### Apollo BBS Archive - January 10, 1992

    *=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Message: 8828
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Drugs...
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 04:45:40

            I do NOT know how to grow or make drugs, but the war to stop drugs
    is a farce as I know where to get them at any time.  I just don't happen to
    use drugs myself.  You can't stop what people want... all you do is make
    more criminals, and in this case people are willing to kill for drugs, so
    anti gun laws are not even going to bother them.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 8829
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: Guns (1/2)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 15:11:17

    Heck, I've made a gun myself, when I was only 16 too -- and I'm not all that
    clever with tools.  Didn't need anything I couldn't get legally, not even
    regular ammo.  I made it out of a piece of gas pipe, and with the help of
    some chemicals it shot a glass marble clean through the shed door.
    Definitely a lethal weapon.

    Zip guns have been made for decades by kids in street gangs.  I've seen a
    couple of guns that were made by guys in *prison* -- and one of them was
    semiautomatic too!

    It's estimated that there are something like 160 million guns in private
    hands in the U.S. alone.  Does anybody think these are all going to be
    tamely turned in if gun ownership were banned?  In fact, the probability of
    a gun being retained illegally is precisely in proportion to the criminal
    tendencies of the owner.

    Despite strict UK gun laws, the police find that more and more people are
    getting guns from somewhere.  They've talked about finding up to fifty guns
    in one house; and this wasn't an organized terrorist group with special
    sources, either.

    If gun manufacture stopped tomorrow and every legitimate citizen turned in
    his guns for destruction, the only guns in the world would be in the hands
    of criminals.

    Message: 8830
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: Guns (2/2)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 15:12:23

    Presumably the fact that people *want* guns, and enjoy using them for
    legitimate purposes, doesn't count for anything in the liberal mind.  There
    are also many people today who feel they *need* a gun for protection -- and
    not without justification.  This includes many women, who are increasingly
    victimized by criminal members of the stronger sex.  The liberal creed is
    supposed to be in favor of protecting the weak.  But people's real wants and
    needs don't count for much in the liberal mind, except for those that happen
    to have a place in the approved liberal dream of utopia where everybody
    loves one another.

    You don't create love by taking away weapons.  You have to create the love
    first; then people stop killing.  But that's too hard for the liberal.

    The conservative mind frequently condemns people's wants and calls them
    sinful.  But the liberal mind does something far more offensive than just
    criticizing: it *trivializes* people's wants.

    When the conservative mind finds a part of human nature that it doesn't
    like, it tries to suppress it.  But when the liberal mind finds a part of
    human nature that it doesn't like, it pretends it doesn't exist.  This again
    is far worse, because you can't design a social system, or any other kind of
    system, based on false or incomplete data.  We see the results all around
    us; yet still the liberal mind marches on.  If you don't like the facts,
    just pretend they're not there; then they'll go away.  Pass the opium, Jack.

    Message: 8831
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Beau/Spoiler
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:01:27

    Awww. You had to tell. Spoiled all the fun. I was waiting for the right
    moment and I was going to say:
    "GUNS???", "I meant DRUGS!!!." I was just gonna let all the arguments pile
    up why it is impossible to get rid of guns and then, WHAMMO,
    s/guns/drugs/. But you had to spoil it.

    Message: 8832
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod/God
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:03:04

    Fortunately, for we atheists, God does not exist.

    Message: 8833
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green Lamp
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:26:00

    Re:  if guns were eliminated

    Guns weren't even on the list dummy.

    Message: 8834
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Bill
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:30:25

    Re:  The police had no business using lethal force unless they had some
    reason to believe he posed an immediate danger.

    I find it impossible to relate to your mindset.  I think a man robbing a
    bank with a shotgun a reason to believe he poses an immediate danger.

    Or maybe you think he should shoot someone first before the police take
    action?

    Message: 8835
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:33:32

    Re:  If guns were banned... I bet there would be more CRIME and more
    knife killings raising that number even higher.

    You don't have to bet Cliff.  It's a statistical fact that cities/states
    that ban guns have a higher crime rate than those who do not restrict the
    right to own and carry guns.

    Message: 8836
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:35:20

    Re:  Or do you know what 'load on demand' means...  I doubt it
    and I doubt the jury did either.

    Most "anti gun" people know next to nothing about guns.  Sad but true.

    Message: 8837
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:38:12

    Re:  And why didn't the guy see in the mirror what the dumb stylist was
    doing wrong?

