Java

In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at
the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions?

Stereotyping again, huh?

Strawman arguments are equally likely to be offered by up by left-
wingers as right-wingers.

How is it stereotyping when I am referring to individuals on this
newsgroup based on their postings?
"Right wingers" means certain individuals on this newsgroup? Coulda
fooled me.
Pay attention to context.
Pay attention to what you write.
Learn to interpret context.

Does Java Man have a macro that generates accusations of stereotyping?
Only when I see it, which is often in your posts.

Or do certain points hit too close to home?

Yes, I don't like to see entire groups stereotyped by people who are too
lazy to think beyond the superficial.

When entire groups share characteristics, there is nothing wrong with
bringing that to attention.

In the few cases that they actually DO share common characteristics,
feel free to continue using blanket statements.

That is what I have been doing.
No, you haven't.
Yes I have.

Demonstrably incorrect.

No, correct. (Hey, this is fun!)

But you've already proven that you don't know what characteristics are
shared by, for example, the Directors of the United Way of NYC.
However, you continue to include them in your insulting stereotypes
about wealthy people and corporate leaders.
What stereotypes?
That wealthy directors of charitable organizations are in it for
personal aggrandizement, not to do good works.

That wealthy people who contribute their time for a charity or make
anything but an anonymous donation are motivated by self-interest rather
than charitable sentiments.

That is a willful misinterpretation of what I wrote. I did NOT make the
all-inclusive statment Java Man is claiming, nor did I make the claim
about donating time, UNLESS that donation of time is being promoted.

Wrong. This is the first time you've added the "unless" clause.

Wrong.

If I'm wrong, prove it and I'll withdraw my comment. Provide a link to
the first time you added the "unless" clause in our discussion.

And
you stated that only anonymous acts were charity, and many times you
opposed my statements that directors donate time and cannot do so
anonymously. Only yesterday did you finally concede that directors
cannot serve anonymously for governance reasons.

The intent is what is important. If a person makes a donation and
requests anonymity, but that request is violated, it would still be a
charitable act.

You say that only anonymous gifts are charitable, despite persistently
refusing to provide an accepted definition of charity requiring that it
be anonymous. Your argument? "Billions of people know it". Sorry, not
good enough. The entire population of the world once "knew" it was
flat.

On commercial websites, one often see biographies of company executives
or principals. When they list membership on boards of non-profit
organizations, that is definitely self-promotion.

This denies the importance of publicizing charitable work in creating a
culture of volunteerism within the community. You apparently don't want
the rich to take leadership roles in giving something back to their
communities. You reject the importance of the rich showing leadership
by allowing their charitable donations to be publicized to set a good
example for other rich people to follow. And you remain ignorant about
what good works are done by many, many rich people.

Hell, by your definition, neither Albert Schweitzer nor Mother Teresa
did charitable work because neither was doing their charitable deeds
anonymously!

Furthermore, this is not a logical interpretation of what I wrote.
Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer.
Did you read the minds of them when they were alive? Maybe they were
doing what they did for selfish reasons - but this is in the realm of
speculation.

Actually, it's in the realm of advancing ridiculous rhetoric to try to
weasel out of a failed argument. But you know you're doing that, don't
you.

Not at all. Does Java Man real minds like "Dear Carl"?

No, I don't read minds, but perhaps I have too much respect for your
intellect?

I have no problem with offending people with the truth.
Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer.
Paste function stuck?

Repetition increases comprehension. Notice how many repetitions it took
you to admit you were wrong about directors serving anonymously.

Did you read the minds of them when they were alive? Maybe they were
doing what they did for selfish reasons - but this is in the realm of
speculation.

Who does anything for purely unselfish reasons?

At any rate, you're apparently prepared to argue even a ridiculous
position to avoid giving an inch.

So, you don't know them,
have never met them, have never heard of them, but you feel
knowledgeable enough to comment on their motivation for serving on the
Board of a charitable organization. Sound right?

Question based on a false premise. Sheesh, what is it with this tactic?

I never commented on their specific motivation, since I do not know if
they are taking efforts to publicize what they do, or if they would
rather it remain private [1].

And here's a clue for you (all): people who carelessly stereotype are
soon unable to see differences among those they stereotype, even though
individual differences are ubiquitous in virtually every large group.

Java
--
"They all look the same to me."
Java Man has confused listing a common characteristic with false
stereotyping.
No, not FALSE stereotyping. Just stereotyping.

Stereotype:

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion,
or image.
My contention is (unfortunately) not conventional, nor is it a mere opinion.

It's conventional for you. And it's formulaic and oversimplified.

Opinion presented as fact.

It's clearly conventional for you, and your position on these matters is
both formulaic and oversimplified.

