Re: Abolishing Corporations

[Guest guest]

I'm not really sure you meant quite completely getting rid of corporations since you said you wanted meaningful scientific research to happen and who but corporations are capable of organizing expense research that requires the cooperation of many? By definition, a corporation what is created when individuals form contracts by which the organization they form is treated as an individual by the government. So, imagine you and me wanted to start a business and hire a couple hundred people. If we aren't a corporation then either the whole thing is owned by say you or me (sole proprietorship) or nobody owns anything at all and we're just a big social club that can dissolve (and take all of our hard work and investment with it) at any time. Labor union strike, then well, we aren't in business anymore because we were a social club and the striking workers owned the joint as much as we did and take the equipment with them. Below I've described what

would happen if the legal entity of a corporation were abolished. Since I don't believe you meant getting rid of corporations by the legal definition, I'd appreciate knowing what you meant and how you intend to preserve the right of contract and the right of association at the same time.According to the tax code, hospitals, universities, research centers, government watch dog groups, and churches are all corporations... So getting "rid" of them brings up an interesting question of who is allowed to stay since I'm sure you didn't meant abolishing these groups. Just non-profit corporations? A non profit is someone who structures their business so that they are not officially earning a profit for the purpose of various tax advantages. If the laws no longer created corporations by defining their tax and regulatory advantages and restrictions, then saying that non profits could stay would be meaningless (Japan's legal system doesn't even have non

profits). You would have to define what kinds of activity were allowable or not. Without the right of contract allowing people to pool their resources into organizations that can act with a single voice, many kinds of good works, (charities, churches, hospitals, government watch dog groups that keep out corruption) could not exist. Not to say that they couldn't all act as one and that non profits wouldn't just disappear if the individuals didn't cooperate, but organizations are based on trust and trust in organizations is best articulated in legally binding contracts that in the absence of the current legal code, would be de facto corporations.Without the money raising techniques of a corporation or of de facto corporations formed by binding contracts, getting anything useful done in checking the power of government (you know, like how the media embarresses the president and makes him stop abusing power or when churches get together and fight for

moral issues in legislation or when human rights groups get together and say the slave labor in China or that slaughtering civilians in war is wrong) would have to come from the super rich who could afford to hire entire organizations out of their own pockets. Or in other words, only the government and the super rich would have power. Unless you changed the form of government so that the poor had more power, the rich would totally dominate the society. If you did change the government form so the poor had more power (which is what I assume you meant when you said give the people a way to take direct action against corporations), you would incite more class warfare that would manifest itself in ways like riots, continual revolutions like the French Revolution, or otherwise a continual struggle for power. The government, which could only get money by taking from the rich, would try to regulate the rich incessantly. The rich, being the only other

power center in the society and not having power in government, would respond by trying to directly oppose or overthrow the government. Quick rode to totalitarianism and anarchy cycles that tend to kill a lot of people.That is obviously not what you meant to suggest. I am interested in regulating massive corporations when they harm the environment. I am also concerned about global corporations bulldozing local cultures and the loss of value and the new values that come from a global culture. Just in the meanwhile how do you 'get rid' of big corporations while keeping small ones (smaller businesses are often corporations) while preserving the right of association and contract.CrouchingOwlnick <drumthis2001@...> wrote: I've been reading Plato's Republic and it has influenced some of what I've commented on. I'm not using that as a backup or excuse. What you said makes sense in terms of evolution. Also, it sounds like your'e on the same page as far as not being kept alive. Beth kind of shocked me into awareness about that one when she said she couldn't talke about it because of some potential repercussions. Okay, I don't know about the manufactured organs and I have no way of judging that. What I proposed is simply get rid of all corporations, go back to small businesses, put more tax dollars for the science that is truly groundbreaking and give the people a chance to take aggressive, permanent, authority and action over companies who step out of

bounds, which includes the owners of those companies who are poisoning and altering DNA. I've talked with people who have said this is the age of pollution and humans will die off if they don't do something quick. Hawking himself has pointed to that very real and frightening future if humans (companies who hold a monopoly over the competition and use the cheapest resources available which obviously points to their indifference to the rest of the world as long as they have money to keep themselves in good shape and away from the fear of retribution) don't stop poisoning everything and changing ecosystems. I've thought about what you said previously and it does make sense if one believes in an afterlife that it is God's will that they die earlier out of a harsh existence and into a better one. Maybe they do believe that when they're about to die if they were good people and had faith. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I have a living will that says no extra-ordinary measures should be taken to keep me alive.I think you have it wrong by the way about the good manufactured organs can do. The rich might use such services, and the poor would die off. But those of the poor who were robust would spawn more generations while the weak rich would continue to sire unhealthy offspring. Eventually, the poor would be physically superior to the rich and take over.TomAdministratorIn a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, megakneebtopenworld writes:"Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that."The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and umbilical cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business.

Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited Try it today.

[Guest guest]

Train everyone to be a soldier. Get rid of the corporations that are more than a few hundred people. Import but, don't use slave labor from overseas. Taxes would be within cities. There would be no states, no state laws. The cities (around a thousand) will all have laws based upon the most intelligent people's opinions. The poor can vote at anytime to throw them out but, can't elect someone based on image or charisma alone. The government will be the research organizations. Every citizen will have the right to his and her own property and to do with it whatever they please so long as it doesn't interfere with another person's freedoms (libertarian). No marriages, no divorce. The only corporate-type entity is the military and science. Military will be everyone and all able people will train. No public schools for everyone. Certain people will be assessed according to their aptitudes and given a choice of several different programs.There will be a constitution of laws and

leaders who make up that organization in every single school and only the students with the best aptitude will be in charge of it. Every neighborhood will have a constitution. All of the basic freedoms, human rights will be kept in tact and all governments will be held in check by every other government from every other neighborhood. There will be no jails. Punishment will be a public display involving hard labor and actual rehabilitation. If it's premeditated murder for reasons other than escaping abuse the person will be tortured in a scientific lab and then dissected to learn about how to prevent those people from going down that path. There will be factories but, not owned by one person. The people will work in them producing trade items. Everyone will spend a certain amount of time working in a factory producing such items that would be of benefit in a war, famine, trade revenue and the basic good of the economy. Science will not sell. Science will be given freely

because it's paid for by taxes and specifically voted on. There will be no advertisements of science. Everyone will read a plain, unbiased scientific report that explains what the people can choose to vote on. People will have professions for what the country needs and then people will have professions for the benefit of their own city. Each city will regulate the other and no barred fortresses would be allowed. The government will be more libertarian/communist without the possiblity of creating wealthy dictators. The biggest business will be agriculture, farming, self-sustaining economy. Trade will be of more value than money because individual transporation will be easier. Eventually there will be routes of all supplies from different parts of the country in varying times based on an average of supply and demand. Cars will be running on electricity or other cheap fuel harnessed by hydroelectric power and solar power run by factories. There will be no influences from

media. The military of each city will be controlled by the other military from another city. There will be no chance for leaders because every town and neighborhood will have a leader who chooses based on the people's desires. Everyone will have the potential to network and therefore prevent a rogue party from being formed. Hanton <crouchingowl@...> wrote: I'm not really sure you meant quite completely getting rid of corporations since you said you wanted meaningful scientific research to happen and who but

corporations are capable of organizing expense research that requires the cooperation of many? By definition, a corporation what is created when individuals form contracts by which the organization they form is treated as an individual by the government. So, imagine you and me wanted to start a business and hire a couple hundred people. If we aren't a corporation then either the whole thing is owned by say you or me (sole proprietorship) or nobody owns anything at all and we're just a big social club that can dissolve (and take all of our hard work and investment with it) at any time. Labor union strike, then well, we aren't in business anymore because we were a social club and the striking workers owned the joint as much as we did and take the equipment with them. Below I've described what would happen if the legal entity of a corporation were abolished. Since I don't believe you meant getting rid of corporations by the legal