    He was probably smiling to himself and planning a meeting with his lawyer.

    Message: 8838
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green Lantern
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 16:55:45

    Re:  Fortunately, for we atheists, God does not exist.

    You have always talked like an atheist.  That's why I never understood why
    you said you were a Christian and played an organ at your church???

    Message: 8839
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 22:35:03

    That's like saying he was first in line for the brains when
    they got handed out, but got stuck holding the door open for
    everyone else.

    Message: 8840
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Guns vs laws
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 22:38:27

    You know, the only people who berate the ownership of guns
    are the people who gasp in horror when they hear about
    someone being killed by one.

    I wonder what goes through their frail minds when they
    hear about car wrecks killing innocent passengers or
    when Jets crash and kill dozens or when
    some kid sticks an electric cord in his mouth and gets
    a Don King Harido before meeting his maker?

    How about the guy who drowned in the toilet?

    I wonder if we should ban crappers, airliners and
    prevent ownership of cars and electric appliances too?

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Felix/Green/atheist

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Could you imagine what this world would be like without change?  I went from
     2:Christian to atheist.  I wised up and saw the light, so to speak.
     3:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 8841

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 81477
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Alas, poor Bill
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 05:35:23

    Glen Miller went down? Not on my stereo! (sheepish grin here)

    Message: 81478
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: $tatus users only
    Subject: Arch/another SIG
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 05:46:14

     In response to your thought that these economic discussions belong here, my
    suggestion is still valid, I think. All of the participants in the
    discussion, with the exception of Adkins/Matlock (whom you ignore anyway)
    are $tatus users who could access an ECOnomic SIG if they so chose. THose of
    us who are tired of the main BBS being used so heavily by two or three users
    on one ongoing debate could pass on that SIG. IT would give all of the users
    a personal choice. THe suggestion still stands.

    Message: 81479
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: $tatus users only
    Subject: Last..
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 07:53:04

            I think the GOLD/FRN argument has about dried up... we all may have
    learned something, but it seems none of us are admitting it right now.
    Of course, I speak for no one but myself... I do not give advise, PERIOD!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- grin!

    Message: 81480
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 08:32:50

    I have read your messages listing definitions of vituperative attacks and
    appealing to the emotions instead of presenting facts, etc., and your
    listing of quotations from my messages.

    Once again, Fred, you failed to make your point.  I saw nothing you quoted
    which met the definitions you quoted.  And again, I saw nothing you
    presented which meets any reasonable definition of "fact."  Try looking back
    over your own messages and see how many "facts" you presented in support of
    your argument -- not many, if any.  I think I did a much better job of that
    than you have.

    But now that you've vented your spleen without, once again, saying anything
    illuminating about the discussion, and since nothing you said advances your
    argument, I'll just drop it from here.

    Message: 81481
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: $tatus users only
    Subject: ((SHIELDS))
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 09:09:59

            I put them at 40% this morning...  I am fed up with Jeff Beck/Mark
    Adkins/Matlock/Hiro Watanabe.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 81482
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Cliff/last
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 11:24:01

    Aw! Don't tell me Mark is Hiro. Drats and I thought we were going to have a
    real Japanese person on Apollo. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 81483
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/last
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:26:54

    Ann, are you kidding?  I spotted it right away.  I was going to put the
    following post up last night, only I never had time.

    Also, I have "a few" posts to put up on inflation, responding to Fred's
    comments.  Sorry about that, everyone.

    Message: 81484
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: James Matrock
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:27:31

    I comprain also about very bad Engrish in New York Times.  Compuserve worse
    -- typing awfurry crumsy.  Not advise to use if you want rearn rangauge good
    like me.  Read good Engrish riterature instead.  Say herro to Yoshi for me.
    Have a Happy Martin Ruther King Day.

    Message: 81485
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 1/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:28:44

    It's quite true that inflation isn't always the direct result of some
    government action.  It *can* be the result of a government action, the most
    obvious one being direct devaluation of the currency vis-a-vis the exchange
    rate with other nations.  The effect of that is easy to see, because
    imported goods (including essential raw materials) go up in price.  It can
    also happen when the government tinkers with the prime interest rate.

