Reflections after the election: Lacunae in the education of engineers

On Nov 9, 12:26*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

*As long as there is one person hungry, homeless, ill or deprived of any
selfish want in America, true capitalism must be considered to be a
"failure". *

As long as there is one person denied his "selfish want" of a Rolls-
Royce convertible, "true" capitalism is a failure?

Well, if you're serious (your remarks read like the parodies of the
pinkos that I used to write back when they had enough influence to
matter), I guarantee that you and the other do-nothing whiners will
forever have your heart's content of whining. That's an impossible
target. But then setting impossible targets for others to achieve is
the specialty of leftwing whiners.

But you're an innocent in economics, too. Did you know for instance
that about 2% of unemployment is natural and desirable to permit
workforce mobility? Any less and you get inflation which cuts into the
calorie-intake of the very poorest members of society.

Andre Jute
The last rationalist

Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 9, 5:27 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
[...]Kyoto isn't just a feelgood expression of white middle-
class guilt, and as pointless, it is, in its true perspective, as
murderously misdirected as the banning of DDT, which has resulted in
the deaths of tens of millions of the poorest people on earth.
To hell with the birds that were almost driven to extinction by the
overuse of DDT.

Me, I vote for people before birds. And, in any event, that scare
story about birds was never proven. Show me the species that went
extinct, Mr Meyers, if you're such an American Genius.

It has become clear that Mr. Jute picks and chooses which parts of
science he wants to believe to fit his economic right-wing ideology.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

On Nov 9, 4:26 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

As long as there is one person hungry, homeless, ill or deprived of any
selfish want in America, true capitalism must be considered to be a
"failure".


So how many hungry, homeless, ill, deprived, and dying children are
acceptable to you?

(I would disagree with the part about "selfish want". That's sort of
what capitalism is all about.)

On Nov 9, 10:06 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 9, 5:27 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:



Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 9, 3:23 am, Still Just Me wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 13:00:37 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute

wrote:
Yeah, protectionism is really going to work, just like it worked every
time before. American workers just priced themselves out of the
market.
There's a difference between "over priced" and "can't compete with 35
cent an hour third world labor".

You should provide a source for "35 cent an hour third world labor".
No top quality steel is made by labourers earning 35 cents an hour. In
Taiwan for instance, bluecollar workers are well paid and live well
and have benefits that American can only dream of. American unions
priced their people out of the market, period.

And over in mainland China, workers manufacturer bicycles with wages
from 15 to 50 cents per hour with no benefits. The factories are also
free to pollute.

And the people who're whining loudest for protectionism are
the same people who want to make it impossible for American workers
ever again to be efficient, by demands to keep oil prices high,
I haven't seen anyone demanding that.

You must be blind to have missed a thread on this conference called
"Tax to keep oil at $70 per barrel?" Look into getting a seeing-eye
do. They don't eat much and they offer unconditional love.

Dog?

for
instance, by demands that the US government join stupid,
counterproductive environmental schemes like the Kyoto Agreement.
Yes, heaven forbid we pay attention to preserving the planet - and how
dare we suggest that corporations earn less profit by paying to
compensate for the damage they do. I mean, after all, the environment
does belong to them, not the people on the planet!

If Kyoto was about making the polluter pay, I would be for it. It
isn't, it is about penalizing the already efficient. If Kyoto would
result in less pollution, I would be for it. It isn't, it will result
in more pollution and cost more than it would cost to bring health,
education and clean water to the entire huddled, starving masses of
the world. Kyoto isn't just a feelgood expression of white middle-
class guilt, and as pointless, it is, in its true perspective, as
murderously misdirected as the banning of DDT, which has resulted in
the deaths of tens of millions of the poorest people on earth.

To hell with the birds that were almost driven to extinction by the
overuse of DDT.

Me, I vote for people before birds. And, in any event, that scare
story about birds was never proven. Show me the species that went
extinct, Mr Meyers, if you're such an American Genius.

Andre Jute
Laughing out loud

Canary in a coal mine. (Dumbass!)

Andre Jute wrote:

They might, eventually, but they aren't given a chance. The US has for
decades used aid fund blackmail effectively to ban the effective use
of DDT where it is needed, in Africa for instance. Tens of millions of
the poorest and most defenseless women and children on earth have died
for a chimera. It was never proven that a single person died of cancer
induced by DDT. Rachel Carson inspired a genocide bigger than Stalin
mass murder of the kulaks, much bigger than Hitler's puny efforts at a
holocaust, unimaginably bigger than Pol Pot's pukey little trial run.
Those who marched in the streets for the banning of DDT, pressured
their pols, uncritically reported scare stories, put the birdies
before humans, are mass murderers.

This is absolute nonsense & we have been all over it befo

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...031a753c?hl=en

DanHole writes:

So how many hungry, homeless, ill, deprived, and dying children
are acceptable to you?

...let's make it 666, just to make evangelicals feel needed...

(I would disagree with the part about "selfish want". That's
sort of
what capitalism is all about.)

...agreed! Like those "selfish" hayseeds working a family farm or the
"selfish" greasemonkey bust'in his knuckles everyday at his shop, just
to put his kid through school. Or the "selfish" short changing shop
hack who works 7 days a week to provide for his family.
I'm totally at a loss in trying to understand why so many people hate
capitalist. Or is it fear? Which is DanHole? Hate or fear?

just regards - Mike Baldwin

"Still Just Me" wrote:
[...]
There's nothing wrong with capitalism. There is something wrong with
massive corporate greed and behavior unchecked by reasonable
regulation and fostered by government support and taxpayer funds.
That's what gives all sensible people pause.

But yet, 40 plus percent [1] of the 64 per4cent of USians that bothered
to vote wanted to continue the policies of taking from the working
person and giving to the rich, upward redistribution of income practiced
by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton (to a much lesser extent) and Bush II (to the
greatest extent). We have far to go.

[1] Accounting to voter suppression effects that give Democrats a built
in ca. 5 percent disadvantage.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

SJM writes:

There's nothing wrong with capitalism. There is something wrong with
massive corporate greed and behavior unchecked by reasonable regulation
and
fostered by government support and taxpayer funds. That's what gives
all sensible people pause.

I think you'll agree you and I amazingly do see eye to eye here.
That's a well written and concise counter point to the those who believe
executive corruption with government aid is "capitalism" at work, it's
not!

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

On Nov 9, 4:10 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

" The political math as to why these policies _factually_ worked
cannot
be discussed within the vacuum of denial and hatred which is so common
in RBT.
As long as there is one person hungry, homeless, ill or deprived of
any
selfish want in America, true capitalism must be considered to be a
"failure". "

To which Dan responded:

So how many hungry, homeless, ill, deprived, and dying children
are acceptable to you?

... 666...


(Then, in consideration of MB's sarcasm)

(I would disagree with the part about "selfish want". That's
sort of
what capitalism is all about.)


I'm totally at a loss in trying to understand why so many people hate
[the] capitalist. Or is it fear? Which is [it]? Hate or fear?


I didn't even so much as imply that I "hate" any capitalist. Are you
suggesting that a "selfish want" element of human nature is not what
makes capitalism exist and function in the real world?