definition, I'd appreciate knowing what you meant and how you intend to preserve the right of contract and the right of association at the same time.According to the tax code, hospitals, universities, research centers, government watch dog groups, and churches are all corporations... So getting "rid" of them brings up an interesting question of who is allowed to stay since I'm sure you didn't meant abolishing these groups. Just non-profit corporations? A non profit is someone who structures their business so that they are not officially earning a profit for the purpose of various tax advantages. If the laws no longer created corporations by defining their tax and regulatory advantages and restrictions, then saying that non profits could stay would be meaningless (Japan's legal system doesn't even have non profits). You would have to define what kinds of activity were allowable or not. Without the right of contract allowing people

to pool their resources into organizations that can act with a single voice, many kinds of good works, (charities, churches, hospitals, government watch dog groups that keep out corruption) could not exist. Not to say that they couldn't all act as one and that non profits wouldn't just disappear if the individuals didn't cooperate, but organizations are based on trust and trust in organizations is best articulated in legally binding contracts that in the absence of the current legal code, would be de facto corporations.Without the money raising techniques of a corporation or of de facto corporations formed by binding contracts, getting anything useful done in checking the power of government (you know, like how the media embarresses the president and makes him stop abusing power or when churches get together and fight for moral issues in legislation or when human rights groups get together and say the slave labor in China or that slaughtering civilians in war

is wrong) would have to come from the super rich who could afford to hire entire organizations out of their own pockets. Or in other words, only the government and the super rich would have power. Unless you changed the form of government so that the poor had more power, the rich would totally dominate the society. If you did change the government form so the poor had more power (which is what I assume you meant when you said give the people a way to take direct action against corporations), you would incite more class warfare that would manifest itself in ways like riots, continual revolutions like the French Revolution, or otherwise a continual struggle for power. The government, which could only get money by taking from the rich, would try to regulate the rich incessantly. The rich, being the only other power center in the society and not having power in government, would respond by trying to directly oppose or overthrow the

government. Quick rode to totalitarianism and anarchy cycles that tend to kill a lot of people.That is obviously not what you meant to suggest. I am interested in regulating massive corporations when they harm the environment. I am also concerned about global corporations bulldozing local cultures and the loss of value and the new values that come from a global culture. Just in the meanwhile how do you 'get rid' of big corporations while keeping small ones (smaller businesses are often corporations) while preserving the right of association and contract.CrouchingOwlnick <drumthis2001 > wrote: I've been reading Plato's Republic and it has influenced some of what I've commented on. I'm not using that as a backup or excuse. What you said makes sense in terms of

evolution. Also, it sounds like your'e on the same page as far as not being kept alive. Beth kind of shocked me into awareness about that one when she said she couldn't talke about it because of some potential repercussions. Okay, I don't know about the manufactured organs and I have no way of judging that. What I proposed is simply get rid of all corporations, go back to small businesses, put more tax dollars for the science that is truly groundbreaking and give the people a chance to take aggressive, permanent, authority and action over companies who step out of bounds, which includes the owners of those companies who are poisoning and altering DNA. I've talked with people who have said this is the age of pollution and humans will die off if they don't do something quick. Hawking himself has pointed to that very real and frightening future if humans (companies who hold a monopoly over the competition and use the cheapest resources available which

obviously points to their indifference to the rest of the world as long as they have money to keep themselves in good shape and away from the fear of retribution) don't stop poisoning everything and changing ecosystems. I've thought about what you said previously and it does make sense if one believes in an afterlife that it is God's will that they die earlier out of a harsh existence and into a better one. Maybe they do believe that when they're about to die if they were good people and had faith. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I have a living will that says no extra-ordinary measures should be taken to keep me alive.I think you have it wrong by the way about the good manufactured organs can do. The rich might use such

services, and the poor would die off. But those of the poor who were robust would spawn more generations while the weak rich would continue to sire unhealthy offspring. Eventually, the poor would be physically superior to the rich and take over.TomAdministratorIn a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, megakneebtopenworld writes:"Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that."The best results have been

coming from adult stems cells and umbilical cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited Try it today.

Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

This is a sort of age old problem. The solution is simple truth,

and honesty. Everyone is entitled to a private life, what we don't

promote is truth. you can't get in trouble if you don't seek to

decieve. The problems with business is promotion of lying. It is

interesting that we can all identify that there is a problem. As

the public has been thought to view us we have no social

conscience. Yet as a group we seek to discuss solutions not in a

party way or a gender way but in a way that equalizes everyone. Man

woman and children. No one group deserves a pass on

accountability. Most of us abhore lying and betrayal, and I would

say by and large we do not engage in it. I know that I have said if

people would only see the truth of their actions. We even lie to

ourselves. I hate that too. I am not sure my honest with myself is

unique. I would guess (perhaps I am wrong) that practicality wins

over vanity. I know I am no salesman's frind because I buy nothing

based on the pitch. When it was popular for sales people to say

this " what would it take for you to buy my product " I would always

say you don't want me to answer that. One that I could afford it

and 2 that it actually work or even better 3 that it be nearly

free. Sales are somewhat based on hype and popularity. I have

never shopped for anything that way. I buy what I need as

inexpensively as I can. One item has to serve many purposes. I

don't have almost any jewelry(some that was given to me, by

gradparents or my sister or father) Jewelry doesn't do anything. I

am usually more excited over garbage day or a power tool, and for my

birthday I was given a vaccuum (expensive one) It was colorful but

didn't pass muster and it was returned. When I was seperated people

said " he cheated on you go buy clothes " I bought all weather tires,

and made sure the car was in top running function. The point being

so many groups entities and companies run on vanity, What I

term " stupidity " It may in fact not be stupid but to me short term

thinking is selfish and stupid. My defination is always attacked

because I use thouse words to mean so much. I just don't want to

explain it all. So when I say selfish or stupid It can mean a large

body of things. So I guess could be said for honesty. Honesty to

me implies conscious, expediency, streamlined use of materials for

the best overall effect. Thoughtfullness of application. Not self

serving but community serving, and so I guess the idea of the " town

commom " it it's working form. We all benefit when people are honest

[Guest guest]

I disagree with that.

I think society can move beyond suuch barbaric methods. An improvement

would be one where murderers were simply confined and kept away from

society, but kept active in such a way as to benefit society. We

needn't back-track into what fascists or communists did to their

criminals.

Tom

Administrator

" If it's premeditated murder for reasons other than escaping abuse the

person will be tortured in a scientific lab and then dissected to

learn about how to prevent those people from going down that path. "

[Guest guest]

One of thie things I did at my most recent job was to purchase

office supplies and equipment, and the way I purchased things was to

get vendors to compete against each other to give me the lowest

price. Then I would purchase what I needed.

The stuff you buy in the store at full price I was probably paying

anywhere between 25% and 75% of the store price for, and I am sure

many of these companies were still making profits, or else they

could not stay in business with us.

Once in a while, when someone tried to sell us something we had

absolutely no use for, I would see if I could get them to give me

the lowest price. I would web browse to find the lowest and ask them

to beat it. If they did, I would then tell them that if they had

offerd me that price in the first place, I would have bought their

product, but given the fact that they wanted to " rob " us, they lost

our business. I suppose that was mean, but I do believe that just

about everything out there is marked substantially, even when

research, development, and marketing costs have already been paid

off, and these markups are driving us into the poor house.

