Re: Anti-cycling House bill

[Laura Bush]

(Roly Poly Man) wrote in
om:
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html

> "July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
> under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
> back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
> American.

What do you expect when the White House is staffed by former oil company
executives.

[Scott Munro]

On 23 Jul 2003 18:50:28 -0700, (Roly Poly Man)
wrote:

>Have any of you seen this... or is this just a bill that keeps
>coming up annually and is old news?
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
>
>Short abstract:
>
>"July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
>under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
>back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
>American. That goes for you, too, you traffic-hazard pedestrians.
>Fresh out of subcommittee, a new congressional transportation
>appropriations bill will entirely eliminate some $600 million worth of
>annual federal funding for bike paths, walkways and other such
>transportation niceties in fiscal year 2004."

A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.

B) Why should there be a constant level of funding? Once a bike path
is built, it stays built, and only needs a small amount of
maintenance. If funding does not decrease eventually, then there is
serious corruption going on somewhere.

C) Why not use the public roadways instead of insisting on separate
facilities? Then the government (state and local, of course) could
spend the finite monies they gouge out of taxpayers on fixing the
roads which we all use.

--
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes--our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit
to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be
walking around."
-- G.K. Chesterton

[GRL]

Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?


--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Laura Bush" > wrote in message
...
> (Roly Poly Man) wrote in
> om:
> > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
>
> > "July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
> > under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
> > back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
> > American.
>
> What do you expect when the White House is staffed by former oil company
> executives.

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:46:53 +0000, GRL wrote:

> Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?

Quite a bit. Don't be misled into thinking that the only thing that pays
for roads ("road use" taxes are different, paid by truck licensing and not
by your average motorist) is gasoline tax. Only a small amount of the
cost of the roadway and maintenance comes from gasoline taxes, the
majority comes from local, state, and federal taxes which cyclists do, in
fact, pay. Turnpikes tend to be funded by real road use taxes, that is,
tolls, but those roads are specifically closed to cyclists, so do not
enter into the discussion.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

[James H.]

I advocate more bike lanes on new and existing roads.



"Roly Poly Man" > wrote in message
om...
> Have any of you seen this... or is this just a bill that keeps
> coming up annually and is old news?
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/07/22/bike_paths/index_np.html
>
> Short abstract:
>
> "July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
> under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
> back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
> American. That goes for you, too, you traffic-hazard pedestrians.
> Fresh out of subcommittee, a new congressional transportation
> appropriations bill will entirely eliminate some $600 million worth of
> annual federal funding for bike paths, walkways and other such
> transportation niceties in fiscal year 2004."

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:02:32 -0400,
>, "James H."
> wrote:

>I advocate more bike lanes on new and existing roads.

I advocate fewer cars. There's plenty of roads already.
--
zk

[Mark Hickey]

Scott Munro > wrote:

>A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.

Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).

>B) Why should there be a constant level of funding? Once a bike path
>is built, it stays built, and only needs a small amount of
>maintenance. If funding does not decrease eventually, then there is
>serious corruption going on somewhere.

You mean like on most toll roads? For a great example, check out the
Garden State Parkway in New Jersey - the tolls were supposed to be
collected until it was paid for - which it was a long, long time ago.

>C) Why not use the public roadways instead of insisting on separate
>facilities? Then the government (state and local, of course) could
>spend the finite monies they gouge out of taxpayers on fixing the
>roads which we all use.

Bingo.

In the end, when there are budget cuts (what a concept!!), someone's
ox gets gored. There are thousands of good ways to spend taxpayers'
money, and it's government's responsibility to decide fairly which
ones have to suffer a bit. The concept of simply upping the taxes
until you can no longer think of ways to spend it all isn't going to
work in the US for a while... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Michael S.]

You obviously didn't read the article, Mark. The highway budget is actually
*increasing* by $2.5 billion, so the gored ox is rather targeted here, eh?

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> In the end, when there are budget cuts (what a concept!!), someone's
> ox gets gored. There are thousands of good ways to spend taxpayers'
> money, and it's government's responsibility to decide fairly which
> ones have to suffer a bit. The concept of simply upping the taxes
> until you can no longer think of ways to spend it all isn't going to
> work in the US for a while... ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

[Walter Mitty]

"GRL" > brightened my day with his incisive wit
when in he conjectured that:

> Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?
>

Uh, is that the point you ass? Cyclists pay other taxes. just because we
don't have a car?? Bring on the bike tax. Due to lack of (a) pollution (b)
mass deaths (c) track degradation and (d) road rage, I suspect it would be
somewhat less substantial.

--
Walter Mitty.

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:48:39 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
> mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
> cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
> area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).

The feds don't build it; they give money to the state / local govt to do
it. It doesn't matter, municipal projects are just as inefficient at the
local level as the federal level, due to unions and politicians. Believe
me, I have experience with municipal projects.

I did have a two-page rant here, but I snipped it for the sake of the ng
and my own safety...

> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

[Chalo]

"GRL" > wrote:

> Also bike paths are primarily for recreation. Which is fine,
> except why should the federal tax-payer pay for you and me to have a place
> to play on our bikes? Sounds like a local matter to me. Our local bike trail
> was funded locally, as it should be.

And most car trips are optional and voluntary. So what? Lots of
cyclists use their bikes for transportation. Establishing why road
users are out on the roads is not a condition for their rights-of-way.

There are lots of limited-access motor roads where bikes, mopeds, and
pedestrians are not allowed. I see nothing wrong with providing some
thoroughfares that are closed to motor traffic.

If federal dollars pay for limited-access freeways, and they do, then
they should pay for sidewalks, bike lanes and paths, and greenways.
Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Chalo Colina

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Common suspicion, but dead wrong. The very rich pay most of the taxes
in the US. In 1999, the upper 1% paid over 36% of all the taxes in
the US for example.

The bottom 50% (fifty percent!) paid about 4%.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:55:05 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> (Chalo) wrote:
>> Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.
>
> Common suspicion, but dead wrong. The very rich pay most of the taxes

The suspicion, unfortunately, stems from the commonly heard news about tax-
breaks for them (god forbid they should keep some of their money!) and of
ways that they "avoid" paying taxes.

When you add it all up, the government gets more of their money than they
do. Consider a successful businessman; the government takes a big lop off
the money when the company gets it, then he decides to take some money out
of the company, so the government takes a big chunk of it as a dividend
tax, then he receives what's left, and the federal government takes 39% of
it in taxes, then the state takes another 10%; then he goes to buy, say, a
car with it, and pays 7% sales tax, luxury tax , and millions of
other taxes.

Believe me, "ultra-rich" people carry the weight of people like myself, and
I'm entirely aware of it. Punishing people for driving our economy is
stupid.
[i]
> in the US. In 1999, the upper 1% paid over 36% of all the taxes in
> the US for example.
> The bottom 50% (fifty percent!) paid about 4%.

As you move your percentages around, you find that the top 5% paid over 90%
of taxes. Further, the top 5% aren't filthy rich, they're small business
owners who finally have made it past the struggling-to-pay-the-next-bill-
and-keep-the-electricity-on stage.

Do you fit that category, Mark? :)
[i]
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

[Michael]

one of the six billion wrote:
[snip]
> It's true that roadways are the only cycling facilities needed, however
> without specific federal funds devoted to bicycling and pedestrian use,
> roadways are not built nor maintained to accommodate safe passage for
> anything but large amounts of fast moving cars.

Well .... while roadways in certain localities are sufficient for
cycling, the roadways in many localities are just to dangerous. Another
case of YMMV.

I do agree that roadways are not built nor maintained to accommodate
cyclists. Just take a look at the 3 feet or so of a street closest to
the curb: mixture of sand, rocks, glass, crumbly asphalt ...
you-name-it. Just yesterday I carted a push broom and machete to a
certain stretch of (urban) Town road that I cycle daily, whacked
branches and cleared piles of rocks, sand, and broken asphalt. A cop
actually stopped and asked "what the heck" I thought I was doing.

[Mark Hickey]

Rick Onanian > wrote:

>As you move your percentages around, you find that the top 5% paid over 90%
>of taxes. Further, the top 5% aren't filthy rich, they're small business
>owners who finally have made it past the struggling-to-pay-the-next-bill-
>and-keep-the-electricity-on stage.

The figures I have (for the 1999 federal tax year) show the top 5%
paid "only" 55% of the tax - but I suspect they pay a lot more of the
"other taxes" (like real estate, luxury, etc.).

>Do you fit that category, Mark? :)

Heh heh heh. If I said that I do, I'd be instantly labeled a
oppressor of the common man... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Brent Hugh]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> Scott Munro > wrote:
>
> >A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.
>
> Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
> mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
> cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
> area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).

Urk . . . you guys have really got to educate yourselves about how
these things work.

Enhancements isn't exactly a new program--it's been in place across
the U.S. since 1992.

There are plenty of ham-handed and ineffecient federal programs to
attack. But Enhancements isn't one of them--it is on precisely the
OTHER end of the spectrum.

Every single one of the Enhancements projects is initiated and planned
by a local government--usually city or county, sometimes state.
Almost always they are the result of heavy citizen involvement at that
level.

Almost always, with Enhancements, it is citizens standing up and
saying, "We're sick of having our city streets turned into
auto-centric concrete jungles by federal transportation dollars. We
want our city to be designed for people." So they ask for some
landscaping, or sidewalks, or bike lanes, or a place for bicyclists
and pedestrians to cross a freeway or river bridge. Or, god forbid, a
bike path.

