gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the
>>>>>>>>>> free market
>>>>>>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a
>>>>>>>>>> unit do
>>>>>>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up,
>>>>>>>>>> of course,
>>>>>>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top
>>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces
>>>>>>>>>> supply. We saw
>>>>>>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day
>>>>>>>>>> they let the
>>>>>>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able
>>>>>>>>> to become
>>>>>>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>>>>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious
>>>>>>>>> Russkies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do.
>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some
>>>>>>> countries,
>>>>>>> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
>>>>>> many shares you have.
>>>>>> 2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Kings and
>>>>> queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same with
>>>>> private monarchs.
>>>>
>>>> You mean if you start a business and build it up, you can be dethroned
>>>> by the workers even though you still entirely own the company? Or do
>>>> you
>>>> mean that the CEO and those running the company as decided by the
>>>> owners, the shareholders, are going to be second guessed by the
>>>> non-owners, the workers, and replaced?
>>>
>>> Quite possibly. But no one now alive built Wal*Mart (or GM, or
>>> Exxon/Mobil, or Dow Chemical, etc., etc.,) up from nothing. It's
>>> time to get rid of hereditary monarchies entirely. Why is democracy
>>> good for Iraq but not for Ford?
>>
>> Even if the Chairman or CEO of Ford is a member of the Ford family, he
>> doesn't get that job without agreement from the shareholders, the board,
>> etc. And keeping it can be even harder.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why should the employees at Chrysler,
>>> who know the business, have their fates in the hands of a bunch of
>>> investors who don't?
>>
>> What do the workers at Chrysler know about the business? The average
>> worker knows how he builds the car he workers on but he's not an
>> automotive design engineer,
>
> The engineers are workers.

They know how to design cars, or how to design the
assembly lines on which cars are built. They don't
know how to run the business.


>> he's not an expert on marketing, he's not
>
> The marketing department are workers.

Same again.

>
>> got a degree in business management.
>
> Nor do the owners, for the most part.

Irrelevant. They own the thing. They call the shots.

>
>> Certainly the workers should be
>> listened to but different people have different capabilities.
>
> That's why I recommend democracy,

Not appropriate for running a business.


>> The owners
>> of the company should decide who makes the big, the "executive",
>> decisions. If workers want to buy companies, which they can with a
>> public company by just buying shares until they control, I've no trouble
>> at all with that. Go for it.
>
> Democracy is just a way to ensure that everyone gets listened to,

No. Democracy is a way of deciding things in a
political entity. It isn't appropriate for a business.


> which you concede is a good idea anyway.

Not for running a business.


>>>> Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top
>>>> down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for the
>>>> service, you can have it because the availability is based on
>>>> ability to
>>>> pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs,
>>>> assistance for the poor, etc.
>>>
>>> Their system is keeping a lot more people healthier to a riper old age
>>> than the U.S. system, which excels mostly in enriching the insurance
>>> industry.
>>
>> What are the average lifespans of Americans with health coverage? What
>> about Americans of different ethnicities? Are the foods that Americans
>> eat contributing to a lower lifespan compared to some other countries
>> such as Japan, where they eat more fish, and Italy, where they eat more
>> olive oil, etc.? You can't answer these questions, which is fine, but
>> what what isn't is that you don't care. All you want to do is blame the
>> American health care system for things that might be really be due to a
>> McDonald's diet.
>
> McDonald's is everywhere these days. Up until about 50 years ago,
> Canada had the same life expectancy as the U.S. No significant
> differences due to climate or lifestyle. Then Canada started
> implementing universal healthcare. Their life expectancy now is two
> years greater than the in U.S. It is clearly due to their universal
> healthcare system, as Canada hasn't diverged significantly from the
> U.S. in any other way.

Post hoc fallacy. You don't know that they haven't
diverged from the U.S. "significantly", or that the
U.S. hasn't diverged from them. In fact, we have
diverged from them, markedly. You don't know what
you're talking about, jeffy, and you are addicted to
logical fallacies.