Bill Gates is rich because of his expensive software. At this

moment, he could afford to give everyone in the world one US dollar,

or each American $20.00. $20.00 can feed a starving person for three

or four days. Yet Gates is giving money to Africa to fight AIDS even

as people here in America are living on the streets and others

starve.

None of this would be happening if his software were more reasonably

priced.

Additionally, the costs companies have to pay for this software

hamstrings their budgets whenever they do an upgrade, so Gates is

indirectly strangling sectors of corporate America.

And by the way, if you think the stuff you buy at WalMart is dirt

cheap, recognize that they are owned by 17 people with the name of

Walton, and that each one is worth at least one billion dollars.

Those are YOUR dollars they are holding folks, and they put lots of

mom and pop businesses out of work so they could get as rich as they

are.

Tom

Administrator

" When it was popular for sales people to say this " what would it

take for you to buy my product " I would always say you don't want me

to answer that. One that I could afford it and 2 that it actually

work or even better 3 that it be nearly free. Sales are somewhat

based on hype and popularity. I have never shopped for anything that

way. I buy what I need as inexpensively as I can. One item has to

serve many purposes. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/2/2006 2:07:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, drumthis2001@... writes:

Yes, that makes more sense. I was thinking of serial killers such as Ridgeway, Gacy, etc... Psychopaths without a sense of remorse. They would be worth studying anatomically.

I agree here that people like them and the hard core repeat criminals should be studied, but that would not require torture. MRIs, brain scans, interviews, DNA testing, etc. all could be used to learn what makes them tick.

[Guest guest]

There is more to the cost of items than just the raw materials. There is transportation which recurs many times, plant and equipment (the place and machinery where the materials are worked). Add to that is the payroll of the staff, insurance, etc. Then there are taxes, which in some countries includes the insidious VAT tax, which is applied over and over at each stage of production. Lastly, there are the costs of selling the items, such as salesmen, the cost of the store, rents, utilities, etc. This is not an all inclusive list, but it gives an idea of all the costs involved.

The way capitalism works is that manufacturers try to make an item for the least cost that they can sell for the greatest profit. This is a balancing act. One company could make junk that it sells for a high price, but if another company makes the same items at good quality for the same price of less, then the second company will capture much of the market. There is nothing wrong with a company putting a mark up on its wares, at least not so long as there is competition in the marketplace. If there is competition, people will shop where they want and pay the price they want. If people don't shop at the more expensive place, then they will have to lower their price, improve quality or both to survive. If there is no competition, then you don't have capitalism anyway, but an oligopoly or monopoly.

If people aren't willing to pay the marked up price, then the seller will have to reduce their price or go out of business. But as long as people are willing to pay the higher price, then they have no reason not to charge that price.

I dislike Walmart not because the few owners have so much money, but because of their shady business practices. They are known to treat suppliers very badly. I've even read of cases when they demanded that the price that some manufacturers asked for their items be lowered so much that many were on the brink of going bankrupt. Some knuckled under and cut quality so as to be able to sell at Walmart, but others walked away rather than cut quality. They have also bee setting stats and specs for items that others might not find satisfactory, thus cutting the goods available for other sellers, and raising their costs because they would relatively smaller lots made just for them. The main thing I hate about Walmart is that most of what it sells is made in China. All they are doing is funding a growing rival to the US and one that will probably be quite dangerous one day soon. Remember, they have nukes and a vast population. Fortunately though, corruption is so endemic that it is hindering their military upgrades and the entire economy is on shaky ground.

If someone makes a lot of money because they came up with an innovative product, like Bill Gates, why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't they be rewarded for their efforts? Yes, Gates has a lot of money, but no one has any right to it but him. He could build a giant statue of himself out of solid gold rather than send that money to fight AIDS in Africa. That would be his right as he is breaking no law. No one has to give one penny to charity. I do agree though that I would rather see him use his money in the US, preferably promoting courses to teach school kids personal finance and the like.

The Google people, on the other hand, are another matter. Their motives seem to be quite sinister, that is to control all of the world's information. They even violate copyright laws and laws that protect intellectual property. From a purely capitalist standpoint they are doing very well. However, from an ethical and security standpoint, we can't allow one company to control all the information out there. During this recent election cycle in the US, a handful of Democrat Bloggers have found a way to rig the search results on Google to bring up unflattering articles on Republicans and favorable ones for Dems. The system is already being abused and it should be a warning. Then again, we are so lax about our Democratic process that we allowed the company that makes and programs the electronic voting machines to be bought be a Venezuelan company that has links to Chavez. Oh yeah, that's not going to have any impact on the election at all.

[Guest guest]

Certainly, people whom commit crimes of a violent and brutal nature

should be held accountable. If one has ended the life of an

innocent. Well I am brutal, depending on the crime death is the

sentence. Quick painless (with brain preservation if you wish) For

less serious crimes remove the ability to reproduce. Contracts for

parents prior to birth, or at least an aptitude class. School would

be manditory, there could be a limit to the mandate, but common sense

honesty, and depending on ability trade. I think the Asians have a

track like this, In case no one knows they own quite a bit of

American land. They use their resources more wisely. Institute

ability learning, if a child is able and willing allow them to go as

far as they wish or can. No limits on ability. And companies that

violate environmental rules, to ensure the health of the planet can

be taken over or dismantled, for real. If consequence was real all

the lying and cheating would stop. We had a business relationship

with another couple when I was married. we sold goods to them, when

my ex cheated on me(not for my sake)he ended the relationship. I

asked him why. He said if he could do that to you his life mate how

will he treat me in business. He said even if that meant he couldn't

find what we had been selling he was willing to end all ties than buy

from a cheater, because it was only a matter of time.

Tom I agree there should be an actual price. Perhaps a limit on mark-

up. It used to be 35% now it is anywhere from that to 1000%.

Jewelry is structured that way. The actual cost is 10% of the

price. (gold and diamonds)Pizza is like that as well. A ten dollor

pizza costs about $.70 That is another reason I don't like jewelry.

[Guest guest]

Certainly, people whom commit crimes of a violent and brutal nature

should be held accountable. If one has ended the life of an

innocent. Well I am brutal, depending on the crime death is the

sentence. Quick painless (with brain preservation if you wish) For

less serious crimes remove the ability to reproduce. Contracts for

parents prior to birth, or at least an aptitude class. School would

be manditory, there could be a limit to the mandate, but common sense

honesty, and depending on ability trade. I think the Asians have a

track like this, In case no one knows they own quite a bit of

American land. They use their resources more wisely. Institute

ability learning, if a child is able and willing allow them to go as

far as they wish or can. No limits on ability. And companies that

violate environmental rules, to ensure the health of the planet can

be taken over or dismantled, for real. If consequence was real all

the lying and cheating would stop. We had a business relationship

with another couple when I was married. we sold goods to them, when

my ex cheated on me(not for my sake)he ended the relationship. I

asked him why. He said if he could do that to you his life mate how

will he treat me in business. He said even if that meant he couldn't

find what we had been selling he was willing to end all ties than buy

from a cheater, because it was only a matter of time.

Tom I agree there should be an actual price. Perhaps a limit on mark-

up. It used to be 35% now it is anywhere from that to 1000%.

Jewelry is structured that way. The actual cost is 10% of the

price. (gold and diamonds)Pizza is like that as well. A ten dollor

pizza costs about $.70 That is another reason I don't like jewelry.

[Guest guest]

Re urging:

>Contracts for

> parents prior to birth, or at least an aptitude class.

And what do you do when a man impregnates a woman but one or both of

them has not signed the contract or taken-and-passed the course?

Arrest the couple and perform an abortion? Or confiscate the

child, if it has already arrived without benefit of contract or

classes?

