Hamburg G20 summit protests and bicycles

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 4:29:07 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:07:09 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Why should society be responsible for it's
members? Unless of course it is bleeding them
through taxation :-)

Indeed, I think society *should* be used to
solve or reduce this kinds of problems as well.
To me in principle it isn't anything different
from schools or hospitals or the
fire department.

Sure, but where does the money come from? Is it "right" to tax those
who will work in order to take care of those that will not work?
--
Cheers,

John B.

SURE.....simple analysis reveals systems support enables the system.

that's what you were doing at the mine stupid

do we give bush surplus money to the pop so they spend it on the Chinese

NO ! we spend the time to analyze the at hand problems

hire people with the money

let these spenders buy help who then spend that money on local projcts involving local purchases with the bush surplus money

max money spread an systems support

YOU HAVE TO BE A MORON TO DISAGREE WITH THIS

On 7/12/2017 12:04 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

I've a friend who grew up under communism in
Hungary. He left due to personal reasons
rather then any dissatisfaction with the type
of government but he also said that anything
made in the "West", in other words the
capitalistic countries, was considered to be
far superior to anything made in the
communist countries.

I'm not suggesting communism. The kind of state
projects I'm proposing do not have the goal to
produce cutting-edge technology but to combat
unemployment, offer marginalized people an
activity where they can develop new skills and
in time a new personality, while at the same
time doing something useful for society.


Wait - you're saying a gulag is not communist?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 7/12/2017 3:35 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

It won't work. One of the side effects of
"progress", as it is viewed that it decreases
the requirement for labor.

Auto factories, which had hundreds of
employees now have hundreds of robots and two
guys to write the robot's software. Or they
have moved their factories to countries with
cheap labour.

Again, no one is suggesting re-aligning the
entire society or the replacement of
robots/trained labor in advanced production
like auto factories...

State efforts to reduce unemployment work.
They have worked all over the world in
different forms. In the US I believe it was
called "New Deal" pre-WW2. Something similar
happened in Sweden in the 30s-40s, the
communists did in in Russia and the
right-wingers in Germany and Italy in the 20s
and 30s. While we don't share their other ideas
this aspect is similar. It works great.


The Roosevelt policies[1] of the 1930s extended a sharp
financial crash into a decade-long disaster, worsening life
for almost everyone. Once the Court capitulated, the
'double-dip' starting 1937 showed the destruction wrought by
his unfettered policy prescriptions.

[1]Congress contributed to the errors with trade policy
which crushed export revenue.

Perhaps you missed the purposeful Soviet Ukraine famine or
Mao's Great Leap Forward or any news report from Venezuela
this morning. They differ only by degree not in substance.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 7/12/2017 3:40 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

Sure, but where does the money come from?
Is it "right" to tax those who will work in
order to take care of those that will
not work?

The money is the same money the state today
pays people who do nothing but pretend do look
for jobs that aren't there, who attend
a meeting with social workers once a month
where the social workers pretend to help the
unemployed and the unemployed pretends to take
the help so he won't get cut from welfare.


All of which is morally wrong in every way. And pernicious
to a civil society as noted in thread header.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:38:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2017 12:04 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

I've a friend who grew up under communism in
Hungary. He left due to personal reasons
rather then any dissatisfaction with the type
of government but he also said that anything
made in the "West", in other words the
capitalistic countries, was considered to be
far superior to anything made in the
communist countries.

I'm not suggesting communism. The kind of state
projects I'm proposing do not have the goal to
produce cutting-edge technology but to combat
unemployment, offer marginalized people an
activity where they can develop new skills and
in time a new personality, while at the same
time doing something useful for society.


Wait - you're saying a gulag is not communist?

I think he's saying that the CCC, WPA, Job Corps, etc. are not communist. Works projects have been tried with varying degrees of success by capitalist, fascist, socialist and communist governments.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/12/2017 3:42 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

But what is the cause of the riot? In France
the news seems to have it that it is the
dissatisfaction of young Moslems who
apparently have a limited French language
ability, live in government supplied housing
and are supported by a government dole and
are unhappy. So they go out and burn
someone's automobile.

There may be many reasons for this whole
destructive culture but in one word it
is unemployment.


From The Economist

"The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps
apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao
Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with
shovels. He asks: “Why don’t they use a mechanical digger?”
“That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman.
“Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam.
If it’s jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them
spoons.”

(the quip is often misattributed to various men)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:48:21 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2017 3:35 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

It won't work. One of the side effects of
"progress", as it is viewed that it decreases
the requirement for labor.