>
>>>>> I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions."
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't entirely clear on what you were saying. I did take it
>>>> though to
>>>> mean that you want to take the money out of running for politics due to
>>>> that being what you said.
>>>
>>> Yes, all politicians should get free air time during campaign season and
>>> get public funding for the rest of their expenses so that private money
>>> doesn't distort the public interest in a government that represents the
>>> interests of the people and not the biggest checkbooks.
>>
>> So if you decide to run, you should get free airtime? What if 500 people
>> decide to run? Will there be any airtime left for the programming people
>> actually want to watch? Of course you'll say it is divided up by how
>> many people in polls say they support someone. But what does that, it
>> means that people who don't have support yet are hurt even more. Your
>> plan makes it even harder for the underdog to break in.
>
> It's not clear that 500 people would enter any race. But there are
> enough stations that the "burden" can be spread around.

No free airtime. That's theft.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free
>>>>>>>>>>market
>>>>>>>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>>>>>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
>>>>>>>>>>course,
>>>>>>>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>>>>>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply.
>>>>>>>>>>We saw
>>>>>>>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they
>>>>>>>>>>let the
>>>>>>>>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to
>>>>>>>>>become
>>>>>>>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>>>>>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the
>>>>>>>>>current
>>>>>>>>>corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>>>>>>>>not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
>>>>>>>why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
>>>>>>many shares you have.
>>>>>>2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>
>>>>>jeffy just doesn't "get" private property.
>>>>
>>>>A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be
>>>>considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution
>>>>that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million
>>>>people "private."
>>>
>>>Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public
>>>corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC.
>>>Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the
>>>government, King You?
>>
>>If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically. If
>>democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.
>
> I think you are confused about private property.

I think you're confused about what's good for America.

>>If there
>>was more democracy there'd be less need for regulation because the
>>different groups within the company would keep each other honest.
>
> Walmart wants to set itself up that way, whatever you mean, I've no
> problem with that. The question I have though is one of force.

But it's OK to use force to make Iraq do whatever you want?

>>If
>>the employees at Enron had been in on how that company was run they
>>wouldn't have let it implode out of their own self-interest.
>
> Wasn't it in the self interest of management not to let it implode"

Obviously the attraction of short-term gains was more persuasive. At
least if it had been a democratic decision then everyone would have
made that decusion.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

In article >,
Jeffrey Turner > wrote:
>
>If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically. If
>democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.

Even laying aside the validity of the implication, it's counterfactual
anyway. Democracy in Iraq would simply be a case of two wolves and a
sheep voting on the dinner menu, only the sheep ain't quite so
innocent and would eat the wolves if there were more of them.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free
> >>>>>>>>>>market
> >>>>>>>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
> >>>>>>>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
> >>>>>>>>>>course,
> >>>>>>>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
> >>>>>>>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply.
> >>>>>>>>>>We saw
> >>>>>>>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they
> >>>>>>>>>>let the
> >>>>>>>>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to
> >>>>>>>>>become
> >>>>>>>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
> >>>>>>>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Ya znaiyu.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the
> >>>>>>>>>current
> >>>>>>>>>corporate model is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
> >>>>>>>>not like what you advocated earlier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
> >>>>>>>why shouldn't it be democratic too?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
> >>>>>>many shares you have.
> >>>>>>2) Because the workers don't own the company.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>jeffy just doesn't "get" private property.
> >>>>
> >>>>A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be
> >>>>considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution
> >>>>that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million
> >>>>people "private."
> >>>
> >>>Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public
> >>>corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC.
> >>>Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the
> >>>government, King You?
> >>
> >>If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically. If
> >>democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.
> >
> > I think you are confused about private property.
>
> I think you're confused about what's good for America.
>
I suspect not. Certainly I'm clear on the fact that nationalizing or
whatever weirdness you want to do to American business is bad for the US
and its economy.



> >>If there
> >>was more democracy there'd be less need for regulation because the
> >>different groups within the company would keep each other honest.
> >
> > Walmart wants to set itself up that way, whatever you mean, I've no
> > problem with that. The question I have though is one of force.
>
> But it's OK to use force to make Iraq do whatever you want?
>
What is the connection here again? And I didn't claim it was OK to force
the people of Iraq to do whatever I want.