By the way, I don't understand calling it an " aptitude " class.

Aptitudes, by definition, come inborn (not from training). One could

no more have a class to learn " aptitudes " than one could have a class

to learn " having an allergy. "

>School would be manditory,

Places that have mandatory schooling (most places today) often can't

enforce it — and can *never* enforce results. You can make a kid go to

school, but you cannot make him/her think.

> And companies that

> violate environmental rules, to ensure the health of the planet can

> be taken over or dismantled, for real.

Places that have laws like this, again, usually haven't managed to

make the laws have teeth — probably because companies that get rich

from saving money by doing things the cheap-and-dirty way thereby get

enough money to buy off lawmakers, judges, etc.

One law that HAS worked to clean up the environment: since

1970-something, Sweden has had a law that every factory must get its

water ONLY from a point directly downstream of wherever the same

factory pumps out its waste-water.

This puts it in the factory's own interest to clean up its

waste-water as much as humanly possible before pumping it out (a

perfect example of consequence made REAL) ... and civil engineers (and

even ordinary citizens) can very easily monitor if the factory follows

this law or not — just look at the building plans on file, travel

around/inside the building, and see where the water comes in and where

it goes out.

> Tom I agree there should be an actual price. Perhaps a limit on mark-

> up.

Limits on mark-ups have proven difficult to enforce, and (when

enforced) have not always had beneficial effects. The USSR had *very*

stringent limits on mark-ups, throughout its history. (I visited

Russia twice: once after 70 years of Communism — the coup happened

during my visit — and once almost exactly a year after that. Let's

just say that things had changed a *lot* ... actual *food* in the

stores the second time, for one thing ... )

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Credit is a problem because most people don't know how to use it. Like Tom, I have only one credit card. I use it for traveling, charging hotel stays, train tickets and the like. It also gets used for some Internet purchases so that if those sites get hacked or the number stolen, there is only so much damage the thieves could do to me. This card does carry a balance by the very nature of how much gets charged, but I always pay several times the minimum due, usually much more. Before I go on the next trip, the first round is completely paid off.

Credit was very hard at one time to get. I think that changed once computer technology allowed the companies to keep track of all the cards they could field. It also helped that some of the first courses dropped in public schools were economics and personal finance. That meant that most people wouldn't know how to use credit and debt to their advantage. Instead, most people piled up debt and were buried by it, which is why there are so many bankruptcy filings each year and why there are so many of these "debt consolidation" commercials on TV.

Credit cards with high limits are given out like candy at colleges to freshmen. Away from home for the first time and with little to no idea how to handle money, they end up maxxed out in no time and saddled with large payments and all the interest.

Now, it is possible to use debt to your advantage. You could buy a piece of property if you knew the values in the area would be going up soon and you could later sell it for a profit, that is if you could float the mortgage without sinking yourself and provided that values did indeed go up. You could use it to start a business or improve and existing one, provided you stayed within your ability to carry the debt. But taking on debt to buy the latest home theater or that kind of thing is completely pointless. It would be more cost effective to save money each month and pay in full at purchase rather than buy it on credit and have to pay interest.

Also, I do tend to use my debit card rather than cash at places I frequent and trust. At other places, I use cash and I also use it for purchases of a few dollars. The credit card though is pretty much strictly for travel expenses and emergencies.

[Guest guest]

" If people aren't willing to pay the marked up price, then the seller

will have to reduce their price or go out of business. But as long as

people are willing to pay the higher price, then they have no reason

not to charge that price. "

There is another reason for mark ups that I believe can be gotten rid

of entirely: Credit.

It used to be that it was very difficult to get credit. Now many

coporations themselves have their own credit units so they can extend

credit to their customers, and this costs money, firstly in terms of

the operating expenses associated with the credit units, and secondly

in terms of floating their OWN debt while they wait for their

customers to pay them what is owed.

People will argue that if you pay cash, you don't get saddled with

interest and financing fees, yet the stores need to have enough money

to ensure they can pay their bills, and so the price of the product

goes up for everyone.

Every time I see someone use a credit card, I cringe. I have one and

one only. It's for gas and gives me a 5% rebate on all gas purchases.

It's got no fees and I've never missed a payment. It CAN be used in

case of emergency, but I have never been tempted to use it. If I

cannot pay for something in cash, I figure I cannot afford it.

This works to my benefit. Lots of stuff I hold off on buying I buy

later when there is an overstock or seasonal liquidation sale. My

purchasing is designed so that I don't buy stuff when I need it, but

BEFORE I need it when it is at its lowest possible price. Some yegars,

I have even bought present in anticipation of the next Christimas in

January.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

ok In terms of school it is not only to encourage application of

ability but also life skills, so parenting would be a class

A course retake and psycological counciling to ensure preparedness of

parenting. Perhaps even the inhome prep of a nurse/skills teacher

The consequence of law breaking could be that they have to pay for

these services

In this country we no longer teach life skills (our parents are

supposed to do that, so some children have no example. This is to

give a frame of reference

The consequence to school avoidance is the cost of the ability to

take care of yourself and have a place in society. There is no need

because opting out is it's own punishment

This is the point of honesty, by example an entire system change and

restructuring of society

In this country the wrong things are valued. Football for example>

> One law that HAS worked to clean up the environment: since

> 1970-something, Sweden has had a law that every factory must get its

> water ONLY from a point directly downstream of wherever the same

> factory pumps out its waste-water.

> This puts it in the factory's own interest to clean up its

> waste-water as much as humanly possible before pumping it out (a

> perfect example of consequence made REAL) ... and civil engineers

(and

> even ordinary citizens) can very easily monitor if the factory

follows

> this law or not — just look at the building plans on file, travel

> around/inside the building, and see where the water comes in and

where

> it goes out.

>

If honesty becomes the best policy then people will prosper

[Guest guest]

I agree with the resposnsibility of money managment. Credit is a deep

dark cavern. Even when I was left without funds I never used a credit

card because, then they would have had to have been paid and I had no

money. Teens are given credit like PEZ and the corp. know this tey are

happy to do it. If you don't have the money learn to live within your

means. House morgage ok credit cards for pretty shoes NO

[Guest guest]

Nice ideals, but somehow I cannot see this working in this world.

There are always going to be people who lie (or that is how it feels

to me). People are going to lie to either make themselves out to be

something they are not (for whatever reasons) and also people will

lie to make their products/services out to be something they are not -

something better than the other products.

For example advertising lies - pure and simple. Advertising does not

often advertise the product per se, but the supposed values and

ideals of a product, branding. So a tin of beans or gravy is sold as

family values rather than just a tin of beans or whatever. Other

companies sell caring - as in 'we are a caring company - buy our

product and it will show you are caring too'. People buy into images

too with products - having certain brands and products is creating

this image which is just sham/illusion - rubbish basically and yet

people still buy into it.

The image or vanity is people packaging, marketting themselves and

unfortunately this world buys into it - you can see it in politics

where often appearance is rated over substance.

It has been proved that those who are considered more attractive will

get lighter sentences, or even let off in court room situations etc.

I question that the majority of human nature can change these ways

that to many seem the 'norm' and of those that see this way - can

they see any other? can they see beyond the illusion? and maybe some

actually don't want to?

Sometimes when I have pointed out illusions to some they don't like

it - they actually prefer to believe the lies and anyone trying to

point out the fact they are lies are threatening their beliefs, their

false sense of security.

