### Apollo BBS Archive - August 28, 1990

    *=* Post Office entered *=*

    Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 04:37:45

    Hi Rod,

    Long time no see.  What's new with you and your family? Tell everyone I said
    "hi."

    Nick
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Good to hear from you.  I am currently working on a project with several
     2:others that will give us a newspaper that is akin to the Street Paper in New
     3:York.  It is pretty much in the planning stages at this point but it's
     4:getting there.  We are figuring on giving it away to the homeless for them
     5:to sell and we will make our money solely from advertising just as New Times
     6:does.
     7:
     8:Voice of the Street may be its name and it will be an intellectual rag
     9:designed to jar the brain.  Our first issue will be just four pages with it
    10:being just one 11X17 sheet folded to make 4, 8 and a half by 11 pages.
    11:
    12:If you have any ideas let me know and if you'd like to write something for
    13:it that would be nice.  We will be paying for submissions as we get into it.
    14:
    15:I am off probation but have not applied for restoration of my civil rights
    16:as the idea of not having any humors me at this time.  Maybe later but I'm
    17:not sure.
    18:
    19:What have you been doing?  How's Cervelli and have to been in touch with the
    20:cultural editor of the New York Tribune recently?
    21:
    22:Take care dude.  BTW, how many pounds did you say you needed?  Just joking.
    23:                                Rod

    Mail from John Cummings
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 22:10:22

            Rod: wow! you were right, that was at least nine posts! And I did
    not take notes to make a good answer, and have only six minutes left on this
    trip, but here goes:
            The first thing which strikes me is the marked similarity between
    our views of the world.  I hold to the philosophy, "people are no damn
    good!"
            Now, by that I mean that the world as a whole is a good idea, and
    animals, dogs especially, and kids are just fine. But people seem to screw
    up the whole thing as they mature.
            Of course, my attitude is that God made man and gave him the free
    will to screw up if he would. Many men choose to screw up, which leaves us
    with standing armies and high priced gas. But some people, e.g., Mother
    Theresa, choose to live by trying to create the bonding you mentioned in the
    last post.
            Wow! That's great! So when a flower blooms, when my dog wags tail at
    me, when my granddaughter giggles and hugs me, when Mother Theresa helps
    some poor bastard die a bit easier, when Rod Williams posts a well-turned
    phrase and I smile, then I can say there's good things happening. I am not a
    pollyanna; my christian friends think I am very negative with the "people
    are no damn good" philosophy. But it works. More some day--John C.--
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Thanks for the posts.  It seems that our main difference is that you,
     2:somewhere along the line have taken in religion and I on the other hand have
     3:thrown it out.
     4:
     5:It seems to me that different sects of religion have been fighting and
     6:condemning each other for centuries.  And that's too bad.
     7:
     8:We all are brother and we will not make this world right until we realize
     9:it.  We should not waste time worshipping something that may have made us
    10:when that time could be better spent getting to know each other, religious
    11:philosophies be damned.
    12:
    13:I'll talk with you later,
    14:
    15:                                Rod

    End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1429
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: War!
    Subject: Iraq
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 00:47:11

      Every time we warm up the war machine we hear all the prayers for the
    soldiers and their cause. I guess it makes people feel better. Rather than
    thinking that they are going out to fight a mad man and a horde of religious
    goons over oil fields they can imagine that they are going to take part in a
    pissing contest between the gods, with national boundaries as the yardage
    markers.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 1430
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dean/last
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 09:27:28

    Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha! Good point! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 1431
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Prayer for troops
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 10:50:50

    Oh, Dear God, please protect our fighting soldiers.  Help their bullets find
    the hearts of the enemy.  Get them home safe and sound.  Amen.

    P.S.  Sure are glad that you are on our side.  You sure are a powerful
    motherfucker.  Praise to ye.
    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 68956
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: War!
    Subject: Cliff on Iraq
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 06:23:52

    Re: "You seem to forget Iraq invaded another friendly country. It is more
    than just money." Since when have we, America appointed itself the 'World's
    Policeman'??? Viet Nam was a classic example and yes, even Korea. We were
    supposedly fighting Communism. Everybody at those times were heated up in
    erasing communism - overly so. We were running scared. As feeble as these
    reasons are for going to war, at least there is a candle light flicker of
    reason - but not so in this war - could be war - police action???!!