> >>If
> >>the employees at Enron had been in on how that company was run they
> >>wouldn't have let it implode out of their own self-interest.
> >
> > Wasn't it in the self interest of management not to let it implode"
>
> Obviously the attraction of short-term gains was more persuasive. At
> least if it had been a democratic decision then everyone would have
> made that decusion.
>
How would you implement this? You want line workers and greeters at
Walmart to vote on everything that management now decides on?

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free
>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a
>>>>>>>>>>> unit do
>>>>>>>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
>>>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works.
>>>>>>>>>>> Top down
>>>>>>>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply.
>>>>>>>>>>> We saw
>>>>>>>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they
>>>>>>>>>>> let the
>>>>>>>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to
>>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>>>>>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious
>>>>>>>>>> Russkies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do.
>>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some
>>>>>>>> countries,
>>>>>>>> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
>>>>>>> many shares you have.
>>>>>>> 2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jeffy just doesn't "get" private property.
>>>>>
>>>>> A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be
>>>>> considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an
>>>>> institution
>>>>> that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a
>>>>> million
>>>>> people "private."
>>>>
>>>> Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public
>>>> corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC.
>>>> Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the
>>>> government, King You?
>>>
>>> If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically. If
>>> democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.
>>
>> I think you are confused about private property.
>
> I think you're confused about what's good for America.

No, he isn't; you are. Abrogation of private property
rights is not good for America.

You keep whiffing off from the point: Wal-Mart is not
a country or political entity. Democracy is
appropriate and may - may - be the best system for
running politcal entities, but not private business
enterprises.


>>> If there
>>> was more democracy there'd be less need for regulation because the
>>> different groups within the company would keep each other honest.
>>
>> Walmart wants to set itself up that way, whatever you mean, I've no
>> problem with that. The question I have though is one of force.
>
> But it's OK to use force to make Iraq do whatever you want?

non sequitur

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>>>>>>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>>>>>>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>>>>>>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
>>>>>>>>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
>>>>>>>>>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>>>>>>>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>>>>>>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>>>>>>>>>corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>>>>>>>>>not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
>>>>>>>>why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
>>>>>>>many shares you have.
>>>>>>>2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Kings and
>>>>>>queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same with
>>>>>>private monarchs.
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean if you start a business and build it up, you can be dethroned
>>>>>by the workers even though you still entirely own the company? Or do you
>>>>>mean that the CEO and those running the company as decided by the
>>>>>owners, the shareholders, are going to be second guessed by the
>>>>>non-owners, the workers, and replaced?
>>>>
>>>>Quite possibly. But no one now alive built Wal*Mart (or GM, or
>>>>Exxon/Mobil, or Dow Chemical, etc., etc.,) up from nothing. It's
>>>>time to get rid of hereditary monarchies entirely. Why is democracy
>>>>good for Iraq but not for Ford?
>>>
>>>Even if the Chairman or CEO of Ford is a member of the Ford family, he
>>>doesn't get that job without agreement from the shareholders, the board,
>>>etc. And keeping it can be even harder.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why should the employees at Chrysler,
>>>>who know the business, have their fates in the hands of a bunch of
>>>>investors who don't?
>>>
>>>What do the workers at Chrysler know about the business? The average
>>>worker knows how he builds the car he workers on but he's not an
>>>automotive design engineer,
>>
>>The engineers are workers.
>
> I was getting at the idea that you operate within your ken.

And what do Chrysler's new owners know about the automobile
industry that Chrysler's automotive engineers don't?

>>>he's not an expert on marketing, he's not
>>
>>The marketing department are workers.
>>
>>
>>>got a degree in business management.
>>
>>Nor do the owners, for the most part.
>
> The owners are the shareholders. I suspect that the CEO and the board
> does indeed education in business administration.

Boards of directors have no such requirements.