" ...you can't get in trouble if you don't seek to decieve. "

Oh how I wish that were true. I often get into trouble for being

honest and truthful and often in this world it feels one is punished

for being such - strange twisted world we live in where lies and

illusions appear to be held of more worth than honesty etc :-(

>

> This is a sort of age old problem. The solution is simple truth,

> and honesty. Everyone is entitled to a private life, what we don't

> promote is truth. you can't get in trouble if you don't seek to

> decieve. The problems with business is promotion of lying. It is

> interesting that we can all identify that there is a problem. As

> the public has been thought to view us we have no social

> conscience. Yet as a group we seek to discuss solutions not in a

> party way or a gender way but in a way that equalizes everyone.

Man

> woman and children. No one group deserves a pass on

> accountability. Most of us abhore lying and betrayal, and I would

> say by and large we do not engage in it. I know that I have said

if

> people would only see the truth of their actions. We even lie to

> ourselves. I hate that too. I am not sure my honest with myself

is

> unique. I would guess (perhaps I am wrong) that practicality wins

> over vanity. I know I am no salesman's frind because I buy nothing

> based on the pitch. When it was popular for sales people to say

> this " what would it take for you to buy my product " I would always

> say you don't want me to answer that. One that I could afford it

> and 2 that it actually work or even better 3 that it be nearly

> free. Sales are somewhat based on hype and popularity. I have

> never shopped for anything that way. I buy what I need as

> inexpensively as I can. One item has to serve many purposes. I

> don't have almost any jewelry(some that was given to me, by

> gradparents or my sister or father) Jewelry doesn't do anything.

I

> am usually more excited over garbage day or a power tool, and for

my

> birthday I was given a vaccuum (expensive one) It was colorful but

> didn't pass muster and it was returned. When I was seperated

people

> said " he cheated on you go buy clothes " I bought all weather

tires,

> and made sure the car was in top running function. The point being

> so many groups entities and companies run on vanity, What I

> term " stupidity " It may in fact not be stupid but to me short term

> thinking is selfish and stupid. My defination is always attacked

> because I use thouse words to mean so much. I just don't want to

> explain it all. So when I say selfish or stupid It can mean a

large

> body of things. So I guess could be said for honesty. Honesty to

> me implies conscious, expediency, streamlined use of materials for

> the best overall effect. Thoughtfullness of application. Not self

> serving but community serving, and so I guess the idea of the " town

> commom " it it's working form. We all benefit when people are honest

>

[Guest guest]

When it comes to lowest price for services, I sometimes wonder if

this is always a good thing?

Often in England the council will go with the lowest tender to do

jobs, contracting out to companies for repairs and maintance of

hospitals, houses and such. Lowest tender does not always equal a

good job and as such standards are often very low and in some cases

dangerous.

>

> One of thie things I did at my most recent job was to purchase

> office supplies and equipment, and the way I purchased things was

to

> get vendors to compete against each other to give me the lowest

> price. Then I would purchase what I needed.

>

> The stuff you buy in the store at full price I was probably paying

> anywhere between 25% and 75% of the store price for, and I am sure

> many of these companies were still making profits, or else they

> could not stay in business with us.

>

> Once in a while, when someone tried to sell us something we had

> absolutely no use for, I would see if I could get them to give me

> the lowest price. I would web browse to find the lowest and ask

them

> to beat it. If they did, I would then tell them that if they had

> offerd me that price in the first place, I would have bought their

> product, but given the fact that they wanted to " rob " us, they lost

> our business. I suppose that was mean, but I do believe that just

> about everything out there is marked substantially, even when

> research, development, and marketing costs have already been paid

> off, and these markups are driving us into the poor house.

>

> Bill Gates is rich because of his expensive software. At this

> moment, he could afford to give everyone in the world one US

dollar,

> or each American $20.00. $20.00 can feed a starving person for

three

> or four days. Yet Gates is giving money to Africa to fight AIDS

even

> as people here in America are living on the streets and others

> starve.

>

> None of this would be happening if his software were more

reasonably

> priced.

>

> Additionally, the costs companies have to pay for this software

> hamstrings their budgets whenever they do an upgrade, so Gates is

> indirectly strangling sectors of corporate America.

>

> And by the way, if you think the stuff you buy at WalMart is dirt

> cheap, recognize that they are owned by 17 people with the name of

> Walton, and that each one is worth at least one billion dollars.

> Those are YOUR dollars they are holding folks, and they put lots of

> mom and pop businesses out of work so they could get as rich as

they

> are.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

[Guest guest]

" The actual cost is 10% of the price. (gold and diamonds)Pizza is

like that as well. A ten dollor pizza costs about $.70 That is

another reason I don't like jewelry. "

I am not into expensive jewellery - well not into anything expensive

if I can help it :-)

I like doing creative stuff and jewellery to me is fairly easy to

make. I love recycling stuff too, making stuff out of junk basically,

empty packaging etc amazing what one can do with a bit of

imagination - I sometimes wish I could do more. It would be a nice

ideal if everyone did their bit concerning recycling though - way too

much waste in the world, probably mostly the Western world.

As for your earlier comments concerning function over form - yeah I

prefer a product to work well rather than just look pretty - I'd

prefer both ideally - but if I can get a good product at a reasonable

price, I will chose that over a flashy looking expensive model; plus

I can always decorate the less showy one to my liking :-)

I also prefer products to be multi functional, like sofas with

drawers in, buffets that can be used for extra storage and of course

I have to have a bed with room underneath so that no space is

wasted :-) I do have a tendency to hoarde for the purpose of

recycling; kind of brought up with the 'waste not, want not'

mentality.

>

> Certainly, people whom commit crimes of a violent and brutal nature

> should be held accountable. If one has ended the life of an

> innocent. Well I am brutal, depending on the crime death is the

> sentence. Quick painless (with brain preservation if you wish)

For

> less serious crimes remove the ability to reproduce. Contracts for

> parents prior to birth, or at least an aptitude class. School

would

> be manditory, there could be a limit to the mandate, but common

sense

> honesty, and depending on ability trade. I think the Asians have a

> track like this, In case no one knows they own quite a bit of

> American land. They use their resources more wisely. Institute

> ability learning, if a child is able and willing allow them to go

as

> far as they wish or can. No limits on ability. And companies that

> violate environmental rules, to ensure the health of the planet can

> be taken over or dismantled, for real. If consequence was real all

> the lying and cheating would stop. We had a business relationship

> with another couple when I was married. we sold goods to them,

when

> my ex cheated on me(not for my sake)he ended the relationship. I

> asked him why. He said if he could do that to you his life mate

how

> will he treat me in business. He said even if that meant he

couldn't

> find what we had been selling he was willing to end all ties than

buy

> from a cheater, because it was only a matter of time.

>

> Tom I agree there should be an actual price. Perhaps a limit on

mark-

> up. It used to be 35% now it is anywhere from that to 1000%.

> Jewelry is structured that way. The actual cost is 10% of the

> price. (gold and diamonds)Pizza is like that as well. A ten dollor

> pizza costs about $.70 That is another reason I don't like jewelry.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/3/2006 3:12:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Nice ideals, but somehow I cannot see this working in this world.

This is the root of the problem. There are systems and such that might sound nice, but they won't work in reality.

Advertising does lie, though technically it shouldn't have to. What amuses me is the car commercials that show the cars doing stunts and driving at speeds that are highly illegal, so much so that they actually have a disclaimer on the screen telling you not to attempt what you are seeing. OK, so they are showing the performance of the car that is so high you will never legally be able to use it. So what is the point?

Toys are another good example. The toy commercials always show the kids as happy and having friends around to play with and everyone is getting along. I bet that's actually a pretty far cry from reality too. Most kids will play together for a while, then get to fighting over what they are playing with or how they are playing, etc. Some of my "friends" used to delight in breaking toys rather than playing with them, so I didn't really like them touching my toys.