    But you're quite right, inflation does happen by itself.  Economists argue
    over why this happens, and in the past they've discussed two opposing
    theories: "cost-push" and "demand-pull".  "Cost-push" says that when sellers
    raise prices to gain more profits, wage-earners are squeezed and demand more
    pay.  Businesses are then forced to raise costs to compensate, which starts
    another round of price increases and further wage demands.  "Demand-pull"
    says that it's too much money chasing too few goods that encourages the
    price of the goods to rise, then businesses make more money and they can
    give themselves some leeway to respond to the next round of wage demands
    they know will come.  Or something like that.  I incline to the cost-push
    theory myself, since everybody complains how badly off they are all the
    time.  But in any case it's a futile chicken-and-egg debate.  It doesn't
    matter which of the two it is, because they both amount to the same thing.

    The point is that if inflation is possible, it's almost bound to happen,
    because it's driven by natural human greed.

    Message: 81486
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 2/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:29:55

    Every wage-earner wants more money.  Every business wants more profit.  We
    can't blame people for wanting things.  Wage-earners will make demands.
    Businesses will respond to them if they know that there's a certain "slop"
    in the economy.  That slop comes from future inflation.  Businesses put
    their prices up because they know their customers can absorb a certain
    amount of price increase.  And why can they?  Because their customers know
    that after a year or so they can demand another wage increase, and get it.
    Nobody cares, because it's only money, and money in this kind of economy has
    no absolute value.

    Looked at another way, a constant round of borrowing goes on.  When
    businesses put prices up, they're putting the squeeze on their customers.
    Effectively they're borrowing money from their customers.  When workers
    demand pay increases and get them, they're putting the squeeze on their
    employers -- borrowing money back from business.  The whole thing continues
    in a crazy seesaw, but the end result is that the money itself gets
    repeatedly devalued.

    The reason this happens is simply that it is *allowed* to happen.  Greed
    will do the rest.  Suppose you had a credit line at the bank, and nobody
    ever demanded that you make regular monthly payments to get it back in the
    black?  Suppose you had a $1,000 credit line, and used it all up, and then
    you went to the bank manager and he said -- [I was tempted to say "she said"
    out of pure whimsy, but I hate "political correctness" :) ] --

    Message: 81487
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 3/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:31:06

    "No sweat!  Plenty more where that came from, it's only paper money.  We can
    always print some more."  So off you'd go and borrow some more, if you
    thought you'd never be called to account for it.  All right, today's $1,000
    will look like $100 in a few years' time.  But you have borrowed *value*
    from the bank, and it's never been paid back.  It was genuinely worth $1,000
    when you borrowed it, and if you don't pay it back it will translate into
    10,000 of tomorrow's dollars.  Value doesn't come from nowhere.

    People will go on gaily borrowing and borrowing if no discipline is imposed.
    Money with a constant value imposes discipline, and reminds people of
    reality instead of letting them indulge in the illusion that they can go on
    borrowing for ever.  This is an analogy, but it illustrates why inflation
    will continue under its own steam, driven by the same human impulse that
    would lead a borrower to run up unlimited debt if nobody ever stopped him.

    So it's quite right, governments don't *need* to take explicit action to
    make inflation happen.  They only have to set up a system where inflation is
    *allowed* to happen by itself.  Do governments want to see inflation happen?
    Yes, they do; for the reasons I've stated, among others.  It's quite true
    that governments also *worry* about inflation, and try to fight it at times.
    But this is only in response to public pressure.  A government tries to get
    away with as much as it can; but it can't afford to look too bad, otherwise
    it might get voted out.  Governments tread a fine line.

    Message: 81488
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 4/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:32:22

    As evidence of this, it's worth looking at the ruble and other Iron Curtain
    currencies.  In a one-party state, the government never had to worry about
    competition from an opposing party.  So inflation wasn't a problem to the
    party in power.  We can all see the result: that while the ruble is still
    used as play money within the ex-Soviet Union, its value outside is roughly
    on a par with Confederate dollars in 1866.  The real state of health of the
    Soviet economy is patent to all.

    Of course, it can be argued that this game of ping-pong between businesses
    and wage-earning consumers, where they alternate in putting financial
    demands on one another, doesn't make the system as a whole any poorer
    because they're only passing the dime back and forth among themselves, so to
    speak.  Actually what they're passing back and forth among themselves is not
    "a dime", but *debt*.  Wage raises are paid with profits that companies
    don't have -- but they know they'll make it up with price increases
    tomorrow.  Price increases are paid with money that consumers don't have --
    but they know they'll get a raise tomorrow.  Always tomorrow.