>>>Certainly the workers should be
>>>listened to but different people have different capabilities.
>>
>>That's why I recommend democracy, so that everyone can speak to his or
>>her own expertise.
>
> OTOH, I advocate freedom and the right to own property.

Freedom for the one person at the top.

>>>The owners
>>>of the company should decide who makes the big, the "executive",
>>>decisions. If workers want to buy companies, which they can with a
>>>public company by just buying shares until they control, I've no trouble
>>>at all with that. Go for it.
>>
>>Democracy is just a way to ensure that everyone gets listened to, which
>>you concede is a good idea anyway.
>
> I would hope that if we were explaining our views on this, people would
> listen to me more than you.

I suspect you might.

>>>>>Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top
>>>>>down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for the
>>>>>service, you can have it because the availability is based on ability to
>>>>>pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs,
>>>>>assistance for the poor, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Their system is keeping a lot more people healthier to a riper old age
>>>>than the U.S. system, which excels mostly in enriching the insurance
>>>>industry.
>>>
>>>What are the average lifespans of Americans with health coverage? What
>>>about Americans of different ethnicities? Are the foods that Americans
>>>eat contributing to a lower lifespan compared to some other countries
>>>such as Japan, where they eat more fish, and Italy, where they eat more
>>>olive oil, etc.? You can't answer these questions, which is fine, but
>>>what what isn't is that you don't care. All you want to do is blame the
>>>American health care system for things that might be really be due to a
>>>McDonald's diet.
>>
>>McDonald's is everywhere these days. Up until about 50 years ago,
>>Canada had the same life expectancy as the U.S. No significant
>>differences due to climate or lifestyle. Then Canada started
>>implementing universal healthcare. Their life expectancy now is two
>>years greater than the in U.S. It is clearly due to their universal
>>healthcare system, as Canada hasn't diverged significantly from the
>>U.S. in any other way.
>
> Do you have a cite for this claim?

http://apha.confex.com/apha/131am/te...aper_73726.htm

>>>>>>I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions."
>>>>>
>>>>>I wasn't entirely clear on what you were saying. I did take it though to
>>>>>mean that you want to take the money out of running for politics due to
>>>>>that being what you said.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, all politicians should get free air time during campaign season and
>>>>get public funding for the rest of their expenses so that private money
>>>>doesn't distort the public interest in a government that represents the
>>>>interests of the people and not the biggest checkbooks.
>>>
>>>So if you decide to run, you should get free airtime? What if 500 people
>>>decide to run? Will there be any airtime left for the programming people
>>>actually want to watch? Of course you'll say it is divided up by how
>>>many people in polls say they support someone. But what does that, it
>>>means that people who don't have support yet are hurt even more. Your
>>>plan makes it even harder for the underdog to break in.
>>
>>It's not clear that 500 people would enter any race.
>
> How about governor of California?

Are you counting the midget as a full person?

>>But there are
>>enough stations that the "burden" can be spread around. I think early
>>in the campaign every candidate should get some air time so that the
>>polls can reflect an electorate that's as enlightened as it wishes to
>>be.
>
> How do you determine when to start culling those getting free time?

