Re: Abolishing Corporations

[Guest guest]

It's because people are social and base their self-worth on whether

or not they fit in. When you cause them to question the illusion,

they realize they are believing a lie. At the same time they are

reluctant to change because doing so means that they will be seen as

anti-social. And so this is how society continues to waste its

monies on things related to socializing when it could be advancing

itself via common sense economics, both in the family unit and in

the business world.

Folks whine about rich people being rich, and they also pick on rich

folks for being eccentric. Yet I am betting that many ofthese so

called eccentrics are rich because they managed to see through the

illusions of a consumer driven society and save and invest their

money in stocks, bonds, or business ventures.

If people hate rich folks, they ought to try hating themselves

first, because chances are they bought the products these rich folks

sold, which means they bought into the illusion.

Tom

Administrator

" 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. "

[Guest guest]

My college had its clock tower rebricked...and ten years later,

after the mortar began falling out, they had it reclad in limestone.

It was a state college.

The money for the initial project came from the state and went to

the lowest bidder.

The money for the re-do also came from the state, and went to the

most qualified contractor who, in his case, was NOT the lowest

bidder.

The limestone facade is still holding up 15 years later.

Tom

Administrator

" 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. "

[Guest guest]

My college had its clock tower rebricked...and ten years later,

after the mortar began falling out, they had it reclad in limestone.

It was a state college.

The money for the initial project came from the state and went to

the lowest bidder.

The money for the re-do also came from the state, and went to the

most qualified contractor who, in his case, was NOT the lowest

bidder.

The limestone facade is still holding up 15 years later.

Tom

Administrator

" 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. "

[Guest guest]

" 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? "

I took a philosophy class that examined logic, and they used

commercials to show faulty argumentation on the part of advertisers

and faulty reasoning that ensued on the part of the potential

purchasers.

You have pointed out ONE fault in that commercial, but you missed

the other one. The IMPLICATION is that if a car can operate well in

atypical illegal conditions, that it will perform well under legal,

typical conditions.

People think to themselves " I know I won't use my Jeep for

mountaineering, but it's good to know that if my Jeep can climb

mountains, it can certainly get me to and from work every day and

over snowdrifts if I need it to. "

The problem is that logically, there is no basis for this inference

on the part of the potential purchaser. Nowehere in the commercial

did it say how the vehicle would perform under typical road

conditions, or in a snowdrift either for that matter.

There was a good Calvin and Hobbes cartoon about this idea. Calvin

sees a propeller Beanie advertsied on a cereal box and eats zillions

of boxes of cereal to get it. The beanie arrives (some assembly

required - batteries not included) and guess what? Once assembled,

and worn, the propeller spins...but...he can't fly!

Calvin is furious. Yet he has no reason to be, because even though

the box showed (if I remember correctly) a kid wearing this beanie

against a cloudy backdrop, nowhere ON the box did it say that the

beanie would actually make you be able to fly.

It was Calvin that was at fault...not the product he " bought. "

Caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware.)

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" 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. "

Unless some honest politicians get into office, you will not see the

space program die any time soon. Let's say they DID end the program.

The monies assigned to the space program would then be disbursed

elsewhere - probably to a multitude of existing programs, and it's a

good bet that these programs would not see any noticable improvement

in performance or efficiency despite the influx of money.

The result would be a public whining even more about government

ineptitude, and you'd also have space program fans clamoring really

hard to re-institute the space program.

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.

Someone has got to go through each and every government program in the

US, assess its worth, decide whether or not to sustain or ax each

program, and make the ones that survive cost-effective. Otherwise this

country will soon see a fiscal crisis that will impact us all as badly

as the Great Depression did...except the government won't be able to

bail us out.

Of course, maybe China would take advantage of our weakness, in which

case the ensuing war economy would bail us out like WWII did after the

Depression.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I had meant things aren't fair trade. Effort isn't rewarded. Think

about FOOTBALL. yes they risk their bodies, but it is a well paid

game. Actors are paid for looking good. I believe we need

entertainment and usually I never complain about music prices it is

when the mark-up is unwarranted. do jewelry makers get royalties?

The cost of clothing even designer vs others. Usually the quality of

clothing (the actual fabric is terrible) I don't buy things based on

branding. Quality is something I am willing to pay for. In food in

music and in clothing that means less, stuff or searching for a sale.

what I am saying is our systems of what is of value is skewed.

People downgrade as you say talent and play up esthetics's.