If they live in a metro area of any size at all, they then submit
their proposals to a Metropolitan Planning Organization. There it
competes for funding against other projects submitted by other local
governments.

The criteria used by the MPO for ranking the projects is, again, to a
great degree a local matter with criteria established by local and
regional groups that (in my experience) and very responsive to citizen
input.

Tyically such projects have something like an 80/20 federal/local
split in funding.

One thing that seems to stick in the craw of hard-core cyclist types
is that many of the bicycle-related facilities that have been approved
are multi-use paths.

But that isn't because of some E-V-I-L federal mandate. It is simply
because local citizens have stood up on their hind legs and demanded
them.

If YOU want something different, then stand up you YOUR hind legs
(you've got some, haven't you?) and demand something different of your
local governments.

The federal mandate is pretty broad. It simply sets aside a certain
amount of money, with the stipulation that it can be used for
Transportation Enhancement projects. Among the possible projects are
bicycle facilities and bicycle safety and education.

If the Enhancements set-aside is removed, and the Enhancements money
is returned to the general transportation pot, you can bet your bottom
dollar that most states will spend 0% of that general pot on bicycle
facilities or bicycle safety and education.

That was exactly the case in Missouri before Enhancements came
along--and MoDOT even tried to continue their "0% for bicycles, 0% for
pedestrians" policy after Enhancements was in place (thank heavens,
they lost THAT battle . . . )

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.mobikefed.org

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes


<snip>
If the Enhancements set-aside is removed, and the Enhancements money
is returned to the general transportation pot, you can bet your bottom
dollar that most states will spend 0% of that general pot on bicycle
facilities or bicycle safety and education.

That was exactly the case in Missouri before Enhancements came
along--and MoDOT even tried to continue their "0% for bicycles, 0% for
pedestrians" policy after Enhancements was in place (thank heavens,
they lost THAT battle . . . )

--Brent


I agree with most of what you said, except for the part about the public
demanding to use the bike paths and how bicyclists should "take them back."
The problem with that is that when somebody wants to get rid of these
"multi-use paths", the paths are called "bike paths---and why should
somebody pay for my recreation choices!" They aren't called "multi-use
paths" that a large part of the public uses to walk, stroll, skate, run,
push a stroller, walk the dogs, etc. paths. Only the bicycle people get the
blame--it's called marginalization. If the people who don't want the bike
paths can make it seem as if "only" the elitist bicyclists will benefit,
then the funding is easier to do away with. And that is what is happening.
That makes it seem as if a much, much smaller portion of the public wants
these paths.

Pat in TX

[Rick Onanian]

On 25 Jul 2003 13:57:47 -0700, Brent Hugh > wrote:
> There are plenty of ham-handed and ineffecient federal programs to
> attack. But Enhancements isn't one of them--it is on precisely the
> OTHER end of the spectrum.
>
> Every single one of the Enhancements projects is initiated and planned
> by a local government--usually city or county, sometimes state. Almost
> always they are the result of heavy citizen involvement at that
> level.

Maybe it's different in Montana, but in Massachusetts (did I spell that
right?) where I do government roofing contracts, the bike paths are put
up for bid in the same inefficient system I've mentioned in one or two
other messages in this thread, even if it's by a local government for a
small town.

<important info snipped>
> --Brent
> bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
> www.mobikefed.org
--
Rick Onanian

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

What do you expect with a totally REPUNGNANTan administration?

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

[Rick Onanian]

On 25 Jul 2003 16:09:30 -0700, Chalo > wrote:
> income of $200K or more. Lots of idle wealthy can grow their fortunes
> by millions a year and not draw that kind of actual income. I know

When they draw income, they'll be taxed on it. Either way, any time
money moves, it gets taxed (with some exceptions).

> If you think the rich pay their fair share, then you've either been
> sold a bill of goods by the Republicans, or you have a screwy notion
> of what their fair share ought to be.

Wealthy people that I know should get your sweetie's accountant. The
ones that I know pay more than they keep...this includes the ones who
are only modestly wealthy -- live in a comfortable house, drive a
comfortable car, send their kids to college, and have nothing left
over. It does get worse as you get more money, no matter how your
accountant saves you taxes; either way, the money comes out sooner or
later, and it's proportionally much more than it should be.

On the other end of the spectrum, witness my aunt. In one recent year,
she spent part of the year disabled, and didn't make a much wage the
rest of the year. She filed her taxes, following the directions as
normal, doing everything proper, not requesting anything special. The
result was that the government refunded her some $5,000 more than she
paid in!

I wouldn't ask that it be taken from her; she needs it. My father
already helps her a lot, but it's tough. However, to say that
the "rich" aren't paying their "fair share", and that the money is
all coming out of the "poor working class people"'s paychecks, is
entirely wrong.



The real problem is overspending, anyway; too much comes out of my
paycheck, which is strong compared to my peers, but too weak to buy
a house or start a family (or even rent a damn apartment).

Too much comes from the people trying to raise a family.

Too much comes from the aforementioned wealthy people.

Too much comes from the "filthy rich" people (god forbid they should
have the money that they, or maybe their parents worked for).

Damn near everybody, except the really hard-up people, pay too much;
and you certainly can't ask those really hard-up people to starve
just so we can finance .

However...that's the nature of this country. Taxes are even worse
elsewhere, conditions are worse elsewhere, corruption is worse
elsewhere. [By 'elsewhere', I don't mean 'everwhere else', I just
mean lots of other places.] We live with it, we live on, we do the
best we can, and we try hard.

That all said...I enjoy multi-use paths, bicycle lanes, and so on;
and I'm going to email my politicians about it...just as soon as I
get some time [maybe if I didn't spend so much writing on newsfroups!]

[i]
> Chalo Colina
--
Rick Onanian

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> Michael wrote:
>
> ------I carted along a machete and broom.------A cop stopped and
> asked me what the heck I thought I was doing.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was using a machete to clear a thick stand of weeds that was
> creating a dangerous "blind corner" at a bikepath intersection near a
> road. Two cops approached me with hands on their guns and ordered me to
> "Drop your weapon!". They had no comprehension that anyone would choose
> to do a simple, beneficial thing like that, unless paid.
>
> Steve McDonald

And my experience was that I took a broom and swept glass off of the public
bike trail and even sprayed yellow paint on the broken areas of concrete (to
warn people about a drop off)---right across the street from the northside
police station and with officers going in and out the entire time, nobody
bothered me or took exception to what I was doing. I was even chopping back
tree branches that threatened to hit people riding bikes in the head and
neck area.

Pat in TX (maybe it's a Texas thang)
>

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> All bikepaths instantly become "multi-use" paths.
> How could you keep the runners, skaters, etc. off them, even if you
> tried to ban them? And it's a good thing, as a broader base of users
> provides more support and acceptance for their construction.
>
> Steve McDonald

Our bike path (15 miles long) has another, separate path beside it (about 5
yards away) for runners, strollers, and dog walkers, although skaters might
have a tough time because it is small, crushed gravel. But, no, everybody
likes the bike path instead---and, yes, there are signs that read "Bicycles
only." Still, that doesn't stop the people walking their dogs from glaring
and giving us dirty looks when we actually try to ride on the bike path.

Pat in TX

[Eric S. Sande]

>Still, that doesn't stop the people walking their dogs from glaring
>and giving us dirty looks when we actually try to ride on the bike
>path.

And that in a nutshell is the separate facilities problem.

I'm guessing you Texas boys don't ride on the road?

Strike while the iron is hot, I say, jam that vehicle law down
their throats, educate, organize and ride in the street that
you're paying for.

No concessions, no prisoners.

No ghetto.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Chalo]

Rick Onanian > wrote:

> Too much comes from the "filthy rich" people (god forbid they should
> have the money that they, or maybe their parents worked for).

Nobody, And I mean nobody, works to become filthy rich. They siphon
off the work of others, which is their privilege under the capitalist
system.

You can work hard and effectively to make as much as a hundred
thousand $ or more in a year. That requires diligence, strategy, and
a run of good luck. More than that can only come by treating others
as milk cows.

When I hear schemers claiming to have "worked hard" to "earn" their
millions, I want to vomit on behalf of the 100s or 1000s of people who
provided the actual productivity that generated the actual wealth.

Chalo Colina

[Mark Jones]

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
> Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?
Plenty. I pay it in the form of taxes on my Corvette and
4x4 truck. There is also the parks and recreation portion
of my real estate taxes on my house. Just because you
own a bicycle, that doesn't mean that you don't own a
car or truck that you pay lots of taxes on.

When I park my truck and ride my bicycle, there is a
lot less wear on the roads. This helps make the tax
money for roads go a little farther.

[Mark Jones]

"Scott Munro" > wrote in message
...
> A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.
The bike paths here in KC are part of the parks and
recreation operation. This is local money.

[Mark Jones]

"Chalo" > wrote in message
om...
> Rick Onanian > wrote:
>
> > Too much comes from the "filthy rich" people (god forbid they should
> > have the money that they, or maybe their parents worked for).
>
> Nobody, And I mean nobody, works to become filthy rich. They siphon
> off the work of others, which is their privilege under the capitalist
> system.
Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
payoff in the end. They could have ended up losing a lot of
money if things hadn't worked out right.

Risk takers are the ones who usually end up with the money
and the people who prefer to play it safe with a regular job
may never see much of an annual salary.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On 26 Jul 2003 17:35:08 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:
>
>Nobody, And I mean nobody, works to become filthy rich. They siphon
>off the work of others, which is their privilege under the capitalist
>system.