We could start by using the early primaries, or polling at that time.
Some of the details would have to be worked out.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> free market
>>>>>>>>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> unit do
>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things
>>>>>>>>>>>> up, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Top down
>>>>>>>>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces
>>>>>>>>>>>> supply. We saw
>>>>>>>>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day
>>>>>>>>>>>> they let the
>>>>>>>>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able
>>>>>>>>>>> to become
>>>>>>>>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of
>>>>>>>>>>> Communism.
>>>>>>>>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious
>>>>>>>>>>> Russkies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think
>>>>>>>>>>> the current
>>>>>>>>>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do.
>>>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>>>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some
>>>>>>>>> countries,
>>>>>>>>> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> many shares you have.
>>>>>>>> 2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Kings and
>>>>>>> queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> private monarchs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean if you start a business and build it up, you can be
>>>>>> dethroned
>>>>>> by the workers even though you still entirely own the company? Or
>>>>>> do you
>>>>>> mean that the CEO and those running the company as decided by the
>>>>>> owners, the shareholders, are going to be second guessed by the
>>>>>> non-owners, the workers, and replaced?
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite possibly. But no one now alive built Wal*Mart (or GM, or
>>>>> Exxon/Mobil, or Dow Chemical, etc., etc.,) up from nothing. It's
>>>>> time to get rid of hereditary monarchies entirely. Why is democracy
>>>>> good for Iraq but not for Ford?
>>>>
>>>> Even if the Chairman or CEO of Ford is a member of the Ford family, he
>>>> doesn't get that job without agreement from the shareholders, the
>>>> board,
>>>> etc. And keeping it can be even harder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why should the employees at Chrysler,
>>>>> who know the business, have their fates in the hands of a bunch of
>>>>> investors who don't?
>>>>
>>>> What do the workers at Chrysler know about the business? The average
>>>> worker knows how he builds the car he workers on but he's not an
>>>> automotive design engineer,
>>>
>>> The engineers are workers.
>>
>> I was getting at the idea that you operate within your ken.
>
> And what do Chrysler's new owners know about the automobile
> industry that Chrysler's automotive engineers don't?

Chrysler's engineers know how to engineer cars (not
very well), and how to set up assembly lines. They
don't necessarily know the industry.

But ownership equals control. If Bill Gates suddenly
decides to buy Safeway or Ford or Allied Waste
Management, his lack of expertise in those areas is
just something the workers in those companies would
have to deal with. Smart investors probably are going
to bring in professional managers, but the investors
will choose the managers; the employees won't choose them.


>>>> he's not an expert on marketing, he's not
>>>
>>> The marketing department are workers.
>>>
>>>
>>>> got a degree in business management.
>>>
>>> Nor do the owners, for the most part.
>>
>> The owners are the shareholders. I suspect that the CEO and the board
>> does indeed education in business administration.
>
> Boards of directors have no such requirements.
>
>>>> Certainly the workers should be
>>>> listened to but different people have different capabilities.
>>>
>>> That's why I recommend democracy, so that everyone can speak to his or
>>> her own expertise.
>>
>> OTOH, I advocate freedom and the right to own property.
>
> Freedom for the one person at the top.

Freedom for anyone who comes up with the purchase price.


>>>> The owners
>>>> of the company should decide who makes the big, the "executive",
>>>> decisions. If workers want to buy companies, which they can with a
>>>> public company by just buying shares until they control, I've no
>>>> trouble
>>>> at all with that. Go for it.
>>>
>>> Democracy is just a way to ensure that everyone gets listened to, which
>>> you concede is a good idea anyway.

But inapplicable for running a business; in fact, a
very bad idea for running a business.


>>
>> I would hope that if we were explaining our views on this, people would
>> listen to me more than you.
>
> I suspect you might.
>
>>>>>> Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top
>>>>>> down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> service, you can have it because the availability is based on
>>>>>> ability to
>>>>>> pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs,
>>>>>> assistance for the poor, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their system is keeping a lot more people healthier to a riper old age
>>>>> than the U.S. system, which excels mostly in enriching the insurance
>>>>> industry.
>>>>
>>>> What are the average lifespans of Americans with health coverage? What
>>>> about Americans of different ethnicities? Are the foods that Americans
>>>> eat contributing to a lower lifespan compared to some other countries
>>>> such as Japan, where they eat more fish, and Italy, where they eat more
>>>> olive oil, etc.? You can't answer these questions, which is fine, but
>>>> what what isn't is that you don't care. All you want to do is blame the
>>>> American health care system for things that might be really be due to a
>>>> McDonald's diet.
>>>
>>> McDonald's is everywhere these days. Up until about 50 years ago,
>>> Canada had the same life expectancy as the U.S. No significant
>>> differences due to climate or lifestyle. Then Canada started
>>> implementing universal healthcare. Their life expectancy now is two
>>> years greater than the in U.S. It is clearly due to their universal
>>> healthcare system, as Canada hasn't diverged significantly from the
>>> U.S. in any other way.
>>
>> Do you have a cite for this claim?
>
> http://apha.confex.com/apha/131am/te...aper_73726.htm

No, that is *not* a source for your claim, jeffy. Your
claim is that the discrepancy is "*clearly* due to
their universal healthcare syste [emphasis added]" ,
but the study authors, being cautious scientists rather
than angry polemicists like you, make no such claim.