    Pray tell why you have stated .... "you want the government to make using
    methonol and swimming pool fences mandatory. Well, that fits in as I believe
    you once said you would not mind if our government was a socialist
    dictatorship". ....... One of the jobs our gov. SHOULD be doing is to brake
    our dependency of oil from these countries. You know I detest gov.
    interference. But they do have their place and cutting back on fuel, is one
    of them. IF making it mandatory to add Methonol to the gasoline cuts back
    our dependency on foreign oil, you would oppose that???

    Re: your statement on me wanting mandatory swimming pool fences - you need
    glasses or need to read the posts more clearly - I am a 'foaming at the
    mouth' advocate AGAINST swimming pool fences, remember?

    Re: my wanting to see a socialist dictatorship in the White House .... you
    made that sound like I would welcome Communism or something! Number one - I
    believe we already have a dictatorship
    ..... there except it's by many and not just one. I also believe we could
    benefit as a nation to incorporate socialism into our system - making the
    will of the people have more priority - the majority rule come back into
    being, etc. etc. Too many special interest groups are getting an upper hand
    and also, we all know, if you've got money, you've got power regardless of
    what the people may want or for the good of the people!

    You talk about the hostages - I say we are all hostages with our addictions
    to imported oil! We started in the right direction at one time but it all
    went by the way-side. We demanded gas saving vehicles - smaller ones. We
    focused on solar energy and looked toward other ways for energy. In the
    latter part of the 1980's, the big cars came back, the gas guzzlers.
    Cadillac and Lincoln started boldly advertizing - "get the biggest, the
    best, the longest, the heaviest car so you can impress everyone" etc. So
    people forgot saving on gas/oil and started buying these mastodons. Even
    Japan started importing bigger cars. We as consumers welcomed all of this.
    It - the cars were a badge of success. We flat quit thinking about saving on
    oil/gas. Of Course, we all know that solar energy went by the way-side. The
    gov. even took away the tax brake a person could receive if they went solar.
    We made ourselves available to be hostages! The producers are going to give
    the consummers what they want!
    Of course a lot of people - like yourself is saying that oil isn't the
    reason we are at risk of war. That Hussein is another Hitler and must be
    stopped. etc.

    ..... to quote a reporter from the New York times .... "The call to serve
    principle and international morality is ennobling, but if no oil were at
    risk, would we really be putting troops into Arabia? Drop the oil from the
    equation and the thuggish Hussein seizure of Kuwait would be, to the U.S.
    just another uninteresting incident in the tiresome tribal quarrels that
    divided the Arabs of the old Ottoman empire before the British made such a
    mess of it in World War l"! I think that statement rings true.
    Another by the same reportor .... "Bush says the American way of life is
    threatened. He apparently means our ability to pick up the carry-out fried
    chicken in the drive-by lane at the fast food shop as well as our power to
    sit one commuter-per car for 45 minutes every day on the way home from
    work!" Also ... "Hooked as we are on such joys, we may end by finding
    ourselves at war to preserve them. If not this time, then maybe next time.
    When your've got to have oil or die, you put your destiny in the hands of
    the oil dealers, just as surely as the drug addicts make themselves
    hostages" Strong, truthful words in my book. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 68960
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: War!
    Subject: Cliff again
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 07:22:10

    So what does our wonderful government do? It doesn't go after the ways to
    save on oil - it doesn't encourage other types of energy like solar - it
    doesn't come down on Detroit to build more fuel effecient cars - it doesn't
    encourage mass transit systems - it doesn't curtail the imports from Japan -
    making them send us smaller cars - it doesn't encourage us to use our own
    oil to full service - it wastes oil itself right and left - it doesn't
    encourage the people of this country to be more fuel saving minded - it just
    gets it's guns and goes to war to solve the problem. Somehow I get the
    feeling that the government thinks the boys are expendable. Some government!
    Do you think a dictator is any better? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 68961
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: War!
    Subject: Cliff #68926
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 07:36:40