Really? Whoa -- we didn't mean for that to happen. Another
unintended consequence.

Thanks for pointing that out.

We'll change the system immediately so that we can take from each
according to his means and give to each according to his needs.

We hope the new improved system meets with your approval.

Have a nice day, and thank you for shopping at Marx Mart.

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes


> >Still, that doesn't stop the people walking their dogs from glaring
> >and giving us dirty looks when we actually try to ride on the bike
> >path.


>
> And that in a nutshell is the separate facilities problem.
>
> I'm guessing you Texas boys don't ride on the road?
>
> Strike while the iron is hot, I say, jam that vehicle law down
> their throats, educate, organize and ride in the street that
> you're paying for.
>
> No concessions, no prisoners.
>
> No ghetto.
"Eric S. Sande

In the above description, I was talking about a black-top bike path that
goes along the Trinity River in the corridor. It is not a road nor are there
any roads in the vicinity: essentially, it is in a long, long park. It is
a use for the land immediately beside of the river.

Pat in TX

[Mark Jones]

"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> In the above description, I was talking about a black-top bike path that
> goes along the Trinity River in the corridor. It is not a road nor are
there
> any roads in the vicinity: essentially, it is in a long, long park. It
is
> a use for the land immediately beside of the river.
I can rapidly get across town on the paved bike path because
there are no traffic lights or cars to deal with. Much safer to
ride along the path next to the creek while in the shade of the
trees that grow along the creek.

The path goes right behind my house, so I can be on it in
about a minute and on my way. We also have very well
maintained bike lanes that do not have the debris problem
that people complain about. The street sweepers do a very
good job of keep the streets clean from curb-to-curb.

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:51:35 GMT, "Donald Link" > from
>EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>
>>Get real you stupid ****. Sounds like the old Communist theory.
>
>Actually, he's right,

I agree with Kevan... it IS the old Communist theory. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Brent Hugh) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
>> Scott Munro > wrote:
>>
>> >A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.
>>
>> Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
>> mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
>> cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
>> area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).
>
>Urk . . . you guys have really got to educate yourselves about how
>these things work.
>
>Enhancements isn't exactly a new program--it's been in place across
>the U.S. since 1992.
>
>There are plenty of ham-handed and ineffecient federal programs to
>attack. But Enhancements isn't one of them--it is on precisely the
>OTHER end of the spectrum.

I wasn't really refering to the actual construction of the bike path,
but to the federal government involvement. Taxing people,
thencreating an organization to oversee the distribution of the funds
to build bike paths, the mountain of paperwork and research the local
governments have to do to access these funds, added to the ineptitude
of the local governments is what makes this the wrong way to go about
building bike paths.

Eliminate ALL the federal involvement, reduce taxes accordingly and
you end up with a much simpler, more efficient "closed loop" system
that works better and costs less.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>Actually, it's called the Labor Theory of Value, and it appears in the work
>Capital. It has nothign to do with Communism other than also being formulated by
>Marx. I don't think Marx or Engels rode bicycles.

I think Harpo did...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Chalo]

"Mark Jones" > wrote:

> "Chalo" > wrote:
>
> > Nobody, And I mean nobody, works to become filthy rich. They siphon
> > off the work of others, which is their privilege under the capitalist
> > system.
> Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
> had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
> payoff in the end. They could have ended up losing a lot of
> money if things hadn't worked out right.

Do you not distinguish between risk-taking and hard work?

Can you not recognize any difference in virtue between a working man
and a gambling man?

Gambling can make you filthy rich. Hard work can't. If those two are
morally equivalent to you, so be it. They are not, in my eyes.

Chalo Colina

[R15757]

<< "Mark Jones" >>

<< I can rapidly get across town on the paved bike path because
there are no traffic lights or cars to deal with. Much safer to
ride along the path next to the creek while in the shade of the
trees that grow along the creek.

The path goes right behind my house, so I can be on it in
about a minute and on my way. We also have very well
maintained bike lanes that do not have the debris problem
that people complain about. The street sweepers do a very
good job of keep the streets clean from curb-to-curb.
>>

Invalid response...Does not compute with conventional wisdom in bicycle
community...Self-destruct sequence activated...<beep> <beep>...piffffftttttt.
<sizzle>

Honda Robot

[R15757]

<< Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
payoff in the end. >>


Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it from
their mommies and daddies.

Robert

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(R15757) writes:
> << Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
> had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
> payoff in the end. >>
>
>
> Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it from
> their mommies and daddies.

Edison did it by hiring mongos to do a bunch of thinking & doing
for him. So did Bill Gates.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[archer]

In article >,
says...
> << Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
> had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
> payoff in the end. >>
>
>
> Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it from
> their mommies and daddies.

If they inherited it, then they didn't "accumulate". Bill Gates
inherited nothing and look at where he now. Same thing with Sam Walton.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> > Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it
from
> > their mommies and daddies.


>
> If they inherited it, then they didn't "accumulate". Bill Gates
> inherited nothing and look at where he now. Same thing with Sam Walton.
>
>
> --
> David Kerber


So, you are saying that Bill Gates and Sam Walton are representative of ALL
of the extremely wealthy people in this country? That's interesting, but
it makes your argument that people "earned" great wealth fall apart--you
can't select just two of all of the wealthy families to represent the bulk
or even the simple majority.

Pat in TX

[archer]

In article >,
says...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> > > Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it
> from
> > > their mommies and daddies.
>
>
> >
> > If they inherited it, then they didn't "accumulate". Bill Gates
> > inherited nothing and look at where he now. Same thing with Sam Walton.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Kerber
>
>
> So, you are saying that Bill Gates and Sam Walton are representative of ALL
> of the extremely wealthy people in this country? That's interesting, but
> it makes your argument that people "earned" great wealth fall apart--you
> can't select just two of all of the wealthy families to represent the bulk
> or even the simple majority.

I never said anything about ALL wealthy people. I only mentioned two
people who ACCUMULATED great wealth, as opposed to those who INHERHITED
it. And no, I do not believe those two are necessarily typical of people
who worked for their money, though they will be closer to it than those
who inherited their money.

I do believe that MOST (NOT ALL) people who got a lot of money by
busting their ass founding and building their own business behave on
average significantly differently, and often much better, than those who
did NOT have to work for their money. Martha Stewart, of course, is an
example of the opposite side of the argument.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>"Mark Jones" > wrote:
>
>> "Chalo" > wrote:
>>
>> > Nobody, And I mean nobody, works to become filthy rich. They siphon
>> > off the work of others, which is their privilege under the capitalist
>> > system.
>> Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
>> had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
>> payoff in the end. They could have ended up losing a lot of
>> money if things hadn't worked out right.
>
>Do you not distinguish between risk-taking and hard work?
>
>Can you not recognize any difference in virtue between a working man
>and a gambling man?
>
>Gambling can make you filthy rich. Hard work can't. If those two are
>morally equivalent to you, so be it. They are not, in my eyes.

Effective immediately, all corporations and small businesses are to be
disbanded, and all employees fired for their own good. Henceforth,
the only form of business allowable will be the sole proprietorship.
This action is being taken to prevent the possibility from anyone
profiting from the work of another.

For the many tens of millions who will be out of work, don't whine.
It's for your own good. Carl Marx and Chalo said so! And don't
worry, it should only take a decade or so to sink the economy to a
nice agrarian third world level, where everyone will be equal (dirt
poor, but equal). After all, that's what matters, right?

Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Jones]

"Chalo" > wrote in message
om...
> Do you not distinguish between risk-taking and hard work?
>
> Can you not recognize any difference in virtue between a working man
> and a gambling man?
>
> Gambling can make you filthy rich. Hard work can't. If those two are
> morally equivalent to you, so be it. They are not, in my eyes.

The risk takers are the ones who quit their jobs and open
a business with no guarantee of success. These people
create the jobs that the rest of us depend on, so yes I would
give them moral equivalence. As long as the business is run
in an ethical manner.

[Mark Jones]

"R15757" > wrote in message
...
> Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it from
> their mommies and daddies.
In most instances they manage to hang onto this money
and actually increase their wealth. There are also a lot
of people who quit their regular jobs every year and
open a business with no guarantee of success. A lot
of people owe their jobs to these people.

[archer]

In article >, Kevan Smith
/\/\> says...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:17:18 -0400, archer > from
> Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >says...
> >> << Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
> >> had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
> >> payoff in the end. >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it from
> >> their mommies and daddies.
> >
> >If they inherited it, then they didn't "accumulate". Bill Gates
> >inherited nothing and look at where he now. Same thing with Sam Walton.
>
> Wal-Mart isn't exactly a business that engages in ethical or fair competition.
> Neither is Microsoft. Let's call Sam and Bill what they are: Robber Barons.

I understand what you are referring to with M$, but what about Walmart?
I've never heard of them being accused of unfair business practices.
Keep in mind that when they were first founded and were growing up, they
had no market power, and had to compete with all the established
businesses.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[Rick Onanian]

On 26 Jul 2003 17:35:08 -0700, Chalo > wrote:
> Nobody, And I mean nobody, works to become filthy rich. They siphon
> off the work of others, which is their privilege under the capitalist
> system.
>
> You can work hard and effectively to make as much as a hundred
> thousand $ or more in a year. That requires diligence, strategy, and
> a run of good luck. More than that can only come by treating others
> as milk cows.

Sorry, I don't buy that. While many filthy rich didn't work to get there
(witness Patrick Kennedy, mr. "I've never worked a @#%%@# day in my life"
himself), many _do_ work hard. That doesn't mean they're banging a hammer
all day every day until they have a billion dollars.

