Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 12:35:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Well, the use of the conditional was meant to make it sound warm and fuzzy,

> Maybe if I had one of those hats I wouldn't get quite as frustrated...

Don't worry, that's how I took it... maybe you can submit your " need request "

to the economic planning comittee for one of those hats ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 12:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> For one thing, it causes healthy capitalistic societies to attack and/or

> undermine the country attempting it.

I think there's some truth to that, but if you look at how the incentives

worked in the Soviet Union, or look at the destiny of your average commune that

existed undisturbed in a free society, you tend to get the same result.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 12:48:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> If you KNOW that something will not work, and that human misery will be the

> result, then it is unethical to pursue that goal. However, if you believe

> that something WILL work, despite it not working in the past for various

> reasons, then you are not being unethical. Essentially what you are saying

> is that those who disagree strongly with your political views are

> pathological to some degree, because you will claim that these opposing

> views are not practical, and are therefore unethical and pathological in

> their application.

I think you can be an honest and genuine purpose with pathological goals, if

you have some sort of logical error.

What *I* was trying to say is that the idea is pathogenic-- i.e. that it

produces a disease state.

It's noble in some sense, if you can put it to practical use, but I think it

would only work with some sort of familial or religious bind and individuals

with a very strong committment. I also think it would only work for people who

willing sacrifice material pursuits. So, a monastery, or an agrarian

commune, or something, might work. But if you are trying to be economically

productive, the way the incentives play out, it's going to lead to nothing but

fighting, fear, and deranged incentives to produce least and leech the most.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 12:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> In some ways, all of civilization up until now can be viewed as somewhat of

> a disaster...capitalism can be viewed as a disaster. I live in San

> Francisco, and when I see all of the people living on the street, more and

> more each day, and the way the world is going (with the U.S. in a leadership

> position) in general, I can conclude (quite reasonably) I think, that

> capitalism is a disaster.

But those problems, I would argue, are primarily caused by interferences in

the market. Excessive and unpredictable business codes, rent control, etc, can

contribute to housing shortage. While MA has a decent min wage and isn't one

of the highest unemployment rates, in general, the states with the highest

min wages have the worst unemployment rates, like Washington.

But probably the absolute worst, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is

designed to limit growth to a " stable " rate, and to keep a minimum level of

unemployment. It's fundamentally anti-worker-- if you watch the Greenspan

hearings

on C-SPAN, they talk about " wage costs, " as if a wage is a cost, not a

benefit. To whom? The employer; obviously to the worker the wage isn't a cost.

The effect of the policy is to undermine the bargaining power of workers by

keeping enough unemployment to maintain a turnover. If the Fed would butt out,

all able workers could actually work, growth would be much higher, and the

bargaining power of workers under full employment would increase a *lot*.

So, it could be said, capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:34 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/15/04 3:27:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> heidis@... writes:

>

>> I was referring to the concept of " every man gets the best deal he can "

>> concept that goes through this whole thread.

>

> How is that narcissitic? Is there something narcissistic about doing a good

> job? About maximizing your potential? About using the brain you were lucky

> enough to have been given?

>

If we define getting the 'best deal' as doing the best job, then that is

indeed maximizing your potential. So, your conclusion is definitional, or

circular, depending on my mood.

> From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the

> value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value.

But, you seem to be defining the value that one gets as the value that

he/she gives. Does Bill Gates give as much as he gets?

>

> The alternative is a " from each according to his ability, to each according

> to his need " philosophy. It sounds nice and looks nice on paper, but it is a

> fundamentally pathological thought.

I think that it is you who is fundamentally pathological, if anyone is here.

> It's led to disaster every time it's been

> tried-- just look at how economic productivity was destroyed in Soviet Russia,

> how people sank into alcoholism and lethargy.

So, it was that concept that led to 'alcoholism and lethargy'? LOL! Perhaps

Russia wasn't a true communistic state, perhaps human beings aren't quite

ready for it - one can have various interpretations. But to conclude that a

concept that is truly humanitarian, whether workable or not, now or ever, is

PATHOLOGICAL, is ridiculous, and shows that you are the ideologue (not so

vague reference to the Chomsky debate awhile back).