    Why is it when we alway have a discussion like this subject - you always
    state your embarrassed that I call myself an American?? It is ridiculous to
    do so, especially when I don't want to see anyone killed over oil. It makes
    you come across as some machine gun crazy that at the first sign of a war,
    you want to don the helmet and go shoot it up! Personally, I know you are
    not like that  - that radical. And I also know you do not think I'm a
    communist - so lets cut the name calling OK?
    We cannot go to war with every country that has a potential of being a
    stronger army in the future. For one thing, we can't do anything to stop a
    country from getting militarily stronger. If an when they do and threaten us
    physically, then we fight to protect ourselves! I don't think at this time
    that Hussein is planning to a global war with America. Why all the
    excitement then?
    You say the American people stand behind Bush 100% on this thing. I say
    that's not even close to the truth! We are flat tired of these kind of wars.
    You saw Born on the forth of July didn't you? This has the potential of a
    bloody battle just like Nam only this time the name isn't Communism it's
    oil! How are the guys going to justify putting their life one the line -
    lose their lives over that? To preserve the American way of life? Bah
    humbug! We, as the people of this country need to wean ourselves from oil
    usage - discipline our personal way of life so idiots like Hussein can't do
    this to us. The government should jump right in, encouraging us and do their
    part also. Bush is not a very good example for us - he goes on vacation in a
    big power, gas guzzling boat and is driven around in a stretch lemo!

    Message: 68962
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff/Einstein
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 07:43:42

    That's what I said. The special theory holds only for non-intertial systems.
    ie systems not under acceleration. The general theory holds for inertial
    systems as well.

    Message: 68963
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: News Today
    Subject: 'Bare Bones?'
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 08:51:53

    I found this article most interesting in the paper this morning - in the
    editorial section, by a writer in the Republic. Here is part of that
    article ..........

    "Even though we know that our tax revenues and various fees paid to
    Washington during the past decade alone have increased by $586 billion, we
    probably are not sure if that is enough. After all, Congress has seen fit,
    with the White House's tacit support, to increase federal spending during
    that same period by $673 billion. The result is a multibillion-dollar
    budget deficit that, according to Congress and the White House, will
    require another tax increase."

    "Who's to say more taxes are not needed, especially when we've been assured
    time and time again that Washington  is barely getting by on what it calls
    a 'bare bones budget'? Well, thanks to a few organizations, such as the
    Heritage Foundation and The Citizen's for a Sound Economy, we taxpayers may
    be able to find out if we really are getting our money's worth from
    Washington.  Instead of reporting about the political ramifications or the
    highlights of spending legislation, a job most new services do quite well,
    they actually examine the details of the bills." Their findings might be
    instructive to say the least. Congressional spending sought for next year
    includes: ...........
    $12 million for the study of intelligent vehicle/saftey systems. (were we
    non-intelligent before?)

    $6.7 million for bicycle program planning, jet-lag research and other
    transportation related programs.

    $214 thousand for the Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee commission.

    $500 thousand for the Fisherman's Protective Fund. (are fishermen in
    danger? I didn't know that!)

    $7 million for 4 new national cemeteries.

    $15 million for the American Battle Monuments Commission. (This one is very
    important. We need the monuments for all those that will die in battle in
    no-win wars!)

    $56 million to NASA for a search' for extraterrestrial life.

    $114 million for a National Aerospace plane. (what dat? huh!)

    $1.95 billion for multilateral aid to such organizations as the World Bank
    and the European Development Bank.

    $7.7 billion in foreign development assistance for such places as sub-
    Saharan Africa and Ireland.

    $633 million for agricultural research, including studies of the dwarf
    bunt, the potato scab, the Hawaiian fruit fly and turkey Osteomyelitis.

    $10 million for the Packers and Stockyard Administration.

    $500 thousand for the Ameri Flora '92 Exposition.

    $1.5 million for the President's Council of Physical Fitness & Sports.