There are other ways to work hard.

> Chalo Colina
--
Rick Onanian

[bikerider7]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...


>
> I wasn't really refering to the actual construction of the bike path,
> but to the federal government involvement. Taxing people,
> thencreating an organization to oversee the distribution of the funds
> to build bike paths, the mountain of paperwork and research the local
> governments have to do to access these funds, added to the ineptitude
> of the local governments is what makes this the wrong way to go about
> building bike paths.
>
> Eliminate ALL the federal involvement, reduce taxes accordingly and
> you end up with a much simpler, more efficient "closed loop" system
> that works better and costs less.

Are you advocating that for all Federally financed transportation projects --
or just bikes? If Federal dollars can be used to pay for local streets
and highway projects, then I don't see the problem with using an extremely
tiny fraction to pay for some bicycle infrastructure too.

BTW, a lot of the Federal TEA money goes to build bike/ped bridges which
close gaps that wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for
Federally financed interstate highways blasting through neighborhoods.

[archer]

In article >, Kevan Smith
/\/\> says...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:37:27 -0400, archer > from
> Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com wrote:
>
> >I understand what you are referring to with M$, but what about Walmart?
> >I've never heard of them being accused of unfair business practices.
>
> You haven't been paying much attention, then:
>
>
> http://www.walmar****ch.com/consumer/page.cfm?subsection_id=101
>
> That's only the tip of the iceberg.

As unfair business practices go, this is pretty small stuff compared to
what M$ was doing. I'll also be that if Sam was still around, much of
this wouldn't be happening.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[R15757]

<<Mark Hickey >>

<< ><< Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
>had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
>payoff in the end. >>
>
>Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it from
>their mommies and daddies.

So if your parents had happened to be very wealthy, would you be evil,
or would you give it all away? Or to put it another way, should a
child be able to benefit from a lifetime of hard work by their
parents? Or should it all pass to the government who can distribute
it to fund studies on artistic tendencies in cockroaches? ;-)>>

By all means do what you want with it. It's "your" money. Just don't pretend
that you deserve to have it any more than anyone else would.

Robert

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

>And, they in turn owe their business growth and profit to the people who work
>for them. However, who receives the profit? The owner.

---snip---

If you define "profit" as the money remaining after expenses then of course the
owner receives it. Under this definition it would also be accurate to say the
owner gets the leftovers but that doesn't sound quite the same, does it? OTOH
if you mean who *benefits* from the business' success you must include that
business' employees.

>But who has produced it?

The company as a whole.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[C.K. Dexter Haven]

If the country followed your logic, we would not have national parks
or national recreation areas, either. And we'd be a poorer society
for it.


"GRL" > wrote in message >...
> Well put. Also bike paths are primarily for recreation. Which is fine,
> except why should the federal tax-payer pay for you and me to have a place
> to play on our bikes? Sounds like a local matter to me. Our local bike trail
> was funded locally, as it should be.

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >Gambling can make you filthy rich. Hard work can't. If those two are
> >morally equivalent to you, so be it. They are not, in my eyes.
>
> Effective immediately, all corporations and small businesses are to be
> disbanded, and all employees fired for their own good. Henceforth,
> the only form of business allowable will be the sole proprietorship.
> This action is being taken to prevent the possibility from anyone
> profiting from the work of another.

Ow! You got straw in my eyes from knocking down that straw man!

I didn't say that profiting from the work of others should be banned.
I didn't even say that it was wrong, exactly. Much as I like
worker-owned collectives, I don't think they are able to do for us all
the things that privately owned businesses do. All those meetings,
you know. :-)

I did say that you can't make a great fortune from only your own hard
work.

I did say that working and gambling (risk-taking) are not morally
equivalent.

And I did say that the richest among us should pay the most taxes, but
often do not.

Do you dispute any of those assertions? Have at.

Chalo Colina

[R15757]

Bob Hunt wrote:

<< >Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

>You're being really stupid. Why don't you actually go read soem Marx instead
>of
>parroting some propaganda you learned in school.

Before you start calling people names and telling them to read Marxist theory,
please name just three countries where Marxism has actually *worked*.
Theory is great- it's intellectually stimulating if nothing else- but theory
without successful application is just a pipedream. I mean, in my *theory* I
can outsprint Cipo, outclimb Heras, crush Armstrong in a multi-stage race, and
look better than Fabs while doing all three. Reality though is another matter.
In reality I can only do half of these things. ;-)
>>


Bob Hunt here reveals fundamental misunderstanding of Marx that is shared by
general public. In Communist Manifesto Marx does not theorize about what he
thinks *should* happen, but rather what he thinks *will* happen. And what he
thinks will happen includes the worldwide takeover of the capitalist system,
followed by worldwide communist revolution, etc. In other words, the existence
of so-called Communist countries like USSR did not fit with Marxist theory, but
their collapse does. So far, Marx's predictions are coming true.

Robert

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

>
> So if your parents had happened to be very wealthy, would you be evil,
> or would you give it all away? Or to put it another way, should a
> child be able to benefit from a lifetime of hard work by their
> parents? Or should it all pass to the government who can distribute
> it to fund studies on artistic tendencies in cockroaches? ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
>

Well, that's what Bill Gates and Ted Turner think and espouse: their
children should stand on their own, not inherit Daddy's jillions.

And, as they seem to be "representative" of the "self-made man" I guess they
know what's best....


Pat in TX

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On 28 Jul 2003 14:24:53 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:


>
>And I did say that the richest among us should pay the most taxes, but
>often do not.

>Do you dispute any of those assertions? Have at.

OK. From IRS figures for Calendar 2001:

Taxes paid:
Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes;
Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes;
Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes.
Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% - 3.91% of all income taxes.

Earnings:
Top 1% - 20.81% of all income.
Top 5% - 35.30% of all income
Top 10% - 46.01% of all income
Top 25% - 67.15%of all income
Top 50% - 87.01% of all income.

"Despite a steady increase in the U.S. median income, fully half of
the wage-earners earn less than this figure". Is that evidence that
the U.S. is unfair? (open-book quiz).

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>> (Chalo) wrote:
>>
>> >Gambling can make you filthy rich. Hard work can't. If those two are
>> >morally equivalent to you, so be it. They are not, in my eyes.
>>
>> Effective immediately, all corporations and small businesses are to be
>> disbanded, and all employees fired for their own good. Henceforth,
>> the only form of business allowable will be the sole proprietorship.
>> This action is being taken to prevent the possibility from anyone
>> profiting from the work of another.
>
>Ow! You got straw in my eyes from knocking down that straw man!

Yeah, he was pretty big, huh? ;-) But you have to admit you sounded
a bit like the militant peasant King Arthur ran into in 'Monty Python
and the Holy Grail'... ;-)

>I didn't say that profiting from the work of others should be banned.
>I didn't even say that it was wrong, exactly. Much as I like
>worker-owned collectives, I don't think they are able to do for us all
>the things that privately owned businesses do. All those meetings,
>you know. :-)

I think if the world could eliminate wasted time spent in meetings,
we'd all be much better riders (lots more time to train).

>I did say that you can't make a great fortune from only your own hard
>work.

Excepting buying a lottery ticket, of course...

>I did say that working and gambling (risk-taking) are not morally
>equivalent.

I'll admit my lottery example isn't morally equivalent to busting your
butt creating a business - but I would also say that the vast majority
of successful business owners are working a lot harder than their
employees (or at the very least did for a long time to get to the
point they can slack off).

>And I did say that the richest among us should pay the most taxes, but
>often do not.

But MUCH more often, do.

>Do you dispute any of those assertions? Have at.

Just your misguided notion that rich folks tend not to pay tax. In
fact, they pay the vast majority of it. Sure, some of 'em do shave
down the payments a bit with tax shelters - but those shelters are
most often set up to channel money into the areas the government wants
you to invest in (hence the tax incentive). The system really isn't
nearly as "stacked" as you let on.

Other than that.. I think we agree pretty much. OK, maybe not on
square spindle BBs....

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>dn Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:35:08 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
>MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
>>"Chalo" > wrote in message
om...
>>> Do you not distinguish between risk-taking and hard work?
>>>
>>> Can you not recognize any difference in virtue between a working man
>>> and a gambling man?
>>>
>>> Gambling can make you filthy rich. Hard work can't. If those two are
>>> morally equivalent to you, so be it. They are not, in my eyes.
>>
>>The risk takers are the ones who quit their jobs and open
>>a business with no guarantee of success.
>
>Yeah! Like George W. Bush!

How about Clinton's successful pre-presidential businesses?

Whitewater Real Estate? Oops. Of course, that's one more business
than Al Gore ever worked in/for.

Of course, he did much better as a sole proprietorship after he got in
office, running a B&B (aka Lincoln Bedroom). His foray into being an
English professor stalled when he couldn't understand the word "is"
though...

(the above is not intended to ignite a debate, only to poke a little
fun back toward the left).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:37:58 -0500, "Mark Jones" wrote:

>>In most instances they manage to hang onto this money
>>and actually increase their wealth. There are also a lot
>>of people who quit their regular jobs every year and
>>open a business with no guarantee of success. A lot
>>of people owe their jobs to these people.
>
>And, they in turn owe their business growth and profit to the people who work
>for them. However, who receives the profit? The owner. But who has produced it?

So of course you feel that airline employees and those who work in
other struggling businesses should give back a large chunk of their
paycheck because the company actually LOST money last year? That's
just as fair, right?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(bikerider7) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...