I note in particular something from that abstract that
would have to be explained in much greater detail:
"This has occurred despite the fact that Canadian
immigration rates from low life expectancy countries
has consistently been double the United States for most
of this period." Okay, but what is the socioeconomic
background of those people? And just how low is low?
You need to know quite a lot more than what this
abstract shows.


>>>>>>> I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't entirely clear on what you were saying. I did take it
>>>>>> though to
>>>>>> mean that you want to take the money out of running for politics
>>>>>> due to
>>>>>> that being what you said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, all politicians should get free air time during campaign
>>>>> season and
>>>>> get public funding for the rest of their expenses so that private
>>>>> money
>>>>> doesn't distort the public interest in a government that represents
>>>>> the
>>>>> interests of the people and not the biggest checkbooks.
>>>>
>>>> So if you decide to run, you should get free airtime? What if 500
>>>> people
>>>> decide to run? Will there be any airtime left for the programming
>>>> people
>>>> actually want to watch? Of course you'll say it is divided up by how
>>>> many people in polls say they support someone. But what does that, it
>>>> means that people who don't have support yet are hurt even more. Your
>>>> plan makes it even harder for the underdog to break in.
>>>
>>> It's not clear that 500 people would enter any race.
>>
>> How about governor of California?
>
> Are you counting the midget as a full person?

Snarky juvenile evasion noted.

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
> >>>>>>>>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
> >>>>>>>>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
> >>>>>>>>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
> >>>>>>>>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
> >>>>>>>>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
> >>>>>>>>>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
> >>>>>>>>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
> >>>>>>>>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Ya znaiyu.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
> >>>>>>>>>>corporate model is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
> >>>>>>>>>not like what you advocated earlier.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
> >>>>>>>>why shouldn't it be democratic too?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
> >>>>>>>many shares you have.
> >>>>>>>2) Because the workers don't own the company.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Kings and
> >>>>>>queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same with
> >>>>>>private monarchs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You mean if you start a business and build it up, you can be dethroned
> >>>>>by the workers even though you still entirely own the company? Or do you
> >>>>>mean that the CEO and those running the company as decided by the
> >>>>>owners, the shareholders, are going to be second guessed by the
> >>>>>non-owners, the workers, and replaced?
> >>>>
> >>>>Quite possibly. But no one now alive built Wal*Mart (or GM, or
> >>>>Exxon/Mobil, or Dow Chemical, etc., etc.,) up from nothing. It's
> >>>>time to get rid of hereditary monarchies entirely. Why is democracy
> >>>>good for Iraq but not for Ford?
> >>>
> >>>Even if the Chairman or CEO of Ford is a member of the Ford family, he
> >>>doesn't get that job without agreement from the shareholders, the board,
> >>>etc. And keeping it can be even harder.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Why should the employees at Chrysler,
> >>>>who know the business, have their fates in the hands of a bunch of
> >>>>investors who don't?
> >>>
> >>>What do the workers at Chrysler know about the business? The average
> >>>worker knows how he builds the car he workers on but he's not an
> >>>automotive design engineer,
> >>
> >>The engineers are workers.
> >
> > I was getting at the idea that you operate within your ken.
>
> And what do Chrysler's new owners know about the automobile
> industry that Chrysler's automotive engineers don't?
>
It's not clear to me that the owners know a thing about any part of the
subject. What is clear to me is that they own the company and therefore
they can run it into the ground if that's what they want to do with it.


> >>>he's not an expert on marketing, he's not
> >>
> >>The marketing department are workers.
> >>
> >>
> >>>got a degree in business management.
> >>
> >>Nor do the owners, for the most part.
> >
> > The owners are the shareholders. I suspect that the CEO and the board
> > does indeed education in business administration.
>
> Boards of directors have no such requirements.
>
I suspect that most people on major corporation board of directors have
degrees in relevant subjects.