    $6.4 million to educate native Hawaiians.

    $205 million more for bilingual and immigrant education.

    $250 thousand for cool season legume research. (That's 'beans' folks in
    case you don't know what legumes are off hand!)

    $92 thousand for research into the blue berry shoestring virus problem.

    $1 million to transfer the Technical Study Group on Cigarettes and Little
    Cigar safety to new quarters and to implement a new study.

    $100 thousand for an investigation of Waikiki beach. (I did not know that
    Waikiki beach committed a crime?!)

    $207 thousand for the Advisory Commission on Federal Pay.

    $14 million for Railroad-highway Demonstration projects. (HUH?)

    $1.6 billion for Substitute Highway projects.

    $787 million for 52 various global associations, including the
    International Jute Organization, the International Lead and Zinc Study
    Group and the International Sugar Organization.

    $12 million for MAGLEV-High speed Rail projects.

    $3.4 million for a laundry and warehouse at Mountain Home Tenn.

    $1 million to combat the dreaded Zebra mussel. (A mussel? You mean like a
    clam - a oyster? Oh, now that's really important er?)

    $2.8 million for the Stuttgart Ark. fish farm.

    The reporter goes on to say .... "The list goes on and on, adding up to
    billions and billions of dollars. I for one, concede that some of these
    projects are probably important to someone, but whether such things as fish
    farms and dwarf bunts are an essential part of a 'Bare Bones budget
    requiring a tax increase is something else again. The Federal budget can't
    be cut, we're told. Would you agree?"

    I agree with what he is saying 100%. Unfortunately, some of these, if not
    all, will get passed and we'll pay through the nose, as usual.

                                -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 68968
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ann/list
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 11:04:10

    The problem is that most of the things on your list ADD to the wealth of the
    nation in the form of knowledge. The SETI project is a worthwhile project
    because it is IMPORTANT to find out if there is intelligent life in the
    universe. The problem with the budget is that it has billions of dollars of
    FAT in it not for piddly projects that cost 100s or even millions of dollars
    but for 300 billion dollars to keep our technologically wondrous army, navy
    and air force in great fighting shape so we can intervene as the world
    policeman. It is the policy of the administration of this country that we
    are a superpower and that we need to project our power all over the globe.
    Now, if you want to save some money, get congress to reduce the defense
    budget from superpower status to isolationist status.

    Other items in the budget in the form of pork for the benefit of West
    Virginia because the powerful senator from W. Va can get pork barrel
    projects.

    We need to decide what we NEED to do. Our highway system and bridges are a
    shambles and a national shame. We need to establish alternative fuels. etc.
    Things that will result in more wealth for the country not less.

    Message: 68969
    Author: Jack Snidely
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Mann/Einstein
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 12:30:01

    Put on your glasses, bonehead!  He's been TRYING to tell you you've got it
    backwards...

    "inertial system: A frame of reference in which bodies are NOT
    accelerated..."

       --from the Penguin Dictionary of Science

    Message: 68970
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: War!
    Subject: ann/iraq
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 14:18:00

    This is not merely a confrontation about oil. This is about world economy
    (which Hussein will control if he gets the middle east) and a leader of a
    country which would like to go out conquesting and doesn't especially like
    America. Do you want to step back and watch a possible world recession and
    have to deal with Hussein someday when it is no longer us who has the upper
    hand? Right now, Hussein is a bug for the squashing of the Western world. If
    he gets more money, power and weapons, that won't be true anymore. Remember,
    we are only the third in the world. Iraq is number 4.
    Besides, you speak as though all we have to do is stop driving our cars to
    do away with the use of oil, but oil is used to make far more things than
    you think it is.
    Isolationism would be nice, but it is no longer possible in this day.

    Message: 68971
    Author: $ Gary Jones
    Category: War!
    Subject: Ann/American?
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 14:46:05

    Ann, you have a right to be an American, and Cliff should not be embarrassed
    by the fact, just because you sound like Neville Chamberlin kissing
    Hitler's @$$ in 1939 when he took over Poland.  I guess the old cliche is
    right, people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

                                                       ****  Gary   ****

    Message: 68972
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Snidely/Whiplash
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 16:03:12

    Oh.