>> I wasn't really refering to the actual construction of the bike path,
>> but to the federal government involvement. Taxing people,
>> thencreating an organization to oversee the distribution of the funds
>> to build bike paths, the mountain of paperwork and research the local
>> governments have to do to access these funds, added to the ineptitude
>> of the local governments is what makes this the wrong way to go about
>> building bike paths.
>>
>> Eliminate ALL the federal involvement, reduce taxes accordingly and
>> you end up with a much simpler, more efficient "closed loop" system
>> that works better and costs less.
>
>Are you advocating that for all Federally financed transportation projects --
>or just bikes? If Federal dollars can be used to pay for local streets
>and highway projects, then I don't see the problem with using an extremely
>tiny fraction to pay for some bicycle infrastructure too.

I'm just saying that the process of "filtering" the tax money through
the federal government is the WORST way to build roads, bike paths, or
sidewalks. Keep the money local where the accountability is high and
the paperwork is low.

>BTW, a lot of the Federal TEA money goes to build bike/ped bridges which
>close gaps that wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for
>Federally financed interstate highways blasting through neighborhoods.

Fair enough - those SHOULD be part of the interstate highway program
funding (a necessary evil - who wants to drive coast to coast on
Highway 66 any more?). (OK, I do, but that'll be on a motorcycle and
in no particular hurry). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:25:34 GMT, Mark Hickey >
wrote:


>
>(the above is not intended to ignite a debate, only to poke a little
>fun back toward the left).

You can't seriously be using "fun" and "the Left" in the same
sentence...

[GRL]

(C.K. Dexter Haven) wrote in message >...
> If the country followed your logic, we would not have national parks
> or national recreation areas, either. And we'd be a poorer society
> for it.
>
>
> "GRL" > wrote in message >...
> > Well put. Also bike paths are primarily for recreation. Which is fine,
> > except why should the federal tax-payer pay for you and me to have a place
> > to play on our bikes? Sounds like a local matter to me. Our local bike trail
> > was funded locally, as it should be.

Nope. That's federal land you are talking about. I like the idea a lot
that federal land was turned into federal parks (etc.) using federal
money. I encourage that. Bike paths in cities are not federal land and
not a federal responsibility. Nor should they be. What's wrong with
funding them locally where control and responsibility should be kept?

Realistically, people from all over the country visit many (probably
most) federal parks. Anyone seriously think the average bike path is
used by anybody but locals virtually exclusively?

Be reasonable is all I ask. Not everything is a federal
responsibility. And that's "a good thing" (as our sister M. Stewart,
puts it).

[Rick Onanian]

On 28 Jul 2003 06:36:56 GMT, R15757 > wrote:
> << Bull. Most of the people who have accumulated great wealth
> had to take on a lot of initial risk with no guarantee of a
> payoff in the end. >>

> Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it
> from their mommies and daddies.

That is true, for certain values of "accumulated".

Unless you meant some other word by "accumulaed", in which
case, I'd like to know...but based on the context, I think
you meant "accumulated", in which case, those who have
inherited it did not accumulate it at all, but rather,
inherited it.

Not everybody simply inherited it like Patrick Kennedy. Many
actually worked hard and risked everything.

> Robert
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:02:15 -0700, Tom Keats > wrote:
>> Most of the people who have accumulaed great wealth have inherited it
>> from their mommies and daddies.
>
> Edison did it by hiring mongos to do a bunch of thinking & doing
> for him. So did Bill Gates.

Smart fellas, eh? I wish I was smart enough to hire people to
do a bunch of thinking and doing for me...I'd probably get rich.
Dirty, rotten, filthy, stinkin rich.

No, instead, I'll play the tax-on-the-stupid -- Powerball.

> cheers,
> Tom
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:57:05 -0500, wrote:
> And, they in turn owe their business growth and profit to the people who
> work
> for them. However, who receives the profit? The owner. But who has
> produced it?

I don't think those employees mind. If they did, they would go
work elsewhere. If they couldn't get paid as well, or otherwise
have as desirable a job, then they've got the best deal they can
get.

The owner isn't sitting in front of the computer masturbating all
day. He's busting his balls for 90 hours per week trying to make
ends meet, and occasionally seeing a profit. If you divide his
profit by his hours, you'll see that he likely makes much less than
the employees.

People think that being your own boss is great, you can just work
a little here and a little there and the money rolls in. That's not
the case. It's tough, demanding, long work.

For some people, rarely, it ends up working out so well that they
end up making lots of money, and maybe even cutting down to a 40
hour week. They're the lucky ones. They certainly aren't evil, and
they didn't get there by walking all over everybody.

Though some ARE evil, and do walk all over everybody, and those
people do that whether or not they decide to start a business,
and whether or not they succeed.
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:55:17 -0500, wrote:
> Wal-Mart isn't exactly a business that engages in ethical or fair
> competition.

No? I'm not familiar with Wal-Mart practicing unfair competition.

> Neither is Microsoft. Let's call Sam and Bill what they are: Robber
> Barons.

I am aware of Microsoft practicing unfair competition; this is
most evident when they require OEMs to have exclusive contracts
where they're not allowed to sell computers with other OS's, and
also in some small amounts of software-engineering (though not
the browser-integration issue usually cited, which is irrelevant).

Still, I'd call Bill more of an asshole than a Robber Baron.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> I would like to urinate in an OVULAR, porcelain pool --
> 12:54:37 PM 28 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:57:25 -0500, wrote:
> You haven't been paying much attention, then:
> http://www.walmar****ch.com/consumer/page.cfm?subsection_id=101
> That's only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm tired and want to go to bed. I clicked on four
of those stories, and didn't see anything terrible.

They priced stuff too high. They priced stuff too low.

They screwed a real-estate broker. This is mean, but
not enough for me to consider them evil...they're
just a company, run by humans, who make mistakes and
bad decisions sometimes. When a company gets that big,
the law of averages dictates that somebody's bound to
screw little things up all the time, and the
occasional big thing.

I don't think Sammy is looking to increase his vast
fortune by being unethical, especially when he has
his stores censor some of the material they sell
because it's seen as unethical (explicit music, etc).

--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:47:52 -0500, wrote:
>> Sorry, I don't buy that. While many filthy rich didn't work to get there
>> (witness Patrick Kennedy, mr. "I've never worked a @#%%@# day in my
>> life" himself), many _do_ work hard.
>
> Yes, they work hard exploiting the labor of others. The more they can
> exploit,
> the more money they get.

You're pretty stuck on that. Did somebody exploit you?

You ought to disconnect yourself from evil businesses, and
do what you think is right. Put your money where your mouth
is. This is not sarcasm; I really believe it. It's not
required for anybody to participate in the capitolism system,
you could certainly do something else.

For all I know, you've already done that. Still, I'm not sure
where you would get a computer or a bicycle if you don't work
for a business, and don't buy from a business, and don't use
goods made by businesses.

You should NOT, however, dictate that everybody else do those
things. Most of the 'exploited' people are happy to have work
and make some money, though most of those wish they had
better work and made more money...especially business owners,
whose work sucks and rarely makes money. Anyway, your
exploited masses should be allowed to do as they please, even
if they're exploiting themselves.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> Yow! We're going to a new disco!
> 2:47:38 PM 28 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On 28 Jul 2003 20:59:16 GMT, Hunrobe > wrote:
> without successful application is just a pipedream. I mean, in my can
> outsprint Cipo, outclimb Heras, crush Armstrong in a multi-stage look
> better than Fabs while doing all three. Reality though is another matter.
> In reality I can only do half of these things. ;-)

No fair, going back on-topic! This was supposed to be a
POLITICAL rant!

> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:53:36 -0500, wrote:
>>> But who has produced it?
>>
>> The company as a whole.
>
> Labor.

I'd like to see a bunch of unorganized, unsupplied, unfinanced,
unmanaged labor produce anything.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> I selected E5 ... but I didn't hear "Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs"!
> 4:52:39 PM 28 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> And, they in turn owe their business growth and profit to the people who
work
> for them. However, who receives the profit? The owner. But who has
produced it?
The one who takes the risks deserves to be rewarded for
creating new jobs for others. Your arguments are getting old
and tiresome.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On 28 Jul 2003 21:20:54 GMT, (Hunrobe) from AOL
> http://www.aol.com wrote:
>
> >>Kevan Smith /\/\
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>And, they in turn owe their business growth and profit to the people who
work
> >>for them. However, who receives the profit? The owner.
> >
> >---snip---
> >
> >If you define "profit" as the money remaining after expenses then of
course the
> >owner receives it. Under this definition it would also be accurate to say
the
> >owner gets the leftovers but that doesn't sound quite the same, does it?
OTOH
> >if you mean who *benefits* from the business' success you must include
that
> >business' employees.
> >
> >>But who has produced it?
> >
> >The company as a whole.
>
> Labor.
No, nothing is created without the building and equipment
used by the employees. Employee labor is only part of the
equation.

[Mark Jones]

"Rick Onanian" > wrote in message
...
> I'd like to see a bunch of unorganized, unsupplied, unfinanced,
> unmanaged labor produce anything.

Not going to happen, but now you are just confusing Kevan.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> No, they were still exploited. The capitalist just didn't organize well
enough
> to make the most of that exploitation.
Not at all. I am more than happy to have some capitalist
business owner create a job for me.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> You're being really stupid. Why don't you actually go read soem Marx
instead of
> parroting some propaganda you learned in school.

If you put me in a communist economy where workers are
not rewarded for working harder than any other worker
in the same job, I would slack off to whatever level didn't get
me in trouble. Everyone starts to do that and then the average
output becomes close to the output of the worker who does the
least.