>It's a fundamental

> contradiction of human nature, and can only work when people have very strong

> revolutionary or religious committments (monastaries were the only

> economically

> productive collective in USSR).

>

You are one of the last people that I would want defining human nature for

me.

> What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others

> who also do a good job?

I don't think that was what you were saying above. What you are saying here

does not contradict 'to each according..' etc, does it?

>

> Government also creates

>> a certain sense of direction (leadership?) that moves society in

>> one direction or another, for better or worse.

>

> Your qualification, " for better or worse, " is important here.

>

> The idea that government is needed for a sense of direction (Rockefeller was

> able to provide a sense of direction to the chatoic oil industry) is false.

Actually, I don't think that the above quote logically implies that without

it there is NO sense of direction. But you're the intellectual here.

>

>> But also in CompSci -- some level of control in ANY system has

>> to be centralized, and some decentralized. The human body

>> is a great case in point ... it IS centralized, in the brain, but the

>> brain is rather compartmentalized itself.

>

> Actually, the fact that a brain represents some sort of centralization is

> proof of the ego, of the existence of the individual. It is proof that humans

> are not a random collection of elements, and there is a distinct definition to

> the self.

>

Can you say that in English, please?

Can't read any more...

[Guest guest]

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:36:05 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Heidi-

>

>> If it is the one to , he answered it nicely. Actually I enjoy reading his

>> posts more than I do writing mine.

>

> LOL and thanks! I wish I enjoyed writing them, but while these kinds of

> discussions always start out enjoyable enough, they seem to inevitably

> become more and more and more and more and more and more and more frustrating.

>

I think that you are understating the case.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " wtsdv " <liberty@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 03:45:37 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: money and health

>

>

> --- In , Gene Schwartz

> <implode7@p...> wrote to Masterjohn:

>>

>> I think that it is you who is fundamentally pathological,

>> if anyone is here.

>

> Just curious, but why do you consider fundamentally

> pathological? I've never got any such impression of him

> even when I was arguing with him myself.

>

Sorry, I actually did mean to qualify that with the conditional...I found

found his statement that, factually, that quote was pathological, quite

offensive. But, it was meant more as rhetorical device that that I actually

believe that is pathelogical. But, I did mean to say that if that

quote is pathological, then is.

>> But to conclude that a concept that is truly humanitarian,

>> whether workable or not, now or ever, is PATHOLOGICAL, is

>> ridiculous, and shows that you are the ideologue (not so

>> vague reference to the Chomsky debate awhile back).

>

> I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while

> admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of

> an ideological fixation than the converse.

Really? How exactly does that work?

> Those advocating

> a low-fat high-carb diet claim humanitarian goals in doing so.

> Is that diet thereby any less harmful?

So, your reasoning seems to be, that because some people claim that their

ideas are humanitarian, despite the fact that they might be, in fact,

harmful, no idea that may be impractical can be humanitarian? I don't follow

the logic.

There is also a difference between your example and the Marx quote. The Marx

quote is humanitarian in ideology (at least in my view) because it views all

people as fundamentally equally deserving of getting what they need, and all

people as equally responsible to contribute effort to the welfare of all.

There is nothing ideologically humanitarian about the low fat, high carb

diet. You are simply emphasizing that those who believe that the diet is a

healthy one ae mistaken.

>

>> You are one of the last people that I would want defining

>> human nature for me.

>

> Why do you hate so much?

>

Hate? Whoa - no, I don't hate by a long shot. But I do think he's a

pompous know it all, who distorts logic and the facts, eventually winning

his arguments by sheer endurance. I also find his views rather offensive.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I think that it is you who is fundamentally pathological, if anyone is here.

I'm as frustrated by this discussion as anyone (which is one reason I keep

trying to narrow the scope) but <putting my list-owner hat on> we really

can't have personal attacks here. No name-calling, no psychoanalyzing, etc.

-

[Guest guest]

and everyone else-

>Just curious, but why do you consider fundamentally

>pathological? I've never got any such impression of him

>even when I was arguing with him myself.

I (and the people I eventually appoint as moderators) can't be on the list

every second of every day, so I would appreciate it if, when you see a

personal attack, you don't seek to extend the attack into a discussion.