    Message: 68973
    Author: $ Mad Max
    Category: War!
    Subject: Germany
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 16:47:39

    I resent that statement about the germans wanting to take over again, I am a
    german of the post wwII generation, and I don't think any german today has
    any notiions about taking over the world or taking over anything for that
    fact. Germans are to preocupied with the reunification process. Please stop
    spreading vicious rumors like that. As one High School gratuate asked me a
    few days ago: do you as a german think that germany will fight with Hussein
    or with the united states. What kind of questions are those, what kind of
    education are the youth of our country getting. I was honestly shocked.
    Germany will never wage war or start a war with anybody ever again, you all
    have my word for that.

    Message: 68974
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: "Dark Helmet"
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 17:00:02

    I have the feeling we are personally acquainted.  Is this so?

    Message: 68975
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: death in New Orleans
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 17:01:12

    Baron Samedi?  A pleasure to make your acquaintance.  I'm Baron Samedi.

    Message: 68976
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/peace
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 17:02:03

    Peace for mothers!

    Message: 68977
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/Einstein
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 17:04:04

    No Roger.  The inertial systems are unaccelerated.  Non-inertial systems are
    accelerated.  Inertial...as in, inertia, the tendency to continue in uniform
    motion...get it?

    Message: 68978
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Chicago
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 17:07:17

    Comes from an old indian word meaning "place of skunk smells."  No kidding,
    and that was before the stockyards...

    Message: 68979
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: straight line
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 17:08:06

    How about the shortest absolute distance between two points?  It would screw
    up all of our other definitions, but...

    Message: 68980
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: War!
    Subject: germanophobia
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 20:29:54

    I agree. It is stupid. Please accept my apology for all the @$$e$ who think
    and make that kind of statement. In fact, I worry more about my country
    wanting to control the world than Germany.

    Message: 68981
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff/inertial
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 20:31:00

    a rose by any other name is still a rose.

    Message: 68982
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: jeff/geodesic
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 20:31:31

    ok ?

    Message: 68983
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: News Today
    Subject: School's in for fall
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 21:23:14

    ASU is hell.

    Message: 68984
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Melissa/last
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 23:56:31

    Just be sure you don't tell that to a minor, okay?

    Message: 68985
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sandi/Middle East
    Date: 08/27/90  Time: 23:59:48

    If Iraq took over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia without the approval of the people
    of those lands then do you think that Iraq would have more power or less
    power?  It takes a lot of effort and manpower to guard other nations if they
    are unwilling participants.  I would say that Saddam Hussein would be
    spreading the margarine awfully thin.

    Message: 68986
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Middle East
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 00:01:14

    Take your posts and send them off to some newspapers and see if they publish
    them.  Do a tad bit more editing though.

    By the way, you sure are pretty when you are angry.

    Message: 68987
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: War!
    Subject: Jeff & Roger/Mid-E.
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 00:02:28

    The Middle East is sure an interesting place.  First off, Iran is probably
    the strongest military power in the region having been able to drive Iraqi
    troops back into their own country in their latest effort.  And it seems
    that everyone is named Hussein something or other.

    Then the nation of Saudi Arabia helped fight Isreal in the 1948 war and
    during the bitter fighting between Iraq and Iran in the late eighties, the
    Saudia's gave large financial contributions to Iraq hoping they would win
    so as to not have to deal with the Iran Military if Iraq were beaten.

    The population of Saudia Arabia is 15 million, Iraq, 18 million, and Iran,
    53 million.  The major religion of the people of Saudia Arabia is Islam,
    Iraq, Islam 97%, Christian 3% and Iran, Shi'ite Moslem 93%, Sunni Moslem
    5%.  The main language spoken by both Iraq and Saudia Arabia is Arabic
    while Iran speaks Farsi, Kurdish and Arabic.

    The population of Kuwait is around 2 million, their major religion is 85%
    Islam, and their language is Arabic and English in that order.  There are
    no political parties in Kuwait.  Everyone is appointed by the Sheik.