Without a strong incentive(financial), people will not bust
their butts forever when it gets them nowhere. I work hard
and study because I have been able to advance in my job
and get paid better as the years go by. Take away my
capitalist based wage increases, and I will not work as
hard as I am capable of.

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote
>
> Yep. He sucked, too. Both parties are crap, and they produce the same
tired old
> white men for "leaders."

As opposed to whom? Jesse? Al Sharpton? YGBSM. I'm Black, and *I* don't want
those fools.

Colin Powell? Probably. But I understand why he won't do it. He doesn't want
to get shot.

Howard Dean? Sacrificial lamb. He is there to provide the extreme.

Anyone else? meet the new boss....same as the old boss.

Pete

[Pete]

"Rick Onanian" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:53:36 -0500, wrote:
> >>> But who has produced it?
> >>
> >> The company as a whole.
> >
> > Labor.
>
> I'd like to see a bunch of unorganized, unsupplied, unfinanced,
> unmanaged labor produce anything.

www.sourceforge.org

Unfinanced? yes
Unmanaged? Depends
Unorganised? initially, yes. They get it together eventually.
Unsupplied? personal donation of bandwidth, etc.

Would this really scale to actual, physical products? Maybe, maybe not. We
shall see.

Pete

[Hunrobe]

> (R15757)

wrote:

>Bob Hunt here reveals fundamental misunderstanding of Marx that is shared by
>general public. In Communist Manifesto Marx does not theorize about what he
>thinks *should* happen, but rather what he thinks *will* happen. And what he
>thinks will happen includes the worldwide takeover of the capitalist system,
>followed by worldwide communist revolution, etc. In other words, the
>existence
>of so-called Communist countries like USSR did not fit with Marxist theory,
>but
>their collapse does. So far, Marx's predictions are coming true.

I theorize that I will become the oldest man to ever win the Giro, Vuelta, and
Tour de France all in the same year. It hasn't happened yet of course and I
haven't even been invited to any of these races yet but so far you can't
disprove my theory.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

(Hunrobe) from AOL
>http://www.aol.com wrote:

>>Before you start calling people names and telling them to read Marxist
>theory,
>>please name just three countries where Marxism has actually *worked*.
>
>Marx's main work was about capitalism.

Is that a defense of Marxist theory? If so and again, name the three countries.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:54:40 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
> >Take away my
> >capitalist based wage increases, and I will not work as
> >hard as I am capable of.
>
> You will if you work at something you love.

There are many jobs that need to be done, that no one 'loves'

Shipping/receiving of a dept store (BORING. Did that when I was 17)
Fast food
Driving a garbage truck day after day
Tarring a roof in Lousyana in July.
Helpdesk for a bigbox electronics store.

and on and on.

Pete

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote
>
> A fair wage would entail your share of the profit created by your labor.
You
> just aren't understanding the labor theory of value. Here's a resource:
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html
>
> Enjoy.

Currently, my 'fair wage' includes an annual bonus, based on overall
corporate profits. 2 years ago, we got nothing, due to basically zero
profit. Last year, a small (relatively speaking) sum. This year looks to be
an exceptional year (I wrote the financial prediction software, and I
peeked).

We are also able to buy shares in the company (on the French stock exchange,
which really sucks), at a reduced price.
Also, the 401k contribution includes a sum from the employer.

It does happen.

Pete

[archer]

In article >, says...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:57:25 -0500, wrote:
> > You haven't been paying much attention, then:
> > http://www.walmar****ch.com/consumer/page.cfm?subsection_id=101
> > That's only the tip of the iceberg.
>
> I'm tired and want to go to bed. I clicked on four
> of those stories, and didn't see anything terrible.
>
> They priced stuff too high. They priced stuff too low.
>
> They screwed a real-estate broker. This is mean, but
> not enough for me to consider them evil...they're
> just a company, run by humans, who make mistakes and
> bad decisions sometimes. When a company gets that big,
> the law of averages dictates that somebody's bound to
> screw little things up all the time, and the
> occasional big thing.
>
> I don't think Sammy is looking to increase his vast
> fortune by being unethical, especially when he has
> his stores censor some of the material they sell
> because it's seen as unethical (explicit music, etc).

He's also dead, IIRC. He's certainly not running the company any more.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[James Hodson]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:25:34 GMT, Mark Hickey >
wrote:

>Whitewater Real Estate? Oops. Of course, that's one more business
>than Al Gore ever worked in/for.
>

I've heard of Whitewater and the discussions about it several years
ago. Also, I'm aware of GW Bush's former work in the oil industry.
Unfotunately, far too many UK politicians fall into the Al Gore
category, never having worked outside the "industry" of politics. The
majority of the minority who have actually worked in their
pre-politics life were employed in the legal profession. Most of
Blair's government fit into the Al Gore group.

I don't believe that having had such sheltered lives necessarily makes
for good rulers. BTW, Blair himself was a lawyer before he entered
politics.

>(the above is not intended to ignite a debate, only to poke a little
>fun back toward the left).
>
Always a good and fun thing to do :-)

Cheers Mark
James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:15:45 -0500, wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:54:40 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
>> Take away my
>> capitalist based wage increases, and I will not work as
>> hard as I am capable of.
>
> You will if you work at something you love.

Societal needs result in an abundance of work that nobody
loves, and little work that anybody loves.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> wrench cuts a screaming nun because
> 11:14:46 PM 28 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Peter Gardner]

> Yes, there are "enlightened" companies. They are rare. And even rarer is the
> company that shares ALL its profit with the workers. The number of publicly
> traded companies that does that is zero.

By definition, yes, it is zero.

Funny how that works.

Peter

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:19:11 -0500, wrote:
>> You seem to be singing a one note tune. I don't feel exploited
>> when a business owner provides me with a decent wage for
>> an honest day's work. Maybe you have too inflated an opinion
>> of what you should be paid.
>
> A fair wage would entail your share of the profit created by your labor.

"Fair" is a relative and subjective term. What Joe thinks is fair
is different from what Jim thinks is fair.

That said, your specification for fair is not unreasonable, and
further, it is not incompatible with us "capitalist pigs" as it
were. Many companies engage in profit sharing for their employees.

Still, I'd swear that in an earlier message, you said that
employees shouldn't get their share of the profit, but rather,
should get just a whole bunch of money. The example you responded
to was airlines with sagging profits and even losses.

Personally, if I work for somebody else, I don't want my money
tied to his ability to run the business. I want a hourly rate,
or a weekly salary, or whatever; but I would not want my
compensation to be just "my share of the profit created by my
labor", because sometimes my labor doesn't create a profit...but
my labor is still required, and I still need money, when it's not
creating a profit.

You sound like a prime candidate for starting a business. I think
you ought to start a business; maybe a sole proprietorship, maybe
a partnership, or maybe even a corporation. You'd like that you
get paid based on the profit made from your labor.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> Well, O.K. I'll compromise with my principles because of EXISTENTIAL
> DESPAIR!
> 11:18:46 PM 28 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:35:48 -0500, wrote:
> Yes, there are "enlightened" companies. They are rare. And even rarer is
> the
> company that shares ALL its profit with the workers. The number of
> publicly traded companies that does that is zero.

Are you suggesting that publicly traded companies should
distribute all of their profits to their employees? That
would, of course, make their stock worthless and destroy
them.

It's not that rare for companies to give yearly, profit-based
bonuses. In fact, I'd say that most mid-size and larger ones
do. Small ones tend not to have any appreciable profit...and
can't become big until they make some and re-invest it.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> On SECOND thought, maybe I'll heat up some BAKED BEANS and watch REGIS
> PHILBIN ... It's GREAT to be ALIVE!!
> 12:35:46 AM 29 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:16:09 -0400, archer >
wrote:
>> I don't think Sammy is looking to increase his vast
>> fortune by being unethical, especially when he has
>> his stores censor some of the material they sell
>> because it's seen as unethical (explicit music, etc).
>
> He's also dead, IIRC. He's certainly not running the company any more.

In that case, I'll wager that he's not looking to
increase his vast fortune at all, but rather, is
too busy decomposing.

--
Rick Onanian

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

>The U.S., Great Britain and Germany.
>
>Marx wrote about Capitalism, see?
>
>His most famous work is called Das Kapital. That means Capital. Can you guess
>what it is about?

So then because he wrote about it Marx was a capitalist? Interesting. That
would mean that all the people that have styled themselves as Marxists seem to
have misunderstood Marx. Alternatively, your citation of these three
capitalist countries could just be a tacit admission that you're unable to name
three countries where Marxist economics have worked. Either way it would seem
that understanding economic theory isn't your strong suit, Kevan.
BTW, some of Mao's writings refer to flowers. By your argument, that must mean
that all Maoists- if any are left- are really florists. Maybe semantics and
logic aren't your strong suit either. Do you at least have a decent sprint?
<g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote in reply to my statement:
:
>OTOH
>>if you mean who *benefits* from the business' success you must include that
>>business' employees.
>>
>>>But who has produced it?
>>
>>The company as a whole.

That, no it's not the company as a whole it's only-

>Labor.

Earlier in this thread you referred another poster to a website about the labor
theory of value. Either you:
A- didn't actually read that website's section on the labor theory of value
regarding abstract versus concrete labor or
B- referred that poster to what you consider to be a flawed theory or
C- mean "labor" (lower case "l") as opposed to "Labor" (upper case "L").


Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Kevan Smith /\/\> writes:

> Thread's over!

I'm going blackberry picking. It might be a little soon
for it, but it's as good an excuse for a ride as any.

If I'm lucky, I might collect enough berries, scrape
enough chickenfeed change together to buy a block of
Crisco (maybe cash-in some beer empties), and make a pie.

The weather guy on TV says we might get up to 34c
inland. I've got my sunscreen.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

> Yeah, he was pretty big, huh? ;-) But you have to admit you sounded
> a bit like the militant peasant King Arthur ran into in 'Monty Python
> and the Holy Grail'... ;-)

Didn't he say something like:
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate
from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

Hmm... reminiscent of Katherine Harris and Florida 2000, eh?

Actually that makes me think of a new riddle.
Q: How do you know that GWB isn't king?
A: He's got sh*t all over him. :-D

Well I think it's funny, anyway.

> Just your misguided notion that rich folks tend not to pay tax.
> ...
> The system really isn't nearly as "stacked" as you let on.

Well, there is that itty bitty discrepancy about capital gains getting
taxed *a lot* less than earned wages, but what's a few hundred billion
dollars between friends?

Chalo Colina

[Chalo]

Rick Onanian > wrote:

> I'd like to see a bunch of unorganized, unsupplied, unfinanced,
> unmanaged labor produce anything.

You mean like, enough food, clothing, shelter, and trade goods to
survive and prosper? For most of human history? Done that.

Labor has always managed to feed itself, since before economics
applied. Too bad management thinks that's all it ever deserves to do.

Chalo Colina

Tom Keats > wrote:

> I'm going blackberry picking. It might be a little soon
> for it, but it's as good an excuse for a ride as any.

Woohoo! I'm stoked about berry season myself. As a matter
of fact, I stopped my bicycle by some bushes on the way to
work and had a small smackerel of berries. Mmmmmm, eating
just picked fruit is probably my eighth favorite thing. :)

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"These are DARK TIMES for all mankind's HIGHEST VALUES!"
"These are DARK TIMES for FREEDOM and PROSPERITY!"
"These are GREAT TIMES to put your money on BAD GUY to kick the CRAP
out of MEGATON MAN!"

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote

> >Why does sanitation _need_ to be done, but roofing doesn't?
>
> It was roofing in JULY in Louisiana. Oviously, roofing needs to be done
> sometime, but July in Louisiana is right out.

After Hurricane Fred passes by, yes, it does need to be done. No matter what
the month.

> >How would you be on this newsfroup if nobody worked tech support
> >or computer repairs / assembly?
>
> I built my own computers and do my own tech support.

Not everyone is as gifted as you and I.

Pete

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:25:25 GMT,
> >, > wrote:

>>Woohoo! I'm stoked about berry season myself. As a matter
>>of fact, I stopped my bicycle by some bushes on the way to
>>work and had a small smackerel of berries. Mmmmmm, eating
>>just picked fruit is probably my eighth favorite thing. :)

'Specially since they're free :-) I accumulated a whole
coffee canful, but when I got back home they had compressed
down to 2/3 full. Rough pavement. And the ride home knocked
a lot of the black off them. Back home, I carelessly dumped
them out of the can and into the collander to wash them; they
left a puddle on the counter that looked like part of a murder
scene. Smelled good, though. Next time I'll remember to nest
the collander over a pot first to catch the drippings.

I was quite pleased with myself for managing to pick them
without once getting tangled or scratched. I've got
purple fingers, though :-)

> I managed to make it home with a half litre of ripe ones and threw
> them in the juicer with two beets, some celery and a chunk of ginger
> for a tart but tasty purple power blend lunch.

It's too hot for baking, so I'm gonna shine-on the pie. I think
I might seek out a frozen pre-fab pie crust and make a tart,
with the raw berries embedded in a simple flan.

I got 'em from the usual spot, on the 7-11 Trail in Burnaby, just
past Byrne Creek Ravine Park and the other side (west) of
Southpoint Dr. There's a Choices Supermarket hidden away in there
just off the 7-11 Trail. The outdoor public drinking fountain
there came in handy for refilling my water bottle on the way home.
It was damn hot! I needed a little umbrella with a suction cup
base to shade my saddle.

It was actually quite secluded out there. I guess it being
mid-week, and the heat kept everybody away. I had the bushes
all to myself, but it kinda got lonesome after awhile.

The bushes on the north side of the trail, facing south, have
the best berries.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:45:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
>
> >No, nothing is created without the building and equipment
> >used by the employees. Employee labor is only part of the
> >equation.
>
>
> Not employee. Go ahead and say it: worker.
Employee

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:47:33 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
> >"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
> ...
> >> No, they were still exploited. The capitalist just didn't organize well
> >enough
> >> to make the most of that exploitation.
> >Not at all. I am more than happy to have some capitalist
> >business owner create a job for me.
>
> Yeah, that's the beauty of this system. They've brainwashed you into
thinking
> that being exploited is a good thing.
You are the one who might be exploited. I enjoy my work.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:54:40 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
> >Take away my
> >capitalist based wage increases, and I will not work as
> >hard as I am capable of.
>
> You will if you work at something you love.
I work in a profession that I enjoy a lot. Take away the
financial incentives and I will take my talents elsewhere.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:00:37 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
> >"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
> ...
> >> Yes, they work hard exploiting the labor of others. The more they can
> >exploit,
> >> the more money they get.
> >You seem to be singing a one note tune. I don't feel exploited
> >when a business owner provides me with a decent wage for
> >an honest day's work. Maybe you have too inflated an opinion
> >of what you should be paid.
>
> A fair wage would entail your share of the profit created by your labor.
You
> just aren't understanding the labor theory of value. Here's a resource:
My fair share of the profits is in the form of a good wage
and continued employment.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> Yes, there are "enlightened" companies. They are rare. And even rarer is
the
> company that shares ALL its profit with the workers. The number of
publicly
> traded companies that does that is zero.
Because the shareholders are entitled to a dividend or
increase in the share value.

[Rick Onanian]

Hey! That's off-topic. You're not supposed to post
off-topic, like berry picking or politics or economics
in a cycling ng... <G>

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:42:35 -0700, Tom Keats > wrote:

> In article >,
> Kevan Smith /\/\> writes:
>
>> Thread's over!
>
> I'm going blackberry picking. It might be a little soon
> for it, but it's as good an excuse for a ride as any.
>
> If I'm lucky, I might collect enough berries, scrape
> enough chickenfeed change together to buy a block of
> Crisco (maybe cash-in some beer empties), and make a pie.
>
> The weather guy on TV says we might get up to 34c
> inland. I've got my sunscreen.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>



--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:43:01 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
> MindSpring Enterprises wrote:
>
> >The one who takes the risks deserves to be rewarded for
> >creating new jobs for others.
>
> Creating new jobs? Please. That's lame. If a capitalist could explout 100%
of
> the labor of his workers, he'd hire everyone in the world. If he could
exploit
> none of it, he'd hire no one. The number of jobs a capitalist creates is
> prorportional to the dollar amount of the labor he can exploit.
You really must believe this nonsense you keep spouting off.

You should get a refund of any college tuition you have paid.

You haven't learned anything, but someone sure has successfully
brainwashed you into thinking that capitalism is bad. I do not
share your opinion even a little bit.

[Rick Onanian]

On 29 Jul 2003 13:05:41 -0700, Chalo > wrote:
> Rick Onanian > wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see a bunch of unorganized, unsupplied, unfinanced,
>> unmanaged labor produce anything.
>
> You mean like, enough food, clothing, shelter, and trade goods to
> survive and prosper? For most of human history? Done that.

Some of us like things beyond food, clothing, shelter, and "trade
goods". Me, I like computers, cars, and advanced bicycle technology,
none of which would be here if capitolism had never happened.

> Labor has always managed to feed itself, since before economics
> applied. Too bad management thinks that's all it ever deserves to do.

Anybody who can't feed themselves, in the society you envision,
either dies or becomes an excessive burden on others. In fact,
that's what's happened through mankind's history; it continues to
happen today, but at least locally, we do slightly better. Now,
somebody who can't feed themself through hunting and gathering
can probably get a job feeding pens into an imprinting machine
at a promotional products company.

> Chalo Colina
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:48:22 -0500, wrote:
>> And if the roof gets damaged in a July hailstorm?
>
> They start at 4 in the morning and finish before the sun is even fully
> up.
> That's what they did when mine was damaged.

My company is roofing 25 buildings for a housing authority
right now. Some of them are currently desperately in need
of it, for major leaks.

They won't let us start until 7:30am, and it may not be
Louisiana, but my guys can still overcook their lunch
by leaving it on the roof at 9:30am.

They could also choose to leave the company because working
with hot shingles on a hot day is so unpleasant; some do.
They probably go on to bigger and better things. For those
who are less motivated, they are welcome to stay as long as
they produce; or as you would say, as long as we can exploit
them enough.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> WHOA!! Ken and Barbie are having TOO MUCH FUN!! It must be the NEGATIVE
> IONS!!
> 3:48:04 PM 29 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:09:53 -0500,
>, "Mark Jones"
> wrote:

>My fair share of the profits is in the form of a good wage
>and continued employment.

Your fair share are the table scraps your master tosses.

The average worker produces 12 percent more per hour than he or she
did in 1989, helping to more than double corporate profits in the past
decade. Instead of rewarding workers with higher wages, the money
finds itself squarely in CEOs' pockets. Average CEO pay jumped by 481
percent in the 1990s

If average worker pay had risen at the same rate as CEO pay in the
last ten years, worker pay would be $110,399. Instead, it is $29,267.