If someone says " Herbert's a #$ & @! " , please don't ask " Why do you think

Herbert's a #$ & @? " It's just going to result in more rancor. Obviously

suggesting that might be pathological is not quite the same thing,

but it's still fundamentally a personal attack, and it's simply not

allowed. Since discussing the attack is generally just going to make

things worse, I'd really rather people not do it.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

I value your presence on the list, but I do notice that reliably gets

under your skin. Please don't let your irritation at him spur you into

violating list rules and engaging in personal attacks. Because I expect

nobody's said anything to you in the past, consider this your first warning

-- and a friendly one at that -- but don't expect that you can just keep on

making personal attacks indefinitely without consequence. I can't allow

that, or sooner or later this excellent list will go to hell.

>I do think he's a

>pompous know it all, who distorts logic and the facts, eventually winning

>his arguments by sheer endurance.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>In one case, each interested agent (which might consist of more than one

>person) is pursuing its own interest; in the other, one supposedly

>disinterested

>agent is doing the planning for all interested parties.

Your analysis only holds for single-product and/or single-service corporations.

When a corporate conglomerate owns, say, a pharmaceutical company and a

media company, the exact same conflict emerges, and that's just a

particularly dramatic example.

>And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests, you get

>economic growth and, within reason, a moral culture, whereas in the centrally

>planned economy you get economic and moral disaster.

The entire matter of a centrally-planned economy is a straw man you've just

introduced into the argument.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:18:27 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/15/04 10:22:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

> But to conclude that a

>> concept that is truly humanitarian, whether workable or not, now or ever,

>> is

>> PATHOLOGICAL, is ridiculous, and shows that you are the ideologue (not so

>> vague reference to the Chomsky debate awhile back).

>

> Perhaps I should have said pathogenic. Where it's introduced, it produces

> disaster.

>

In some ways, all of civilization up until now can be viewed as somewhat of

a disaster...capitalism can be viewed as a disaster. I live in San

Francisco, and when I see all of the people living on the street, more and

more each day, and the way the world is going (with the U.S. in a leadership

position) in general, I can conclude (quite reasonably) I think, that

capitalism is a disaster.

Experieents in socialism that might have succeeded rather well did fail, but

they failed (e.g. Nicaragua) due to the enormous expenditures and effort of

a capitalistic country, so I'm not quite sure how I can view the experiment

as a disaster.

Ultimately, I think that humankind will have to live by a humanitarian model

(and capitalism is NOT one) in order to survive. So, whether communism in

any form will ever succeed, or some other attempt at a more humanistic

society will ever succeed is rather an important issue, I think. That most,

or all, attempts so far have been corrupt really says nothing about whether

it can ever succeed. Or at least, not much.

> The views I'm expressing in this thread ARE ideological. So no, if I were

> you, or another reader, I wouldn't take them at face value.

>

I think that 'ideologue' is generally used in a context where it is implied

that the ideologue distorts his results to fit his ideology, not simply that

he/she is expressing ideas.

>>> What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with

>> others

>>> who also do a good job?

>>

>> I don't think that was what you were saying above. What you are saying here

>> does not contradict 'to each according..' etc, does it?

>

> It is, because in a free exchange, what you get is not what you " need, " it's

> what others are willing to give you.

>

Your statement above does not in itself imply that there is an equal

exchange in terms of some capitalistically established value. Obviously that

is what you meant, but one way that you are able to shift your point of view

so readily is that you gradually change what you are actually saying, while

assuming that everyone understands your context. After awhile, the context

is lost, and you are saying something else, while claiming consistency.

> Like I said, " from each according to ability, to each according to need " DOES

> look good on paper. What's pathological is the way it works in society.

I just don't see how you get 'pathological'.

>The

> incentives the system creates is for everyone to be the least able, so they

> don't have to produce as much, or out of fear that they will be required to do

> more work to service others' " needs, " and to engage in nasty debates about who

> needs what. If it's top-down, it's tyrannical, and still gives the incentive

> to be the least able, rather than the most able.

And, as you see it, it MUST work this way, according to some deep-seated

principles of human nature, which can never change. And so, even millions of

years from now, capitalism is the only possible economic system. There is no

possibility that in a non-tyranical, truly democratic society, a

non-capitalistic system can work. You KNOW this.