    Kuwait obtained British protection in 1897 when the Sheik feared that the
    Turks would take over the area.  In 1961, Britain ended the protectorate,
    giving Kuwait independence, but agreed to give military aid on request.
    Iraq immediately threatened to occupy the area and Sheik Sabah al-Sabah
    called in British troops in 1961.  Soon afterward the Arab League sent in
    troops, replacing the British.  The prize was oil.

    Kuwait also supported Iraq against Iran during their recent war.  Iranian
    terrorists have been initiating acts against Kuwait for many years.

    From my reading of the history of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia it
    would seem that Iran is the odd country.  Its religion and language is
    different from the other mentioned countries.

    I strongly suspect that the popular press is again lying to us (when
    haven't they?) in order for us to approve of strong military expenditures
    in that area.  This is not a cheap military action on our part as it is
    costing mega dollars.  The economy of the U.S. is in sad shape due to the
    rapes of the S&L's among other things.  This military action will just make
    matters worse for the average American although I doubt if the ruling
    class, politicians included will give up their life styles as the expense
    will be borne by the working class as always.

    It also seems to me after reading up on the old AND recent history of that
    area that Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have every right to join forces
    against their longtime common enemy, Iran.

    It seems that the U.S. ruling class may be afraid of this hookup as the
    bargaining table may then be tipped slightly in these three countries favor
    when it comes to oil.  The U.S. along with the British Empire does not want
    to relinquish the control they have enjoyed for many a year.

    The popular press is making Hussein look like a Hitler in order to gain the
    support of the troops as well as that of the people.  The Viet Namn
    anti-war rallies of the sixties are not soon forgotten and the press is
    doing everything in its power to control the minds of the 6 o'clock news
    believers.

    Again, I doubt if there is one among us who knows just what in the hell is
    really going on.  I doubt if the troops know and I doubt if the popular
    press knows.  The latter prints what they are told and the former are
    trained to believe what they are told.  No questions asked.

    Yes, I know that according to the news Iraq invaded their long time ally
    Kuwait and headed for another long time ally's border, Saudi Arabia but this
    doesn't make any kind of sense.  Their common enemy is Iran and the three
    countries, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been supporting each other for
    many a year.  Hell, they are all related.  I think they are just trying to
    join together in order to form a more powerful state.  But then if that
    were to happen then Israel with a population of 4 and a half million people
    would be in danger because these three countries all supported the war
    against Israel.  Maybe that's what it's about.  Israel could be knocked off
    the map after Iran was dealt with by these three countries joining might.

    If the stories that we are spoon fed are true and Iraq is the monster and
    they do take over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then that new power would be more
    than willing to take American and British dollars.  It would simply become
    a new country still ready to sell their products capitalistically to the
    buyers of the world.  No big deal as Middle Eastern countries have been
    changing names and rulers since man took his first step.

    Go figure.

                                            Rod

    Message: 68991
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
    Subject: Blade Runner
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 01:03:36

      I am interested, even though I have seen it a bunch of times.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 68992
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Jeff B/monopoly
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 01:04:19