Fashion commercials are much the same. "Wear our clothes and you will be trendy and popular." Yeah right. Trends change faster than the weather. The result being you plunk down way too much money for a few outfits that in a few weeks will be replaced by the next overpriced trendy line.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/3/2006 3:32:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

When it comes to lowest price for services, I sometimes wonder if this is always a good thing?

It isn't.

The Apollo capsules were built by the lowest bidder and as a result, three astronauts were burned alive in a ship that was found to have over 600 hundred design defects.

The college I attended bought the low bid air-conditioning system. It didn't keep the building either cool or warm (depending on the time of year) and it stank. So they had to buy a somewhat higher priced unit to replace it. So, by low balling they incurred the cost of the first system, removal of the first system and the costs of the new one. Going with the slightly higher bid in the first place would have saved a lot of trouble and money.

There was a story once about a homeless woman in New York that wore a Rolex watch. She was asked why she wore such an expensive watch and she said because it was cheaper to buy this watch that would last and keep the time than to buy a several cheap watches that wouldn't. I've had these round with my mother. She will often by a cheap version of something that wears out quickly and then she has to buy replacements. She has never figured out that it is often better to pay a little more up front for that extra quality for an item that will work and last.

Then again, I've got my old Timex watch that has been through 3 batteries and at least 8 watch bands. Its a little beaten up since it is about 12 years old, but it still works perfectly.

[Guest guest]

wrote: " When it comes to lowest price for services, I sometimes

wonder if this is always a good thing? ... <snip> ... "

Not always but sometimes you can still get excellent service at

incredible prices if you are willing to do some research on the

company or the person offering the services.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... I prefer a product to work well

rather than just look pretty - I'd prefer both ideally - but if I

can get a good product at a reasonable price, I will chose that over

a flashy looking expensive model; plus I can always decorate the

less showy one to my liking :-) I also prefer products to be multi

functional, like sofas with drawers in, buffets that can be used for

extra storage and of course I have to have a bed with room

underneath so that no space is wasted ... <snip> ... "

miminm wrote: " ... <snip> ... I agree there should be an actual

price. Perhaps a limit on mark-up. It used to be 35% now it is

anywhere from that to 1000%. Jewelry is structured that way. The

actual cost is 10% of the price. (gold and diamonds) Pizza is like

that as well. A ten dollar pizza costs about $.70 That is another

reason I don't like jewelry. "

While I can understand the appeal of form and functionality and I

can understand the desire for a reasonable mark-up on items, one

also has to consider the amount of work involved in creating an item.

Technically speaking, music CDs are worthless things ... little

pieces of glass pressed together with chemical coating with data

burned or pressed on or in them. It certainly justifies (said she,

very tongue-in-cheek) illegally downloading music rather than

purchasing those worthless pieces of what-not.

Except one has to take into consideration the amount of time and

effort put into creating and performing and recording the music that

actually goes on that CD in the first place. This is part of the

price that most people never look to find.

Recording engineers, music producers, studio musicians ... all of

them (we're talking professionals not garage sorts or upstarts with

no background whatsoever other than the ability to throw things

together and call it an Indie recording) have invested hours, money

and time into learning their profession. Most recording engineers

and music producers are studio musicians who have moved up to the

next level in their education, having gone back to school to learn

that which is beyond being an excellent musician requires.

Considering that studio musicians are educated musicians, this means

they began taking music lessons as a young child. From that point

onward, they practiced, learned theory, learned practical

application of theory, honed skills and techniques, rehearsed and

more. Throughout their education and their music career, musical

instruments were bought and sound equipment for those instruments

that need sound reinforcement whether for themselves alone or for

their own band.

Six years into my career, I had already invested 14 years into music

as well as $60,000 CDN. I can assure you that musicians such as

myself most assuredly deserve the money earned from the sale of our

CDs and the mark-up is not as unreasonable as most people claim.

Retail shops purchase from wholesalers, and these CDs are marked up

a full 35%. Oh, the horror of it all! Musicians making SO much

money from these CDs.

Well, you might think musicians make a lot but once the retailers,

wholesalers and everyone else in the food chain receives their 'fair

share' of the product, this is what is left for the Artist(s), the

Producer(s), the Composer(s)/Songwriter(s), and the Publisher(s).

1. Royalties to the Publisher: 1.50%

2. Royalties to the Composer: 3.00%

3. Royalties to the Artist: 7.50%

4. Royalties to the Producer: 6.00%

That's not so bad, right? After all, if the average CD sells for

$20.00, that means the composer earns a while $0.60! But wait ...

don't stop reading yet ... there's more. If there are 10 cuts on

the CD, and the composer only wrote ONE song on the CD, s/he gets a

full SIX CENTS! All right, woo hoo, yeehaw! :-D And if the

composer co-wrote that one song, then s/he gets a full THREE CENTS

per CD. Now that's lavish living at its best!

Let's see ... it's really hard to break into the business but let's

say that a composer/songwriter has managed to place ONE song on a

very successful CD and it sells a million copies ... yep, that's

$60,000 in income.

But wait, that $60,000 doesn't belong 100% to the

composer/songwriter. You see, there's all the recording costs

associated with recording the demo, and the associated costs with

shopping the demo around, and the associated costs of doing business

just like any other business would have ... stationery, postage,

office costs, telephone, long distance, fax machines, copying, et al.

That's not all, people. That composer/songwriter has the same basic

expenses as you and I ... rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, food

and sundry items like laundry costs and such.

And how long could it take for a composer/songwriter to actually get

ONE song placed on a CD that moves a million units? It could take a

lifetime.

All right then, let's go after that very rich Artist then who gets a

full 7 1/2 percent per CD sold and who is the Artist on all those

cuts ... that's a lot of money right? That's $75,000 and it's

theirs, all theirs ... once they pay for the recording because the

label advances the money in good faith for the recording as they

will be recouping their money from the sale of those CDs. The

label, of course, recoups ALL their money first before the Artist

sees any money whatsoever. And from that $75,000 the Artist

receives, once the recording is repaid, they still have to pay the

Producer a contract fee above and beyond the percentage the Producer

earns on the CD sales.

Oh the horror of it all ... it isn't as easy as we thought it was

going to be to get filthy rich in the music business.

Well, the record companies are all filthy rich. We all know that

for a fact ... except we don't know that at all. Most labels are

lucky to see 18% coming back to them and that's 18% on all the

successful CDs and 18% on all the unsuccessful CDs. When the numbers

are such that only 1 in 10 CDs released by a label actually earns

back its associated costs and then starts creeping into the profit

side of things, you realize that there are 9 other CDs that the 1

successful CD must bolster up through sales. Without sales, those 9

other acts may find themselves without a label which means no

distribution and no recording. This means that new talent will no

longer have a chance at being heard because labels do NOT have the

money to invest in them as a product.

Ah yes, mark-up is so bad, isn't it ... especially when it looks

like it's at least 1,000% mark-up based on an outsiders

understanding of the associated costs in creating the product in the

first place.

There's more but I would wind up needing an entire forum to discuss

where the money goes when a CD is purchased.

So when I hear people saying that the 'cost' of making something is

ridiculously small compared to the cost of purchasing it (ie. $0.70

to make a $10.00 pizza) perhaps it's time to ask yourself if you're

going to start making your own $0.70 pizza's and stop complaining

about the costs or are you going to take the time to acquaint

yourself with what the true costs are and then make a purchasing

decision based on THAT more accurate information?

And yes, I am notorious for ensuring that I pay the lowest price

possible for items and products, I also take the time to understand

how these products got to market and to refuse to purchase items

that come from countries where the use of child labour is supported.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/3/2006 2:45:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes:

Also is you were to ever read what really went on with the space shuttle program and the space station programs you wouldn't believe it was possible for the corporate and political mismanagement that went on to be "legal" and the lots of technical guys at NASA took the falls for the politicians screwed up... The word F.U.B.A.R. must have been VonBraun's dying thought of what be came of his dream of space exploration...Ender...