> >>>Certainly the workers should be
> >>>listened to but different people have different capabilities.
> >>
> >>That's why I recommend democracy, so that everyone can speak to his or
> >>her own expertise.
> >
> > OTOH, I advocate freedom and the right to own property.
>
> Freedom for the one person at the top.
>
He's not necessarily the owner. CEOs get fired too, you know.



> >>>The owners
> >>>of the company should decide who makes the big, the "executive",
> >>>decisions. If workers want to buy companies, which they can with a
> >>>public company by just buying shares until they control, I've no trouble
> >>>at all with that. Go for it.
> >>
> >>Democracy is just a way to ensure that everyone gets listened to, which
> >>you concede is a good idea anyway.
> >
> > I would hope that if we were explaining our views on this, people would
> > listen to me more than you.
>
> I suspect you might.
>
Because if they listen to you, they will support reducing personal
freedom. I don't like that.




> >>>>>Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top
> >>>>>down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for the
> >>>>>service, you can have it because the availability is based on ability to
> >>>>>pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs,
> >>>>>assistance for the poor, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>Their system is keeping a lot more people healthier to a riper old age
> >>>>than the U.S. system, which excels mostly in enriching the insurance
> >>>>industry.
> >>>
> >>>What are the average lifespans of Americans with health coverage? What
> >>>about Americans of different ethnicities? Are the foods that Americans
> >>>eat contributing to a lower lifespan compared to some other countries
> >>>such as Japan, where they eat more fish, and Italy, where they eat more
> >>>olive oil, etc.? You can't answer these questions, which is fine, but
> >>>what what isn't is that you don't care. All you want to do is blame the
> >>>American health care system for things that might be really be due to a
> >>>McDonald's diet.
> >>
> >>McDonald's is everywhere these days. Up until about 50 years ago,
> >>Canada had the same life expectancy as the U.S. No significant
> >>differences due to climate or lifestyle. Then Canada started
> >>implementing universal healthcare. Their life expectancy now is two
> >>years greater than the in U.S. It is clearly due to their universal
> >>healthcare system, as Canada hasn't diverged significantly from the
> >>U.S. in any other way.
> >
> > Do you have a cite for this claim?
>
> http://apha.confex.com/apha/131am/te...aper_73726.htm
>
What is that?




> >>>>>>I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I wasn't entirely clear on what you were saying. I did take it though to
> >>>>>mean that you want to take the money out of running for politics due to
> >>>>>that being what you said.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, all politicians should get free air time during campaign season and
> >>>>get public funding for the rest of their expenses so that private money
> >>>>doesn't distort the public interest in a government that represents the
> >>>>interests of the people and not the biggest checkbooks.
> >>>
> >>>So if you decide to run, you should get free airtime? What if 500 people
> >>>decide to run? Will there be any airtime left for the programming people
> >>>actually want to watch? Of course you'll say it is divided up by how
> >>>many people in polls say they support someone. But what does that, it
> >>>means that people who don't have support yet are hurt even more. Your
> >>>plan makes it even harder for the underdog to break in.
> >>
> >>It's not clear that 500 people would enter any race.
> >
> > How about governor of California?
>
> Are you counting the midget as a full person?
>
The mini-you?



> >>But there are
> >>enough stations that the "burden" can be spread around. I think early
> >>in the campaign every candidate should get some air time so that the
> >>polls can reflect an electorate that's as enlightened as it wishes to
> >>be.
> >
> > How do you determine when to start culling those getting free time?
>
> We could start by using the early primaries, or polling at that time.
> Some of the details would have to be worked out.
>
I think it's a mess. Let people get large donations and put who provided
the money on a website right away. That way people can know if someone
might be beholden. Then you'd get a much greater mix. Someone like Perot
could fund a campaign, which he'd probably do by picking a reasonable
person, instead of himself running, since he himself is nuts.