>

> So no, it isn't a fundamentally evil thought, but in practice, it has

> pathological results-- it's pathogenic.

For one thing, it causes healthy capitalistic societies to attack and/or

undermine the country attempting it.

[Guest guest]

> From: Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:43:25 -0800

> < >

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Sorry, I actually did mean to qualify that with the conditional...I found

> found his statement that, factually, that quote was pathological, quite

> offensive. But, it was meant more as rhetorical device that that I actually

> believe that is pathelogical. But, I did mean to say that if that

> quote is pathological, then is.

>

LOL! I think i was typing too fast or something. That's pretty incoherent...

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:59:02 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> I think that it is you who is fundamentally pathological, if anyone is here.

>

> I'm as frustrated by this discussion as anyone (which is one reason I keep

> trying to narrow the scope) but <putting my list-owner hat on> we really

> can't have personal attacks here. No name-calling, no psychoanalyzing, etc.

>

Well, the use of the conditional was meant to make it sound warm and fuzzy,

Maybe if I had one of those hats I wouldn't get quite as frustrated...

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:13:11 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/15/04 11:31:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>>> I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while

>>> admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of

>>> an ideological fixation than the converse.

>>

>> Really? How exactly does that work?

>

> When the US wanted to obliterate Kosovo for fun, or " credibility " or

> whatever, and all the pundits were clamoring " We can't just stand idly by and

> do

> nothing! " , morally indignant at the supposed crimes of the Serbs, cool-headed

> fellows like Chomsky pointed out that one should observe Hippocrates' rule

> " First,

> do no harm. "

>

And, he was right. And there was nothing humanitarian at all in our

involvement in Kosovo, though the stated reasons for the military action

were (the usual lies). However, 'each according to his need..' is not

disingenuous. So, as yet, I'm not sure why you are comparing them.

> Of course it's moral to desire the welfare of all. But if your method is not

> practical, and leads to disaster despite your intentions, it is fundamentally

> imoral and pathological to continue to deny that reality and pursue the

> impractical cause.

If you KNOW that something will not work, and that human misery will be the

result, then it is unethical to pursue that goal. However, if you believe

that something WILL work, despite it not working in the past for various

reasons, then you are not being unethical. Essentially what you are saying

is that those who disagree strongly with your political views are

pathological to some degree, because you will claim that these opposing

views are not practical, and are therefore unethical and pathological in

their application.

> Just like the humanitarian pretext of saving refugees and

> all

> the moral indignation in the world won't change the fact that the bombing

> caused increased retribution, rather than solving the problem.

Right - the difference between pretext and sincerity, which you seem to

think is trivial.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I agree, and said, that influence is a form of power. But it is a

>qualitatively different form than power:

Your analysis simply doesn't hold, because most forms of what you call

power are really just influence by your own measure, since they don't have

a 100% success rate, and because what you call " influence " also comes in

many forms. Yes, there are many forms of power, but the distinction you

make isn't an accurate one.

>-- A person is subjected to a multiplicity of influences, whereas only one

>mugger can exercise force against someone at a given time

So what if there are multiple influences? That means they have no

power? And you're comparing a general statement to a specific example, and

the specific example isn't even true. Multiple criminals can either

cooperate or compete over individual victims -- and can attack multiple

victims simultaneously and/or sequentially. How is that relevant to anything?

>-- A person can exercise choice between influences, believe in a combination

>thereof, or choose to ignore influences, without suffering physical

>consequences for any option, while a mugging victim has only the choice of

>surrender or

>physical harm

You're assuming pure volition in choosing between influences, but there's

no such thing as what you think of as pure volition. Furthermore, a

mugging victim can also choose self-defense, and can sometimes come out on top.

Your very analogy, though -- comparing the government to a mugger -- is

offensive and specious. The police are, I'd presume you'd agree, a

necessary element of government. Aside from the fact that, yes, the police

can and do misbehave, do you really equate the necessary function of

policing to mugging?

>-- A person must make an initial choice to read a book, turn the tv on, read

>an article, or engage in discussion, whereas a person exercises no choice in

>encountering a mugger

And at what age do these choices begin to be made? People are immersed in

influences from the very germination of their awareness.