       Again I am sorry that it's taking so long to answer your posts on
    free enterprise and monopoly power. You are partly to blame however,
    as I have been stuck in 1904 for several days by your arrangement.
       I should clarify and back away a little from the blanket statement
    I made concerning monopolies and free markets. I said, in the haste
    of writing a message online, that a free market does not tolerate
    monopolies. I can show that this is generally true, but there are, in
    fact, two distinct types of monopolies which a free market does not
    destroy. I will cover them a little further on.
       The answer to a question you asked in one of your posts will be
    important in understanding how the market reacts to all attempts at
    intervention, including monopolies. That question was, "How do you
    define 'unrealistic' prices?" It sounds like you might believe that
    there is no such thing, and that an arbitrary pricing schedule could
    be used as well as any other. This is not the case, and understanding
    what a realistic price is and how markets determine it will also
    explain why and when a free market opposes monopolies.
       Prices react to simple forces of supply and demand, but also to
    the less obvious forces of the capital market. The business
    enterprise is created by investment capital, which is seeking its
    best possible rate of return. If the rate of return in this
    particular business is significantly below that which the invested
    capital could earn in other investments, then a reasonable return is
    not being had and the business will likely fold as no more capital
    will follow, and what there is may take flight. If, on the other
    hand, this particular business is returning more on its investment
    than could be earned elsewhere, then that line of business will
    automatically become the magnet which pulls capital away from less
    attractive investments.
       The result is a balance where low prices drive out investment,
    reducing supply and quickly bringing prices back into balance with
    production and capital costs. While rising prices suck in investment,
    which increases competition between suppliers, and returns prices to
    the same balance with the costs of production and capital. This is
    the measure by which a price can be said to be realistic or not.
       An arbitrary price scheme will not fool the market. The attempt
    will fail because it tries to fight the very force which creates a
    business and strives to keep it well run, the automatic quest by
    investment capital for a reasonable return. You can not produce
    something at a price which is not related to its costs of capital and
    production and stay in business, unless you are using state power to
    hold the capital hostage or subsidize the price through the theft of
    taxation.
       The free market system protects the interests of the investor, the
    business enterprise, and the buyer by constantly weighing all the
    factors involved and returning vital information in the form of
    prices, capital costs, and rates of return on investment. If the
    would be monopolist lowers prices to drive out competition and corner
    the market, capital will always be waiting to rush back in the moment
    the monopolist raises prices to an unrealistic level.
      In short order, the capital market will flow back toward the high
    rate of return the  monopolist was hoping to corner, and competition
    will resume. You might be able to make a deal with a few other
    businessmen to overcharge your customers, but you can not make a deal
    with all the investors in the world to keep their capital out of your
    industry. Attempts at lowering prices to drive out competition and
    then raising them again to get unreasonable profits have been such a
    failure that it is seldom even tried anymore. The only way to drive
    out competition and then keep it out is by force, either in spite of
    the state's duty to protect people from force, or more often with the
    state providing the force.
       All this supposes that it is practical for investment capital to
    enter the monopolist's field and compete against him. Now we get to
    the two cases where the market does not oppose the monopolist because
    competition is impossible. One of them is the case where there is an
    actual physical monopoly on the product, such that nobody else can
    produce it. This is rarely a problem, as the things we really can't
    do without are not found in this class.