--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free
>>>>>>>>>>>>market
>>>>>>>>>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
>>>>>>>>>>>>course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>>>>>>>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>We saw
>>>>>>>>>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they
>>>>>>>>>>>>let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to
>>>>>>>>>>>become
>>>>>>>>>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>>>>>>>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>current
>>>>>>>>>>>corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>>>>>>>>>>not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
>>>>>>>>>why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
>>>>>>>>many shares you have.
>>>>>>>>2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jeffy just doesn't "get" private property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be
>>>>>>considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution
>>>>>>that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million
>>>>>>people "private."
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public
>>>>>corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC.
>>>>>Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the
>>>>>government, King You?
>>>>
>>>>If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically. If
>>>>democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.
>>>
>>>I think you are confused about private property.
>>
>>I think you're confused about what's good for America.
>
> I suspect not. Certainly I'm clear on the fact that nationalizing or
> whatever weirdness you want to do to American business is bad for the US
> and its economy.

As if shipping all the middle class jobs overseas is.

>>>>If there
>>>>was more democracy there'd be less need for regulation because the
>>>>different groups within the company would keep each other honest.
>>>
>>>Walmart wants to set itself up that way, whatever you mean, I've no
>>>problem with that. The question I have though is one of force.
>>
>>But it's OK to use force to make Iraq do whatever you want?
>
> What is the connection here again? And I didn't claim it was OK to force
> the people of Iraq to do whatever I want.

No, just invade and occupy their country with a large military force.

>>>>If
>>>>the employees at Enron had been in on how that company was run they
>>>>wouldn't have let it implode out of their own self-interest.
>>>
>>>Wasn't it in the self interest of management not to let it implode"
>>
>>Obviously the attraction of short-term gains was more persuasive. At
>>least if it had been a democratic decision then everyone would have
>>made that decusion.
>
> How would you implement this? You want line workers and greeters at
> Walmart to vote on everything that management now decides on?

Or vote for representatives to do it.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a unit do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up, of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Top down
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We saw
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were
>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Communism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious
>>>>>>>>>>>> Russkies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ya znaiyu.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to
>>>>>>>>>>> do. That's
>>>>>>>>>>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some
>>>>>>>>>> countries,
>>>>>>>>>> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based
>>>>>>>>> on how
>>>>>>>>> many shares you have.
>>>>>>>>> 2) Because the workers don't own the company.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jeffy just doesn't "get" private property.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be
>>>>>>> considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an
>>>>>>> institution
>>>>>>> that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a
>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>> people "private."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? And most of those companies aren't "private", they are public
>>>>>> corporations. They are heavily regulated by agencies such as the SEC.
>>>>>> Your argument is that who should run the big corp, the workers, the
>>>>>> government, King You?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically. If
>>>>> democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are confused about private property.
>>>
>>> I think you're confused about what's good for America.
>>
>> I suspect not. Certainly I'm clear on the fact that nationalizing or
>> whatever weirdness you want to do to American business is bad for the US
>> and its economy.
>
> As if shipping all the middle class jobs overseas is.
>
>>>>> If there
>>>>> was more democracy there'd be less need for regulation because the
>>>>> different groups within the company would keep each other honest.
>>>>
>>>> Walmart wants to set itself up that way, whatever you mean, I've no
>>>> problem with that. The question I have though is one of force.
>>>
>>> But it's OK to use force to make Iraq do whatever you want?
>>
>> What is the connection here again? And I didn't claim it was OK to force
>> the people of Iraq to do whatever I want.
>
> No, just invade and occupy their country with a large military force.
>
>>>>> If
>>>>> the employees at Enron had been in on how that company was run they
>>>>> wouldn't have let it implode out of their own self-interest.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't it in the self interest of management not to let it implode"
>>>
>>> Obviously the attraction of short-term gains was more persuasive. At
>>> least if it had been a democratic decision then everyone would have
>>> made that decusion.
>>
>> How would you implement this? You want line workers and greeters at
>> Walmart to vote on everything that management now decides on?
>
> Or vote for representatives to do it.

No, bad idea.