The average executive now makes 419 times more than the average
blue-collar worker.

The top fifth of Americans are earning 43 percent more than in 1977.
The bottom fifth are earning nine percent less. The richest one
percent of workers are earning 115 percent more.

Because of inflation, workers earning minimum wage have 20 percent
less buying power they had 20 years ago.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > writes:
>
> Hey! That's off-topic.

Maybe not, in a broader sense.

On one level, I like to ride with a purpose. Riding for riding's
sake is okay I guess, but there's a lot to be said for tangible
practicality, too. I wanted to ride, I knew where I was going,
and I knew what I was going to do when I got there. That's nice.

At a somewhat higher level, since we as cyclists are so greatly
affected by what we consume, I think it's germane to talk
about the availability of seasonal "energy" foods.

And then there's the seasonal aspect. After all, we're also
greatly affected by the seasons and times of year. Blackberry
time is a noteworthy way-point in the cycling year. I'm sure
other parts of the world have their own, similar annual occurrences,
and I'd love to hear about how cyclists around the world experience
those, too.

Besides, with all that politico-economic back-&-forthing getting
a little acerbic at times, I just figured it was time to inject
a pleasant thought into the conversation, before the party starts
to get too rough.

> You're not supposed to post
> off-topic, like berry picking or politics or economics
> in a cycling ng... <G>

I'll try to be good from now on <mischievous grin / twinkle in eye>


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Mike Latondresse]

Zoot Katz > wrote in
:

> Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:25:25 GMT,
> >, > wrote:
>
>>Tom Keats > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going blackberry picking. It might be a little soon
>>> for it, but it's as good an excuse for a ride as any.
>>
>>Woohoo! I'm stoked about berry season myself. As a matter
>>of fact, I stopped my bicycle by some bushes on the way to
>>work and had a small smackerel of berries. Mmmmmm, eating
>>just picked fruit is probably my eighth favorite thing. :)
>
> I managed to make it home with a half litre of ripe ones and threw
> them in the juicer with two beets, some celery and a chunk of ginger
> for a tart but tasty purple power blend lunch.

Bunner that the nicest, juicest ones are in with the thickest thorns
and do those suckers hurt.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Mike Latondresse > writes:
>
> Bunner that the nicest, juicest ones are in with the thickest thorns
> and do those suckers hurt.

They're sneaky little b*st*rds. There are lots of good ones
way down low, lurking at ankle level, behind leaves & stuff.
A straightened-out coathanger readily lifts them into view.

Don't even think about going for the ones on top and way back in,
unless you're wearing rhinoceros-hide armour.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:47:38 -0700, >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> Mike Latondresse > writes:
>>
>> Bunner that the nicest, juicest ones are in with the thickest thorns
>> and do those suckers hurt.
>
>They're sneaky little b*st*rds. There are lots of good ones
>way down low, lurking at ankle level, behind leaves & stuff.
>A straightened-out coathanger readily lifts them into view.
>
>Don't even think about going for the ones on top and way back in,
>unless you're wearing rhinoceros-hide armour.
>
Secateurs.
--
zk

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, he was pretty big, huh? ;-) But you have to admit you sounded
>> a bit like the militant peasant King Arthur ran into in 'Monty Python
>> and the Holy Grail'... ;-)
>
>Didn't he say something like:
>"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
>system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate
>from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
>
>Hmm... reminiscent of Katherine Harris and Florida 2000, eh?

Heh heh heh... I'm trying to think of a clever analogy using "double
edged sword" but I'm coming up blank (must be the fact it's raining
cats and dogs here in Arizona - a very unsettling thing).

>Actually that makes me think of a new riddle.
>Q: How do you know that GWB isn't king?
>A: He's got sh*t all over him. :-D
>
>Well I think it's funny, anyway.

Me too. I think it's from the Taliban and Baath party members
though... ;-)

>> Just your misguided notion that rich folks tend not to pay tax.
>> ...
>> The system really isn't nearly as "stacked" as you let on.
>
>Well, there is that itty bitty discrepancy about capital gains getting
>taxed *a lot* less than earned wages, but what's a few hundred billion
>dollars between friends?

That goes back to the government trying to get people to put their
money where it will do the masses (and therefore the government) the
most good. Take away that fairly miniimal incentive, and a lot of
investment dries up overnight. Not a good thing...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>Rick Onanian > wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see a bunch of unorganized, unsupplied, unfinanced,
>> unmanaged labor produce anything.
>
>You mean like, enough food, clothing, shelter, and trade goods to
>survive and prosper? For most of human history? Done that.

Even in the 4,000 plus year old history contained in the bible, there
were slaves and workers, etc. People by nature form hierarchies, just
like most other animals. I wonder if female lions bitch about having
to hunt... ;-)

>Labor has always managed to feed itself, since before economics
>applied. Too bad management thinks that's all it ever deserves to do.

If you want to compare textbook capitalism vs. textbook communism, go
to Korea. Would you rather live in the exploited (south) side, or the
less exploited (north) part of the peninsula? It appears that the
exploited ones eat pretty well, but those who aren't don't. Go
figger.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Zoot Katz > wrote:

>The average executive now makes 419 times more than the average
>blue-collar worker.

Nonsense. That would be a bigger gap than even to the average CEO (by
far). You gotta quit getting your stats from the Village Voice...
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:

> Secateurs.

Long-handled lopping shears, and Watson[tm] gloves, anyways.

In shorts & short sleeves, I'm thornarily magnetic.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:08:13 GMT, Mark Hickey > from
Habanero
> Cycles wrote:
>
> >If you want to compare textbook capitalism vs. textbook communism, go
> >to Korea.
>
> If North Korea is textbook communism, then the textbooks you're reading
are
> wrong. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. It has more in common
with a
> capitalist corporation than any communist society, In fact, the term
communist
> state is an oxymoron.

Show one Communist state that actually works. Past or present.

Small scale communes do not count. Actual soverign countries

Pete
Communism sounds great, until you put people into the equation.

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:45:07 -0500, wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:22:03 -0400, Rick Onanian > from
> The Esoteric c0wz' Society wrote:
>
>> They could also choose to leave the company because working
>> with hot shingles on a hot day is so unpleasant; some do.
>
> How many illegal aliens do you have working for you?

Zero. We hire only legit, legal workers. We've found that
working to the letter of the law is cheaper than trying to
cut costs by bending or breaking rules, by observing the
fines and trouble that other companies in our industry have
paid.

The illegal aliens I've seen on other companies crews don't
look like such a great deal anyway -- they get paid less,
but don't produce as well, are not dependable, are difficult
to communicate with, and often have substance-abuse issues.

Additionally, we do much municipal work, and are required to
pay union wages on such work. At that point, there's no reason
to hire cheap illegal labor; productivity becomes the most
important quality in an employee. We hire the most productive,
dependable employees we can; other companies take the rest.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> What I want to find out is -- do parrots know much about Astro-Turf?
> 8:45:07 PM 29 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:43:35 -0500, wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:13:03 -0400, Rick Onanian > from
> The Esoteric c0wz' Society wrote:
>
>> Would computers have been invented if the capitalist system had
>> never been around?
>
> Yes. They were developed by militaries searching for more accurate ways
> to lob artillery at one another. AS far as I can tell, militarism is
> independent of economic system.

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine military requiring personal
computers for strategy and weapon development, nor creating
consumer technology. Larger computers with more specialized,
less friendly interfaces work just fine for military purposes.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> I'm having a RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ... and I don't take any DRUGS
> 8:43:07 PM 29 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:43:33 -0400, archer >
wrote:
>> >> Would computers have been invented if the capitalist system had
>> >> never been around?
>> >
>> > Yes. They were developed by militaries searching for more accurate
>> ways > to lob artillery at one another. AS far as I can tell, militarism
>> > independent of economic system.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I can't imagine military requiring personal
>> computers for strategy and weapon development, nor creating
>> consumer technology. Larger computers with more specialized,
>> less friendly interfaces work just fine for military purposes.
>
> The personal computer was simply a gradual, evolutionary development from
> Eniac and the other room-size mainframes.

Correct. It would not have evolved that way in another type of
economy; the first personal computers were sold to small businesses
trying to increase production or decrease costs and rich people who
were looking for a toy to spend excess money on.

--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Jones]

"archer" > wrote in message
...
> The personal computer was simply a gradual, evolutionary development from
> Eniac and the other room-size mainframes.
Not exactly. One of the first really small computers was put
together in a guy's garage as a computer kit. This was not
an event driven by one of the big computer companies.

When these big companies saw how many people were
interested in the computer kit, they realized that people
wanted a desktop computer and so before long the
first useful desktop computers hit the market.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> "archer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The personal computer was simply a gradual, evolutionary development from
> > Eniac and the other room-size mainframes.
> Not exactly. One of the first really small computers was put
> together in a guy's garage as a computer kit. This was not
> an event driven by one of the big computer companies.

I didn't say the big computer companies had anything to do with it. In
fact you are correct, they did not understand the appeal of a
"personal" computer. But the PC was still an evolutionary development
from the previously-existing machines in the mini-computer classes, just
developed by somebody else.


> When these big companies saw how many people were
> interested in the computer kit, they realized that people
> wanted a desktop computer and so before long the
> first useful desktop computers hit the market.

The ones from a kit were useful, too, but too a certain amount of skill
to assemble, so they didn't reach the mass market until they started
being mass-produced by the major companies.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.