The whole space program is a mess. What NASA should have done since at least the 1980s was to get out of the commercial launch sector and devoted itself to exploration and cutting edge technology. In this way, the business of launching satellites into orbit would have been just that, a business. This would have forced the rocket companies to compete and come up with ever better rockets to do the job. This would have had the effect of lowering the price per pound of launches and kept the US competitive. A standard throw away rocket costs about $1,000 per pound of payload whereas the shuttle is $10,000 per pound.

The approach I suggested would have allowed more stuff to be launched more cheaply than depending on the shuttle. Indeed the shuttle could have been reserved for scientific mission only and a primary service and crew transport to any space stations, until something better was developed. Actually, there were supposed to be around 20 shuttles, but only about 6 were built. A full 20 would have meant more launches and might have lowered costs somewhat, but that is doubtful.

Another way they screwed up was not continuing a low production of Saturn 5s, the big rockets that sent us to the moon. Such a huge rocket could have put the international space station up in a few launches, not the 20 plus the space shuttle was to have taken. The station would also have fewer parts making it cheaper and easier to maintain. Also, the big rockets would have meant larger probes could be sent to the other planets. So instead of one Gallelio, a larger one could have been sent, one with more of those probes that were dropped into the planet's atmosphere. That part of the mission was somewhat disappointing because the probe dropped between the cloud bands, basically the least interesting place it could have gone. Had the mission included even one more, the other one might have had better luck. If it had carried 5 or 6, then the odds were terrific for good results.

But it is interesting that the reusable shuttle costs 10 times or more as much as disposable rockets per launch. With disposables, we could do 10 times as much for the same cost.

This is sort of a pet issue of mine. The space program went astray because it was born out of competition with the Russians. It failed to capture public imagination and once the big goals had been reached, there wasn't the push to keep it rolling. Even though it costs very little per year compared to almost all other programs and agencies, it is still targeted for cuts and even abolition.

What I would like to have seen them do is to have one reliable and relatively large station in orbit that would carry out government research, but would also lease space to corporations for special research they might want to conduct. This station, and maybe another, would be serviced primarily by disposable rockets that would sent up supplies. Crews would be transferred by the shuttle, a smaller version of the shuttle designed to carry about 20 tons or cargo rather than the 100 it carries now, with disposable pods acting as back up to at least get the crews off of the stations if something happened to the shuttle.

Another thing I would like to have seen and could be done now, would be to park a shuttle or small, maneuverable station, in orbit. This would be a mobile repair and refueling platform for satellites. Being able to refuel a satellite would increase its utility and life span greatly, reducing costs for companies that use them. The same goes for repairs. This system could also capture dead satellites and kick them down into the atmosphere to burn up over a safe area, rather than leaving them up there as junk. It could with one of the above mentioned stations to swap out crews and supplies and get items needed for certain repairs.

Lastly, we could go back to the moon. Using something like that Saturn 5, we could send one mission per year, maybe two, to the moon. Each mission would stay on the surface for a few weeks rather than just the few days the real missions did. Not only would this gain us information about the moon, it would teach us about manned exploration of other planets and allow us to see the effects of radiation and cosmic rays on astronauts outside the earth's magnetic field. A base could also be built from which things like the original moon lander could hop around the moon and back, which would probably be the most practical route.

None of this is likely to happen though. It will cost money, but nothing like the money most other programs cost year in and year out.

[Guest guest]

My CD's are free, as part of the deal for work. I get to keep what I write about, and never pay shipping. However, I HAVE to write about the whatever. So are books free. tend to pick up my books at sales where I can get say 3 paperbacks for under a dollar. Local library also has cheap bookstore. Or, I found website where people trade books online (sorta) by leaving books for others to find. The site tells people exactly where to look. If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com Heckofreelance proofreadernancygailus@...

Re: Abolishing Corporations

wrote: " ... <snip> ... I prefer a product to work well rather than just look pretty - I'd prefer both ideally - but if I can get a good product at a reasonable price, I will chose that over a flashy looking expensive model; plus I can always decorate the less showy one to my liking :-) I also prefer products to be multi functional, like sofas with drawers in, buffets that can be used for extra storage and of course I have to have a bed with room underneath so that no space is wasted ... <snip> ..."miminm wrote: " ... <snip> ... I agree there should be an actual price. Perhaps a limit on mark-up. It used to be 35% now it is anywhere from that to 1000%. Jewelry is structured that way. The actual cost is 10% of the price. (gold and diamonds) Pizza is like that as well. A ten dollar pizza costs about $.70 That is another reason I don't like jewelry."While I can understand the appeal of

form and functionality and I can understand the desire for a reasonable mark-up on items, one also has to consider the amount of work involved in creating an item.Technically speaking, music CDs are worthless things ... little pieces of glass pressed together with chemical coating with data burned or pressed on or in them. It certainly justifies (said she, very tongue-in-cheek) illegally downloading music rather than purchasing those worthless pieces of what-not.Except one has to take into consideration the amount of time and effort put into creating and performing and recording the music that actually goes on that CD in the first place. This is part of the price that most people never look to find.Recording engineers, music producers, studio musicians ... all of them (we're talking professionals not garage sorts or upstarts with no background whatsoever other than the ability to throw things together

and call it an Indie recording) have invested hours, money and time into learning their profession. Most recording engineers and music producers are studio musicians who have moved up to the next level in their education, having gone back to school to learn that which is beyond being an excellent musician requires.Considering that studio musicians are educated musicians, this means they began taking music lessons as a young child. From that point onward, they practiced, learned theory, learned practical application of theory, honed skills and techniques, rehearsed and more. Throughout their education and their music career, musical instruments were bought and sound equipment for those instruments that need sound reinforcement whether for themselves alone or for their own band.Six years into my career, I had already invested 14 years into music as well as $60,000 CDN. I can assure you that musicians such as

myself most assuredly deserve the money earned from the sale of our CDs and the mark-up is not as unreasonable as most people claim.Retail shops purchase from wholesalers, and these CDs are marked up a full 35%. Oh, the horror of it all! Musicians making SO much money from these CDs.Well, you might think musicians make a lot but once the retailers, wholesalers and everyone else in the food chain receives their 'fair share' of the product, this is what is left for the Artist(s), the Producer(s), the Composer(s)/ Songwriter( s), and the Publisher(s) .1. Royalties to the Publisher: 1.50%2. Royalties to the Composer: 3.00%3. Royalties to the Artist: 7.50%4. Royalties to the Producer: 6.00%That's not so bad, right? After all, if the average CD sells for $20.00, that means the composer earns a while $0.60! But wait ... don't stop reading yet ... there's more. If there are 10 cuts on the CD, and

the composer only wrote ONE song on the CD, s/he gets a full SIX CENTS! All right, woo hoo, yeehaw! :-D And if the composer co-wrote that one song, then s/he gets a full THREE CENTS per CD. Now that's lavish living at its best!Let's see ... it's really hard to break into the business but let's say that a composer/songwriter has managed to place ONE song on a very successful CD and it sells a million copies ... yep, that's $60,000 in income.But wait, that $60,000 doesn't belong 100% to the composer/songwriter . You see, there's all the recording costs associated with recording the demo, and the associated costs with shopping the demo around, and the associated costs of doing business just like any other business would have ... stationery, postage, office costs, telephone, long distance, fax machines, copying, et al.That's not all, people. That composer/songwriter has the same basic expenses as you and I

.... rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, food and sundry items like laundry costs and such.And how long could it take for a composer/songwriter to actually get ONE song placed on a CD that moves a million units? It could take a lifetime.All right then, let's go after that very rich Artist then who gets a full 7 1/2 percent per CD sold and who is the Artist on all those cuts ... that's a lot of money right? That's $75,000 and it's theirs, all theirs ... once they pay for the recording because the label advances the money in good faith for the recording as they will be recouping their money from the sale of those CDs. The label, of course, recoups ALL their money first before the Artist sees any money whatsoever. And from that $75,000 the Artist receives, once the recording is repaid, they still have to pay the Producer a contract fee above and beyond the percentage the Producer earns on the CD

sales.Oh the horror of it all ... it isn't as easy as we thought it was going to be to get filthy rich in the music business.Well, the record companies are all filthy rich. We all know that for a fact ... except we don't know that at all. Most labels are lucky to see 18% coming back to them and that's 18% on all the successful CDs and 18% on all the unsuccessful CDs. When the numbers are such that only 1 in 10 CDs released by a label actually earns back its associated costs and then starts creeping into the profit side of things, you realize that there are 9 other CDs that the 1 successful CD must bolster up through sales. Without sales, those 9 other acts may find themselves without a label which means no distribution and no recording. This means that new talent will no longer have a chance at being heard because labels do NOT have the money to invest in them as a product.Ah yes, mark-up is so bad,

isn't it ... especially when it looks like it's at least 1,000% mark-up based on an outsiders understanding of the associated costs in creating the product in the first place. There's more but I would wind up needing an entire forum to discuss where the money goes when a CD is purchased.So when I hear people saying that the 'cost' of making something is ridiculously small compared to the cost of purchasing it (ie. $0.70 to make a $10.00 pizza) perhaps it's time to ask yourself if you're going to start making your own $0.70 pizza's and stop complaining about the costs or are you going to take the time to acquaint yourself with what the true costs are and then make a purchasing decision based on THAT more accurate information?And yes, I am notorious for ensuring that I pay the lowest price possible for items and products, I also take the time to understand how these products got to market and to refuse

to purchase items that come from countries where the use of child labour is supported.Raven

[Guest guest]

Having been involved in the Government's contracting process I know

the " lowest bidder doesn't always winner and neither does the best

solution to a problem...

The contracting laws and the bean counters that control the process

actually work against the goal of the government getting the best

product at the lowest cost... as a COTR, technical guy the

understands what is being bought I frequently begged the bean counter

to not accept the bids from one or another company because I could

see they were being deceptive in their Proposal and not going to

delivery what they were being asked to provide... but because the

bean counter thinks he/she is " saving a buck " over a company that

submitted and honest bid that will delivery want was requested... I

got stuck trying the make the trash do things it wouldn't do or not

to spend more money to adapt the garbage contracts bought to do what

the proposal that they rejected offered in the first place...

Also is you were to ever read what really went on with the space

shuttle program and the space station programs you wouldn't believe

it was possible for the corporate and political mismanagement that

went on to be " legal " and the lots of technical guys at NASA took the

falls for the politicians screwed up... The word F.U.B.A.R. must have

been VonBraun's dying thought of what be came of his dream of space

exploration...

Ender...

At 01:21 PM 11/3/2006, you wrote:

>In a message dated 11/3/2006 3:32:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>julie.stevenson16@... writes:

>When it comes to lowest price for services, I sometimes wonder if

>this is always a good thing?

>

>It isn't.

>

>The Apollo capsules were built by the lowest bidder and as a result,

>three astronauts were burned alive in a ship that was found to have

>over 600 hundred design defects.

>

>The college I attended bought the low bid air-conditioning system.

>It didn't keep the building either cool or warm (depending on the

>time of year) and it stank. So they had to buy a somewhat higher

>priced unit to replace it. So, by low balling they incurred the cost

>of the first system, removal of the first system and the costs of

>the new one. Going with the slightly higher bid in the first place

>would have saved a lot of trouble and money.

>

>There was a story once about a homeless woman in New York that wore

>a Rolex watch. She was asked why she wore such an expensive watch

>and she said because it was cheaper to buy this watch that would

>last and keep the time than to buy a several cheap watches that

>wouldn't. I've had these round with my mother. She will often by a

>cheap version of something that wears out quickly and then she has

>to buy replacements. She has never figured out that it is often

>better to pay a little more up front for that extra quality for an

>item that will work and last.

>

>Then again, I've got my old Timex watch that has been through 3

>batteries and at least 8 watch bands. Its a little beaten up since

>it is about 12 years old, but it still works perfectly.

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/3/2006 9:51:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Personally, I am indifferent as to whether the space program lives or dies, but I do believe that it could operate concurrent with existing government programs if ALL government programs would be made more efficient and cost effective. There will need to be a re-vamp across the board in government anyway. We have a huge deficit, social programs operating in the red, and a bunch of citizens who are borrowed to the hilt and cannot afford to pay higher taxes for this reason.

The space program was, for a time, something for the young people to aspire to. Sure they might never be astronauts or have any part of the space program, but by studying in the sciences they could indirectly aid the program. It could also be a source of national pride, but humans are still so animalistic that the only things that approach national pride levels are sports. Most people care more about what team of prima donnas beats which other like team than anything of actual merit.

The budget for the space program could be more than tripled from waste in the Social Security program. Add in fraud and no telling how high it would go. The problem there is that government agencies have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to use standard business accounting practices. My guess is it would be too hard for them to cover up how much they waste through mismanagement.

Congress bears a lot of the blame too. They know full well than Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable and need to be fixed, but they won't touch it because of the potential political backlash from the organized senior lobby. The Republicans have only made this worse with the Drug Program and others that have taken the debt at 2030 from around about $9 trillion to over $40 trillion. Now the Democrats are saying if they retake power they are going to expand even those programs which will shoot that debt up even more.

They are getting away with this because they are backdating the costs. It will be years to decades before the costs start to kick in. By that time, the politicians will be out of office and maybe even dead. Even if they were alive, Americans have such a short attention span that they will only blame the current president and maybe Congress.

The other problem is that Congress uses cash accounting rather than standard accounting. In cash accounting, if you take a loan of say $10,000, you are ahead by $10,000. In regular accounting, if you take that $10,000 loan you are behind because the $10K gain is balanced by the 10K debt and you are in the hole based on the interest you will be paying on the debt. Because Congress only uses cash accounting, it can run any number of gimmicks so that it never appears to be in debt. Thus they can delude the public and themselves.

However, Social Security and Medicare have been required to take certain steps. I don't recall the details, but they are required to show how much in debt they will be in at given time intervals. This is a good first step because people will begin to see just how bad things are, and the more people that figure this out, the more pressure will be brought on the politicians to do something about it.

I still think that the best thing to do would be to create a rock solid spending schedule. The real priorities of government (military, Coast Guard, courts and such) would have fixed percentages of the budget and would be paid out first. Next would be payments on debt and these would be payments equal to 4 times minimum the current interest due. After that, all the social programs and other things could be paid for. The pols could go ahead and spend all they wanted on those programs, but the debt payments would eventually eat it all up, and since the real government priorities are fixed, the public would know that any tax increases the pols want would be for social programs and things that primarily benefit the politicians and so there would be a lot of resistance to raising taxes.

As for the Great Depression, the government had as much to do with prolonging it as ending it. Most of the initial programs put in place by FDR at the advice of Kaynes (an alcoholic socialist and those being his finer qualities) hurt the economy far more than helped. As a result, FDR later dropped them and that is when the economy began to turn around. While the military spending helped, we would have come out of the Depression anyway.