      The DeBeers family of South Africa has such a hold on the diamond
    trade, or at least a fair approximation. The holder of an exclusive
    patent or copyright has such power over their own creation for the
    term of that legal right, as they are certainly entitled to. The
    moderating influence faced by this type of monopolist is the amount
    that people will part with for his product, given that there are
    usually alternatives to buying it at all.
       The other type of monopoly is more common in industry, although it
    is usually temporary. When a new industry begins, it often starts out
    as a number of small firms in competition. If it is of such a nature
    that there are economies of scale involved, then it often happens
    that these firms begin to merge and become more efficient, until
    there may be only one firm dominating the industry. At this point,
    only another large firm could compete, as long as the monopoly
    charged realistic prices and used its economy of scale to profit.
      If they try to charge more of course, capital will rush in to
    competition with them again. This, and the fact that it is easier to
    duplicate the processes of an existing firm than it is to develop
    them from scratch, is why a free market would seldom leave a monopoly
    standing for very long.
      If they do not charge more, and continue to grow and become more
    efficient, such that nobody can compete with them, should the state
    or anyone else have the right to interfere with them by force?
    No, but they do it anyway in the misguided belief that they have the
    right to do it, and that too much success must be punished.
      Alcoa Aluminum is an excellent case in point. Starting with the
    patent for the refining process in 1886, the company developed the
    product and the market for it such that nobody could touch them. Even
    after the patent ran out and others were free to use it, Alcoa was
    staying ahead of the game by way of innovation and economies of scope
    and scale. They were still dominating the industry until 1945 when
    the U.S. government decreed that they were just too good at their
    business, and forced them to raise their prices so that less able
    firms could take their markets away. The result was higher prices for
    everyone, and a lesson in the perversity of market controls.
       You have said, "..the essence  of market controls is to prevent or
    penalize misrepresentation and coercion when individuals choose to
    trade." If that were only true, then we would not be having this
    conversation and countless other examples of government intervention
    against the market for corrupt or wrong-headed reasons would not have
    occurred.
       Understanding the simple economics of the free market shows you
    that it is the best method of protecting everyone's interests and
    that interference with prices, flow of capital, return on investment,
    and the ability to succeed serve no good purpose. The only proper
    place of state power in relation to the market is to enforce generic
    laws against fraud and the use of force.
       The fact that government power has corrupted the market everywhere
    is no proof that the market needed such corruption. Your demand that
    I show you a pure free market before you will agree that it is a good
    idea is on a par with someone demanding that they be shown a nation
    where there is no murder before they will believe that a nation
    without murder could be a good thing.
       I can, however, show you a modern example of an industry where
    there are no market controls. It is a huge industry which operates
    all over the world, and yet it is still carried out by business units
    of every size from multi-national corporation to individual
    entrepreneur. It has existed for hundreds of years, and yet it has
    resisted the efforts of all who would combine it into one large
    monopoly. And it has remained largely open and competitive despite
    the fact that government not only isn't regulating its prices, wages,
    benefits, or ownership, but doesn't even offer its personnel the
    basic protections from dishonesty and violence which would greatly
    benefit any free market in remaining unconsolidated.
       Capital seeking a better return and the laws of supply and demand
    have for years undermined those who would tie it all together and
    hold it that way. Of course it's all illegal, that's the only way
    anything can be that unregulated any more. If it were legal and still
    as unregulated, then monopoly would be even harder to achieve because
    deceit and thuggery would not be such ready tools for organization
    building. It is the drug trade of course, and the one influence
    government has is to drive up prices by making it risky business. The
    industry has always been able to find ways to serve its markets
    though, and prices are actually quite competitive considering the
    built in cost factor of illegality.
       Getting back to the start of all this talk about regulation, you
    asked me what I thought about the increase in oil prices and added
    that you supposed I was against government intervention. I think I
    have answered that question, so what do you think about the increase
    in oil prices and the correct response, if any?
       See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 68999
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Annie!
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 05:47:25

    You sure are getting wordy lately!
     Give your soap box a break! In the words of the late, great James Taranto,
    "shut up already!"

    Message: 69000
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 09:04:27

    I agree that we need to cut the defence expenses first and formost. I think
    we need to be a superpower - but not wield that power and be policemen of
    the world. We cetainly would not let other counties police us would we?
                           -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69001
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Sandi on Iraq
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 09:11:15

    I don't think we should lose one life (if possible) over the world ecomony
    either!
    Re: oil use here - I don't acvocate quit using oil - just cut back. Focus on
    fuel economy on the home front and in the government. Become more self
    sufficient where oil is concerned. We don't even come close to using our
    full capacity. Detroit hasn't done enough. The people have become
    complacent re: the use of fuel. We HAVE to do this sooner or later, why not
    start right NOW??? It would certainly be a better goal than making seat
    belts mandatory don't you think? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69002
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gary #68971
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 09:13:44

    Pssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!!! And a juicy one too.

    Hey fellow - I'd kiss anyone's a$$ if it means not having a war or getting
    anyone killed. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69003
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod on war
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 09:21:00

    I am so sick of war and the threats of war. We've never had peace for very
    long - World War II was over and before you knew it, we were in Korea. Of
    course there's Viet Nam and the Iranian confrontation, Kadafi got his two
    cents worth in - Noriega, ditto - a few idiots along the way caused trouble
    and now Hussein. Now that we are at peace so to speak with Russia, we're
    back at it with someone else and it never ends. I think all the wars,
    threats of wars, police actions, are all economic is form. It simply boosts
    the economy of our country. We ought to mind our own business for a change.
                                  -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69004
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley/last
    Date: 08/28/90  Time: 09:25:37

    Pssssssssssshhhhhhhhhh! And a juicy one too! *Heh -=*) ANN (*=-