>-- Influence can have both positive and negative effects and can be wielded

>with both good intentions and malice, whereas a mugger's only purpose is crime

I'm really beginning to question your intentions in this discussion, Chris.

You're objecting to the coercive power of government by equating government

to a mugger, and here, your stand-in for government, your exemplar -- or

even your avatar -- of that power is a mugger. IOW, you're suggesting that

morally and practically, all coercion and all government is equivalent to a

mugging.

Now if you want to go off that deep end, fine, but I have a hard time

believing that you actually buy that kind of nonsense.

>There is nothing inherently immoral

>about persuasion,

You're making the very same mistake again, conflating persuasion with

influence. Persuasion is just one form of influence, and I assume you'd

condemn persuasion that relies on deception at that.

>whereas any reasonable morality finds the initiation of

>violence inherently immoral (whether based on a concept of " rights " or social

>usefulness).

Not so.

Suppose Fred is attacking Joanne. I come along and attack Fred to save

Joanne. Fred and I both initiated violence.

Or if you don't like that, suppose Fred is stealing Joanne's

baby. Kidnapping is not, in and of itself, violence. Joanne attacks Fred

to save her baby.

>That's true, it is a form of power. However, the power you are exerting is

>subject to the evaluation and judgment of the individual you are exerting it

>on, wheras the power a force-wielder exerts is subject only to the competence

>with which he wields it.

Hardly. First, no individual can evaluate and judge all information. A

lot of it is unavoidably going to have to be taken on trust -- and the

government is far from the only repository of trust. Second, the power a

force-wielder exerts is subject not only to his own competence in wielding

it (e.g. strength and martial arts ability) but to the force his would-be

victims can bring to bear (e.g. countervailing force or lawsuits) AND to

the degree said would-be victims are willing to risk or even sacrifice

their health and lives. The only time at which the government's power is

genuinely near absolute is when it's about to execute someone on death row.

>Furthermore, competing sources of influence prevent

>any given source of influence from having a decisive effect.

More nonsense, I'm afraid. By the very nature of competition, some parties

often win.

>That mere quantitative value is rather unimportant

>compared to the qualitative value of exercising an influence that competes

>for the

>favorable judgment of the target, rather than a force that can modify the

>behavior well being of the target without regard to the judgment of said

>target.

So then we're back to you approving of fraud.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Economics deals with all human behavior.

Only those who believe that human nature and behavior are so simplistic

that they can and should be fully encapsulated in a very simple economic

philosophy seem to believe this. In fact, that's such a ludicrous

statement that I don't even know where to begin in debunking it -- or

whether it's even possible to explain to someone who believe's it's so why

it's not.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Well, the use of the conditional was meant to make it sound warm and fuzzy,

>Maybe if I had one of those hats I wouldn't get quite as frustrated...

" Herbert may be a piece of #@( " is no less a personal attack than " Herbert

is a piece of #@( " . I don't mean to equate that kind of statement with

yours, just to demonstrate that it was still a personal attack and thus

against the rules of the list.

As to the hats... suffice it to say that while I'm very pleased to have

assumed ownership of the list, and I've been a sysop on various discussion

boards over the years, the job brings more frustration than pleasure. You

have to reprimand people you don't want to reprimand, and you have to be

extra-careful in monitoring your own rhetoric and behavior. The kind of

people who vent via their managerial powers shouldn't have those powers --

and I don't mean to imply you would, just that having those powers doesn't

relieve frustration the way you might think they would.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I agree that that is a potential problem, but it doesn't comapre to a central

>economy. I'd raised the issue of a central economy, and you responded by

>saying I had a double standard in my opposition to centralization. So all

>that's

>relevant here is comparing the dynamic to centrally planned economy, and ther

>e is no comparison.

First, I never posited a centrally planned economy. That remains a straw

man argument.

Second, your opposition to the idea of _any_ central management at all

(which I did posit) relied on single-product and/or single-service

companies in which the potential for conflict is by nature precluded. My

counter-example included a mere two products and/or services, but if you

examine the makeup of the large multinationals, they are in fact bigger and

more diverse than some COUNTRIES, and there is endless opportunity for

conflict of interest.