2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or
type.

Certainly not any popular or common use set image.

Psychology: general mental image that is held of a group or class of
people that is usually oversimplified. An advertiser may feature a
stereotypical user of his product in order to encourage the audience to
identify with the user. For example, housewives are often used in
advertisements for cleaning products.
Classification by a common characteristic is not stereotyping.

What proportion of a group must fit the stereotype before one can
classify the members as conforming to a stereotypical description? Say,
50%?

In the case I have made, it is nearly universal.

Don't let a lack of data get in your way!

If 50% is enough, the statement "Women are of below average
intelligence" is a fair description.

Do you agree we should be using this kind of stereotyping statement?

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If not, what proportion of the group must conform to the descriptors
before it's acceptable to use general and negatively stigmatizing
statements?

Most.

What does "most" mean? 51%? 70%? Or?

By Java Man's standards, "cyclists ride bicycles for transportation
and/or recreation" would be a stereotype.

Stereotyping is a problem when it denigrates people who are classified
as belonging to a negatively described group, but who do not share the
negative characteristic described.

Example: I saw a herd of cows. Some of them were evil. Ergo, cows are
evil.

That is a ridiculous example. It is a priori that cows are incapable of
evil.

But it's a perfect parallel to what you've done.

More correctly, SOME cows are evil. SOME are not evil.

ALL COWS ARE GOOD!!!

Ah, a bovinophile!

[1] I understand for governance reasons, the directions of a non-profit
can not be anonymous.

Good, that's progress. What took you so long?

Now, how about Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa? Shameless self-
promoters, right? ;-)

Did you read the minds of them when they were alive? Maybe they were
doing what they did for selfish reasons - but this is in the realm of
speculation.

Possibly. How does one read the minds of the dead?

But you continue to read the minds of all those whom you stereotype!
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nonsense. They are judged by their immoral actions.

You can't logically judge a collective by the immoral actions of some of
its members. That's guilt by association. And stereotyping. But you
have no problem with that as long as you don't like the group.

Java

In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article 5da83600-d945-422d-b2c4-1702fd9aa109
@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Aug 20, 1:50=A0pm, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says... Tim McNamara wrote:

This, of course, being the operative world in which I grew up. =A0Tha=
t's
why it's counterintuitive to me to see poor families with ten kids. =
=A0My
frame of reference is necessarily limited by my background. =A0While =
my
family was lower-middle class, and my Mom's grocery budget in 1965 wa=
s
$20 a week, in world terms I grew up in the lap of luxury. =A0I had a
stable home, always had a clean bed to sleep in, never went hungry,
always have good clothes, toys, bicycles, etc....
That would be being highly spoiled by my standards.
I think I know where this is going . . . .

Save yourself some time -- check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DXe1a1wHxTyo

Java
It's becoming clearer that this is about "I didn't have any, I can't
get any, so I hate everyone who has more than me and want to take it."
I don't know about anyone on this thread, but what you've said is a sad
but true reflection of many people's attitudes.

I wouldn't have believed this a decade ago because I had a higher
opinion of most people's true motives. I grew up in a poor family in a
poor neighbourhood, but have done very well through my own efforts and
some doors that opened for me at the right time. (Luck is the
confluence of preparation, opportunity and effort.) I had no
connections, inherited nothing material, and have earned everything I
own.

But the more I earned, the more I noticed family and friends who had
known me when I was "one of them" becoming envious of my success.
They'd make nasty "humorous" comments, for example that I was doing so
well that I'd obviously ripped off a lot of people.

The real eye opener came when my wife and I built a new home. It was
educational to see how friends and family responded when they came to
visit. Many were genuinely happy for us, but others were clearly
envious and even bitter. But they were all out having a good time when
I was studying for long years, working 80 hours a week, and busting a
gut to do the best possible job for my clients. And now, some of them
are bitter because of what they don't have. It's human nature, I guess.
Some people take responsibility for their choices in life, and for their
failures. Others blame someone else.

At least he seems to be trying to do it legally, and possibly with
State sponsored violence, instead of just mugging people himself, or
does that make him less of a person, and less honest?
I'm still not sure what to think about people who try to do it legally
through the state. On one hand, I feel a responsibility to make sure
no-one in society goes without basic necessities, and I don't begrudge
the taxes I pay or the charitable contributions I make. (My choice --
I'm not saying you should follow.) On the other hand, I think there's
something wrong with the idea that the majority should be able to
legislate that I can't keep what I earn -- they don't think of it as *my
money*, they think of it as *theirs*. One of these days I'll reconcile
these conflicting views, but nobody on this thread has added anything
that will tilt me in one direction of the other.