Auto factories, which had hundreds of
employees now have hundreds of robots and two
guys to write the robot's software. Or they
have moved their factories to countries with
cheap labour.

Again, no one is suggesting re-aligning the
entire society or the replacement of
robots/trained labor in advanced production
like auto factories...

State efforts to reduce unemployment work.
They have worked all over the world in
different forms. In the US I believe it was
called "New Deal" pre-WW2. Something similar
happened in Sweden in the 30s-40s, the
communists did in in Russia and the
right-wingers in Germany and Italy in the 20s
and 30s. While we don't share their other ideas
this aspect is similar. It works great.


The Roosevelt policies[1] of the 1930s extended a sharp
financial crash into a decade-long disaster, worsening life
for almost everyone. Once the Court capitulated, the
'double-dip' starting 1937 showed the destruction wrought by
his unfettered policy prescriptions.

[1]Congress contributed to the errors with trade policy
which crushed export revenue.

Perhaps you missed the purposeful Soviet Ukraine famine or
Mao's Great Leap Forward or any news report from Venezuela
this morning. They differ only by degree not in substance.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Putin n Xi are the now products .....Venezula ? frankly there's no one running the country. Marxist or Ananrchist. Imagine a 3rd world country ontop of the world's oil reserves.

FDR was a dupe of the 3rd Reich. The country shudda been run by Standard Oil

On 7/12/2017 1:04 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

I've a friend who grew up under communism in
Hungary. He left due to personal reasons
rather then any dissatisfaction with the type
of government but he also said that anything
made in the "West", in other words the
capitalistic countries, was considered to be
far superior to anything made in the
communist countries.

I'm not suggesting communism. The kind of state
projects I'm proposing do not have the goal to
produce cutting-edge technology but to combat
unemployment, offer marginalized people an
activity where they can develop new skills and
in time a new personality, while at the same
time doing something useful for society.

It sounds like you're proposing something similar to the Civilian
Conservation Corps or the Works Progress Administration enacted by
Franklin Roosevelt during the great depression.

I'm sure there were (and are) lots of political arguments about those
programs. But I occasionally see some nice architecture - stone
bridges, public buildings, etc. - with "WPA" engraved somewhere in the
masonry. My understanding is that they gave a lot of unemployed young
men something productive to do. That alone probably helped society to
an unrecognized degree.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/12/2017 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2017 3:42 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

But what is the cause of the riot? In France
the news seems to have it that it is the
dissatisfaction of young Moslems who
apparently have a limited French language
ability, live in government supplied housing
and are supported by a government dole and
are unhappy. So they go out and burn
someone's automobile.

There may be many reasons for this whole
destructive culture but in one word it
is unemployment.


From The Economist

"The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal,
of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of
workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don’t they use a
mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the
foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If
it’s jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.”

Somewhat similar, and a bit bicycle related: In the 1980s (IIRC) there
was an effort to pass a bottle bill in Ohio, i.e. a modest deposit on
bottles so they'd be returned to stores instead of thrown in the trash
or on the streets. Bicyclists tended to be in favor, hoping that we'd
get fewer flat tires from smashed bottles.

Those opposed to the bill said that returning and reusing bottles would
put bottle making employees out of work; so we should continue using
bottles only once, throwing them away and making new ones.

I suggested a compromise. Out of, say, a million bottles, pay extra
employees to smash 500,000 of them then shovel the broken glass back
into the hopper. Win-win!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/12/2017 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2017 3:35 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote:

It won't work. One of the side effects of
"progress", as it is viewed that it decreases
the requirement for labor.

Auto factories, which had hundreds of
employees now have hundreds of robots and two
guys to write the robot's software. Or they
have moved their factories to countries with
cheap labour.

Again, no one is suggesting re-aligning the
entire society or the replacement of
robots/trained labor in advanced production
like auto factories...

State efforts to reduce unemployment work.
They have worked all over the world in
different forms. In the US I believe it was
called "New Deal" pre-WW2. Something similar
happened in Sweden in the 30s-40s, the
communists did in in Russia and the
right-wingers in Germany and Italy in the 20s
and 30s. While we don't share their other ideas
this aspect is similar. It works great.


The Roosevelt policies[1] of the 1930s extended a sharp financial crash
into a decade-long disaster, worsening life for almost everyone. Once
the Court capitulated, the 'double-dip' starting 1937 showed the
destruction wrought by his unfettered policy prescriptions.

As I said, there are still political arguments over the effects.
Economists still seem divided a dozen ways over everything to do with
the Great Depression. And every side is convinced that they absolutely
know the answers.

--
- Frank Krygowski