    The wage and price increases are paid with money borrowed from *outside* the
    system -- from banks and foreign creditors.  It's quite true that when Peter
    and Paul repeatedly borrow money from one another, most of those repeated
    acts of borrowing involve only Peter and Paul.  Most of it doesn't involve
    borrowing from elsewhere.  The best analogy is kiting a check.

    Message: 81489
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 5/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:38:58

    You write a $100 check on one account, and before the payee cashes it you
    quickly cover it by depositing into that account another $100 check drawn on
    a different account.  Then you cover that with another $100 check from a
    third empty account, and so on.  You do this ten times -- and then you get
    caught.  You drew ten checks for $100, but you don't owe $1,000.  You do
    however still owe $100 -- *plus* whatever interest has accrued on that debt.

    In an inflationary economy, people and businesses feel that it's OK to
    borrow money, because it will be paid back with money that's worth less
    tomorrow.  That's all very well, *if* it gets paid back.  But it doesn't, as
    we see when the national debt continues to grow and grow even faster than
    inflation.  There's always a slow bleeding away of real wealth, because at
    any given time there's always some debt outstanding.  The evil of inflation
    is that it hides this stark reality.

    Do the people themselves want to see inflation?  Frankly, you're right; a
    lot of them do.  But that's only because they've never seen a system that
    worked any other way.  So they feel they need inflation as a defensive
    measure to protect themselves.  Inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Why would you need an investment to double or triple in value if the dollars
    you bought it with would still buy the same amount of goods when you came to
    cash it in?  It would be quite acceptable to make a more moderate profit
    over a few years, as long as it represented a genuine gain in real value.

    Message: 81490
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 6/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:40:18

    How about that house payment?  People may like the idea that it will look a
    lot less in a few years' time because of inflation, and then they'll have
    more money to spend on other things.  But the end result is that more and
    more people can't afford to buy their own home to begin with, and they end
    up paying rent to big landlords who make all the profit.  Without inflation,
    interest rates would be far lower -- and it's important to remember that for
    very long term loans, amortized payments are roughly proportional to the
    interest rate.  Mortgage payments could be cut to a fraction.

    More people could afford to buy their own property from the start, and have
    more spare money to look after it.  They'd still have significant payments
    later, but there's nothing wrong with stability.  If they had higher income,
    they'd simply pay the whole thing off faster and have money later to invest
    in something else.  It's getting over that initial hump that inflation and
    high interest rates make so difficult for millions of potential homeowners.

    I know the economy is nowhere near stable all the time.  It does expand,
    partly due to increasing population (which is actually a disaster in the
    long term, but that's irrelevant here), and also due to gradual increases in
    efficiency over the decades.  With a stable population, or with a slowly
    rising population, we ought in theory to see a stable economy, or an economy
    expanding at a steady, constant rate.  In the industrial world we aren't so
    shattered by things like famine any more.  People's needs, and people's
    productivity, don't change violently from year to year.

    Message: 81491
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 7/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:41:39

    So why is the economy so unstable?  It does fluctuate with technological,
    political, and demographic changes, but much of its fluctuation is
    artificial.  It's caused by too much power concentrated in the hands of
    wheelers and dealers tossing it around, and sometimes dropping it on the
    floor.  Funny-money that doesn't *mean* anything makes this kind of
    manipulation that much easier.  Inflation isn't the whole cause.  But the
    crash of '29 was due to inflation of another kind of paper money -- shares
    that didn't have the true *value* people thought they did.  Ditto the South
    Sea Bubble in 1720.  It's all the same thing.  Money that means what it says
    gives security as well as growth.

    It's quite true also that a little inflation can stimulate a stagnant
    economy and stir it into new growth.  But what's happening here still
    involves borrowing.  It's the equivalent of a businessman borrowing money to
    start up an enterprise.  If the business succeeds, he can start making real
    money -- then he can repay the debt and operate in the black.  Being able to
    borrow money is useful in itself, but it's a service to be used judiciously.

    If the businessman has the capital to begin with, he doesn't need to borrow.
    Inflation is not *necessary* to a healthy economy.  We saw a steadily
    growing economy in both the U.S. and Europe all through the nineteenth
    century, without the inflation we see now.  People invested money and got
    returns like maybe 3% per annum over the long term, and they were still
    prosperous because those returns were paid out of real wealth created.