The key word here is "earn". At a certain point, compensation is beyond
what is actually earned, and is taking what would belong to others if
distribution was the same as the contribution to success.

At what point? Define it.

I have, but some are to thick or stubborn to understand. I am not here
to provide basic education.

Duck, dodge. You're not very good at this, are you.

To complain
about some of this excess share taken as taxes to benefit the society as
a whole is just selfish greed.

Bittter little people like him give populists a bad name. People
stereotype they are all like that.
Yep, stereotyping by some ignoramus is used to make almost every group
seem worse in someone's eyes.

And some still can not distinguish what is a true stereotype and what is
conclusion based on common characteristics.

Such as, "women have below average intelligence", right? Demonstrably
true of 50% of women, therefore acceptable?
I know I annoy some by harping on stereotyping, but what got me started
was the number of people who made harsh but ignorant judgements about
the rich when I know many rich people who serve on boards, giving their
precious time very generously to worthy causes.

Giving time is not like giving money. No matter how rich you are, you
only have 24 hours in each day, 7 days in each week, and a limited
lifespan. You can't buy any more years in your life, nor more hours to
spend with your wife, kids, parents and friends, no matter how rich you
may be. For the rich, giving time is a lot more generous than giving
money. Meanwhile, ignorant morons assume that because they don't see
what these people gave, they gave nothing.

Well, a rich person does not have to work.

And you think you have the right to say what they should do with their
time?

Yet another question that tries to imply something that I did not write.
Do you people take a class in this?

"You people"? Hmmm, do you have a pathological inability to distinguish
among individuals?

What about those who DO work, and who contribute knowledge,
leadership, skills, energy and innovation that creates jobs for many and
useful products or services people want?

But others contribute the same or more for much lower compensation. It
is what it is, but to try to pass off unequal compensation for equal
work as fair or moral is illogical.

Combined with commuting time,
that is 60-70 hours per week of available time that some of us do not
have. By gaming the system to make people work more hours for less
money, capital is stealing from labor.

"Stealing" is taking something that belongs to another without right or
permission. What does labour "own" that is taken from them without
right or permission?

Without society, everyone has a right to use the commons as they want
and to take any actions. The right to complete freedom of action has
been given up to create a society so that all can benefit.

For a business that is protected by the rules of society from having its
assets taken by force, is provided the necessary infrastructure to
function by society and is provided labor educated by society, there is
a return moral obligation to fairly distribute the profits of such
enterprise based on the relative contribution of each individual to the
success of the enterprise. Quite obvious really.

There's that word "fair" again. How would you measure what is fair and
what isn't? You still haven't said.

This is where I came into this movie. We're now back to the beginning
again.

Java

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article ,
cyclintom@yahoo. says...
"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" wrote in message
ble.net...
On the other hand, I think there's
something wrong with the idea that the majority should be able to
legislate that I can't keep what I earn -- they don't think of it as *my
money*, they think of it as *theirs*.
Many people, like a few here, believe that somehow it is THEY who have
allowed you to make money and that you therefore owe something to them for
all of your hard work.
Especially those who don't like the market's judgements about the value
added by capital, leadership, innovation and vision.

You forget legislative favors ("pork"), no-bid government contracts and
"consulting" fees, exploitation of the third world (enforced by the US
military), monopolistic practices, executive overcompensation, etc.
For which you blame "the rich". Nasty, aren't they all? ;-)
Who else but the rich have the money and influence to do these things?
No one, of course.

They don't all fall in the same category.

But the rich all benefit from the policies, whether they advocated for
them or not.

Pork? Senators grubbing for votes.

No-bid government contracts? They should be illegal.

Funny how the no-bid contracts almost always go to the rich and well
connected.

Exploitation of the third world? It's fruitless to discuss this with
anyone who attributes no value to capital, leadership, vision, personal
risk, and managerial work.

Another case of Java Man making false attributions about my positions.
Unless Java Man confuses an argument for overvaluing compared to labor
with one for no value at all - but that would indicate very poor
comprehension of the written language

And what is particularly strange - most of these same
people would fight tooth and nail to keep what they have after fighting
tooth and nail to steal what's yours.
"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too".
I know I annoy some by harping on stereotyping, but what got me started
was the number of people who made harsh but ignorant judgements about
the rich when I know many rich people who serve on boards, giving their
precious time very generously to worthy causes.
Here's the bottom line on "wealth" - usually it is obtained by one lucky and
talented individual in a family. He passes it around upon his death. It
almost always disappears in two generations.
Yes, it's a common pattern. It's often said that a family-owned or -
controlled company lasts 3 generations or less. It may take longer when
an exceptional pool of capital has been amassed. And there are other
exceptional cases where the children inherited not only the company, but
also the founder's talents and appetite for hard work.