In fact, whereas in a properly-functioning democracy competing influences

are visible and subject to checks and balances, in a company with internal

conflicts of interest, value decisions are hidden from view and the results

are presented as objective, as with our media, so by that standard, we

should prefer government. (Note that this is not an endorsement of a

communism- or socialism-style centrally planned economy.)

>But it isn't

>a straw man at all; it was a demonstrative device, to show why the dynamics

>between a nervous system and a society are entirely different and why it

>was not

>a valid analogy.

Fine, but as such it fails miserably. A society shares many traits with an

organism (and in fact in some but not all ways IS an organism) whereas your

whole conflict objection exclusively covers simplified theoretical

constructs -- and in fact conflicts occur within organisms as well as

between them, as when different organs and systems compete for scarce

nutrients.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>But those problems, I would argue, are primarily caused by interferences in

>the market. Excessive and unpredictable business codes, rent control,

>etc, can

>contribute to housing shortage.

Your arguments have been filled with mistaken conflations and unjustified

assumptions, including the assumption that correlation means causation.

Here, you're assuming that people are homeless because of a housing

shortage. Not necessarily so. If homeless people had the means to secure

housing somewhere else but not in a particularly expensive locale, most of

them would move.

>While MA has a decent min wage and isn't one

>of the highest unemployment rates, in general, the states with the highest

>min wages have the worst unemployment rates, like Washington.

And here's another unjustified assumption. Within a given economic

ecosystem, that tendency will likely hold true. But which factor do you

think affects overall unemployment rates more, local minimum wages or the

mass relocation of jobs to foreign countries?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>But those problems, I would argue, are primarily caused by interferences in

>the market. Excessive and unpredictable business codes, rent control,

>etc, can

>contribute to housing shortage.

I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate

businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations,

but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even

though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs,

reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman

objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are

other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much

smaller) reduction in his profits.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> And here's another unjustified assumption. Within a given economic

> ecosystem, that tendency will likely hold true. But which factor do

> you think affects overall unemployment rates more, local minimum

> wages or the mass relocation of jobs to foreign countries?

I don't have time to address this again right now, but the Ludwig von

Mises Institute recently ran a pretty good article by Bob on the

topic of international trade in the context of increased capital

mobility:

http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1416

[Guest guest]

>. You

>have to reprimand people you don't want to reprimand, and you have to be

>extra-careful in monitoring your own rhetoric and behavior. The kind of

>people who vent via their managerial powers shouldn't have those powers --

>and I don't mean to imply you would, just that having those powers doesn't

>relieve frustration the way you might think they would.

:

OK, I have a solution for you. Create another account -- call

it " Black Bart " or something. Use THAT account to be the meanest,

nastiest dictator you can be, for the purpose of regulating.

Then " " can be the nice rational guy he always has been.

As new moderators come on, they can be Black Bart. No

one will know who Black Bart REALLY is.

They did that at IBM for the " Debuggers " . Seems no one wanted

to present lists of " errors " to the programmers, so they

dressed up in black robes and called themselves the " death

squad " or some such. Nothing like an extra persona to

make life easier.

Heidi

(who is thinking up an extra persona or two).

[Guest guest]

>I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

>another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate

>businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

>have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations,

>but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even

>though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs,

>reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman

>objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are

>other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much

>smaller) reduction in his profits.

>

>-

Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major earthquakes, I'm

always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

That's a very funny and very tempting idea, but as a real policy proposal I

object to it for two reasons: it's dishonest, and I strongly believe in

openness and honesty in public systems, and second, whether it's " Black

Bart " or me (or other moderators) being mean and nasty and dictatorial, the

result is still that the list (or forum, or community, or whatever) is

being run by a mean, nasty dictator, which I think is a very bad

idea. Still, you gave me a good laugh -- thanks!

>OK, I have a solution for you. Create another account -- call

>it " Black Bart " or something. Use THAT account to be the meanest,

>nastiest dictator you can be, for the purpose of regulating.

>Then " " can be the nice rational guy he always has been.

>As new moderators come on, they can be Black Bart. No

>one will know who Black Bart REALLY is.

-