    Message: 81492
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 8/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:42:54

    But if the businessman doesn't have the capital to begin with, and he
    borrows it, and then his business fails, he can't just go on borrowing more
    to cover the deficit.  Borrowing is something you should only do to begin
    with, or when there's an opportunity for genuinely profitable expansion.
    Inflation has made it possible to kick-start some economies that then
    continued to prosper.  This happened only because those economies really
    were operating healthily and creating wealth sufficient to cover the
    original debt.  Many Western economies grew for years earlier this century
    with a moderate rate of constant inflation without running into trouble,
    because they were genuinely growing and could keep up with the debt
    repayments.  But inflation still hides debt.  It still hides the fact that
    even if you're getting by, you're not as rich as you think you are.

    The UK economy grew this way during the 50s.  Then suddenly, in the 60s,
    there were episodes of stagnation.  Seat-of-the-pants economists thought
    they knew what to do: inflate the economy a bit more.  It always worked in
    the past.  They thought inflation and stagnation were mutually exclusive:
    that if stagnation occurred, they could always cure it with a shot of
    inflation.  They were astounded when it didn't work.  Then we got a new
    phenomenon, "stagflation", which is an ugly situation as well as an ugly
    word.

    In reality, the situation they were in was the same as that of a businessman
    who ran short of money from time to time.

    Message: 81493
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 9/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:44:10

    When that happened, he had always gotten a loan from the bank to cover the
    deficit.  It always worked in the past, because his business was growing
    overall -- unevenly perhaps, but growing.  So he could always pay back the
    loan.  But now, it wasn't working, because the business wasn't really
    growing at that time.

    Inflation creates the illusion of wealth that isn't really there; or if it
    is, it doesn't belong to you.  There may be some wealth, but inflation makes
    it look bigger.  That's a good reason to call it "inflation"!  The whole
    problem with inflation is that when people think they're richer than they
    are, they spend more than they have.  They go in hock to someone else to do
    that, and the interest payments make them poorer in the end.  They'd be
    wealthier today if they'd "economized" for a time and made do instead.  But
    inflation removes the discipline that would have made them do that.

    Inflation is first and foremost a lie.  What's good about a lie?  Why do we
    tell lies?  You know, when I ask people what's good about inflation, I get
    one of two answers.  One is the empirical answer, that "it's been shown to
    stimulate the economy in the past".  At least that answer is based on actual
    observations, though I think I've shown why those observations don't reflect
    the whole reality.

    The other answer, though, is much more interesting.  It's *a lot of hemming
    and hawing*.

    Message: 81494
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 10/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:45:25

    I had a conversation like this yesterday.   I heard a lot of words, but I
    didn't hear any real justification for why inflation is necessary, let alone
    good.  I'm not calling anybody I know a liar, because when people live with
    inflation all their lives they somehow come to believe it's necessary.  Yet
    they don't know why.  The hemming and hawing reaction is *exactly* what you
    get out of people who don't really know why.  It's also characteristic of
    anybody caught out in a lie.  And people do have a reason for telling lies.

    What is this reason?  Well, I wasn't cross with the person I talked to
    yesterday, but I was absolutely *furious* with the Boston Globe one time.
    Now I've been angry at the Boston Globe before.  It's a liberal newspaper,
    so I agree with them strongly on some issues and disagree violently on
    others.  Notable points of disagreement have been things like taxes, speed
    limits, busing, and gun control.  On the issues where I disagreed with them,
    at least they did have some kind of an argument, though not a sufficient one
    in my opinion.  It is true that services are needed, that people die on the
    roads, that Boston is racist, that people get shot and so forth.

    But on this occasion they were arguing against a proposal to index the
    income tax brackets to the cost of living.  What does this mean?  They were
    arguing that citizens should continue to have an automatic and regular
    increase in the tax rate, "bracket creep" caused by inflation, without any
    government action.  Now why?  They said a lot of words about it being
    necessary to "safeguard revenues", or some such guff.

    Message: 81495
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred/inflation 11/11
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:46:37

    All this was simply covering up for the fact that they didn't have an
    argument *at all*.  If government needs more taxes, why can't it go to the
    people, or their elected representatives, and ask for them?  There is
    absolutely no excuse for telling people a lie, by omission, that their taxes
    are not being raised when in terms of real wealth they are.