That is why the very rich hire lawyers, accountants and investment
advisor's to amass more wealth. The "three generations" applies more to
middle and upper middle class families.
And you think this should be . . . what . . . illegal?
Why is Java Man asking ridiculous questions? What I wrote was a
statement of fact, not an opinion of what should be.

Your posts are full of confusion about what is a "fact" and what is an
opinion. I was merely trying to understand what your opinion is. But
you apparently don't want to say.

Why did Java Man introduce a red herring?

There are exceptions of
course - if the person is so successful and his inheritors conservative
enough and lucky enough to properly invest the inherited money, the family
fortune can grow. But this isn't usual and shouldn't be taken as a natural
law as people such as Tim McNamara and Tom Sherman appear to believe.
They are rare exceptions, to be sure. Of the millions of companies
started by entrepreneurs in the US in the past 50 years, a small
fraction remain family owned and successful.
Meanwhile, ignorant morons assume that because they don't see
what these people gave, they gave nothing.
What's worse is that the ignorant morons believe that the rich have the
responsibility to give and they have the right to demand.

Too often true.

Show me a person who created tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in
added value of goods or services solely through their own efforts.

That would be fruitless with you. You've already shown that you don't
accept the market's judgements about the value of people's
contributions.

The market is rigged by those with power and influence to their benefit.

The world is stacked against you. You may as well quit. ;-)

And if you were not born rich but think you have been competing on a
level playing field, you are either ignorant or stupid.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article , sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Why have speculators been allowed to drive the prices of housing beyond
the reach of so many?

I wasn't aware that is the case. Is it? How do you know this?

When large numbers of new houses and condominiums are bought by people
who have no intention on living there, but rather intend to "flip" the
property for profit, it is a good indication. This was common in
Chicagoland and SE Wisconsin in recent years, and stopped only with the
recent decline in housing prices.
Markets generally include speculators, but whether speculation causes
significant market distortion depends on how much of the buying and
selling they're doing. Aside from your observation that "large
numbers" of homes were bought by speculators, what evidence do you have,
if any, that they were a large enough component of the market nationally
to cause distortions?
It was bad enough that municipalities in the Chicagoland area were
considering tax penalties for new houses and condos held less than 6
months by the original purchasers.
Was that a political response to voter panic or was it actually based on
facts?
There was certainly a very high turn-over on new property purchases.
Normal people do not do that unless circumstances (e.g. job loss or
transfer) dictate.

Good work -- never let the lack of data get in the way of a conclusion!

Java Man has failed to present any data for his alternative conclusion.

Of course now the new housing market has practically collapsed in the
region, with developers suspending or canceling projects, and design and
construction firms laying off employees left and right.

And how much of that is because of stupid people taking out sub-prime
mortgages from stupid loans officials working for stupid managers?

Stupid or greedy?
What do you think? Anyone who puts their own financial future at risk
by doing something that can be foreseen as excessively risky is stupid.
But the people doing so are mainly risking the money of others.

And you don't think that's stupid???

Not when the government practices socialism for the rich and will cover
for mistakes.

People who take out loans they can't afford to pay back are stupid.
Senior managers who take inordinate risks with the equity of their
shareholders are stupid. Senior managers who risk their jobs by doing
so are stupid.

Well, the senior managers were smart enough to have guaranteed
themselves "golden parachutes".

In every financial crisis, those that started out with real money
usually benefit - they can swoop into the depressed market and buy
assets on the cheap.

Besides,
the government has usually been there to bail out the rich (e.g.
Chrysler Corp, the S&Ls of the 1980's, Bear Stearns) when they foolishly
speculate.

They don't bail out the rich. They bail out the companies, but the
shareholders are usually severely punished by the market, as they should
be.

How are the shareholders punished when taxpayer funded subsidies allow
the company to become profitable again? The government is NOT taking
over the failed company, and later selling it back to the private
market. In the case of Chrysler, those that held their stock through the
bailout did quite well once the company recovered. Those who bought the
stock when it was low (or took it as compensation like Lee Iacocca) did
very well.

Personally, I have a problem with governments bailing out companies
except in very exceptional circumstances, and so do most of the rich.

Most of the rich on what evidence?

Personally, I think some of the bankers who set the qualifying criteria
for these sub-prime mortgages should be sued by their shareholders.

Why? Is not the federal government bailing out the lenders (while
letting the individuals fend for themselves)?

It hasn't bailed out the shareholders in the financial institutions that
have been decimated by these predictably stupid practices. And why
shouldn't the shareholders sue these dumbasses?

Because this is America, and corporate leaders can do no wrong!

More of your well-established bias.

No, the bias of the rich owned media and their apologist pundits.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”