    Why tell lies?  Well, suppose you went to a farmer and said "I want a bushel
    of apples".  He could argue about the price.  Suppose you went right in and
    took them under his nose.  He'd get after you with a shotgun.  But suppose
    you sneaked into his orchard and stole them.  If he didn't notice, he
    couldn't say anything.  This is what inflation does.  It allows wealth to be
    taken from people "painlessly", without their noticing -- unless they're
    wide awake and looking out the window, which most of them aren't.  It saves
    argument and contention -- and repercussions.  That's why we tell lies.  We
    can argue about whether taxes are theft, or whether people owe taxes to
    "society"; but one thing is certain: the amount of taxation should be the
    subject of negotiation and agreement based on mutual understanding.  Lies
    violate mutual understanding.  Taking anything on the basis of those lies is
    most definitely stealing.  That's why we have inflation: to allow stealing.

    Also, by making people think they're better off than they are, inflation
    makes politicians look good.  That's the other reason for telling lies.
    People demand wealth.  If it isn't there, governments fob them off with an
    illusion.  Politicians benefit from this lie.  The losers are the people.

    Message: 81496
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Archimedes/'Grats
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:47:11

     AM>>I seem to be getting in the habit of...

    Well, thank you!  Far be it from me to criticize anyone's habits!  :)

    Message: 81497
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beau
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 13:47:42

     BD>>Shouldn't that be "leader who praught hatred"  ???

    Absolutely!  Many a time I've thought exactly that myself!  :)

    I guess now I've overraught myself...

    Message: 81498
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/phones
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 15:13:54

    I hate those phones that won't accept incoming calls also.  It's simple
    greed on the part of the phone companies.  They know perfectly well that you
    have to pay for a call from a phone booth, but if somebody calls you back
    from a local phone, the call is free.  Therefore they stop people from doing
    that.  But the system falls down badly when the other party HAS to call back
    -- as he must if all he has is a beeper.

    Message: 81499
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon Little
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 20:26:21

    I don't see you running out and paying for a lot of phone lines so people
    can receive calls for nothing.  Let he who is without sin cast the first
    stone, bub.

    Message: 81500
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Chit Chat
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 20:30:00

    Anyone want to talk about religion?

    Message: 81501
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on FRN's
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 22:23:38

    I have remained silent on most of the issues being flogged like so
    many dead horses here on the board of late. The barrage of opinion
    seems almost overwhelming. Some of you should try writing for
    a newspaper sometime. Get your points across in shorter length
    and aim for conciseness. This Battle of The Bulk impresses no one
    and is rarely read by those its content is directed toward or
    to those whom it would be important to.

    Cliff> My labor today should be worth the same 20 years from now if
    Cliff> I save my earned wages. I should not be required to do
    Cliff> anything else to make it so. I am puzzled why so many of you
    Cliff> seem so satisfied in getting paid in worthless FRNs,...

    One item I would like to point out here is the missing Supply and
    Demand equation with all of these "Worthless FRN's" posts. Simply
    stated; If I'm a computer wiz and there's only 5 of me in the whole
    country, then I could pretty much charge what the market would bear
    for my services...which would be plenty. 20 Years later, there's
    10,000 like me...uhhh gee, I guess I have to price my services
    to what the "fair market value is". Competition has a way of
    lowering prices. What my labor was worth 20 years ago has no bearing
    on its worth today. None.
    (cont)

    Message: 81502
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Worthless FRN's 2/4
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 22:25:09

    The world changes. Nothing stays the same. To expect it to do
    otherwise or attempt in some way to force it to remain the
    same is both foolish and futile. What I get paid today is a purely
    relative worth. It makes NO difference if I was paid in gold or
    if I'm paid in paper. I use the FRNs, Coins, chips, rubles et al
    to BUY other products. It's merely a form of exchange. For 97%
    of my activity with my finances, it's paying for other services
    and goods. Spending! The last 3% might well be wiser put into some
    other form of "sheltered" commodity..such as gold...to weather
    out time for it has proven itself to hold value. But that's only
    a tiny part of my transactions with money. To base an argument
    about putting 100% of our transactions into gold is silly. It
    would serve no usefull purpose. In fact, it'd be a catastrophe.
    Can you imagine the Government attempting to print gold coins
    for circulation? HA! It'd be mayhem!

    No Cliff, I disaggree with you on labor values today and 20 years
    ago. Population, supply, demand and technological advances have
    changed our living and work place 100 times over. Some things
    never change, sweat on your brow and good hard work. But that's
    not to say it isn't affected by outside factors...and it's value
    to a consumer will depend not on what you once did, but what you
    can do now in a much more complex world.

    Message: 81503
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Worthless FRN's 3/4
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 22:26:54

    To finish my opnion on the Gold standard vs FRNs issue, let
    me end it by saying yeah! I'm all for the City paying me in
    Gold instead of a check every two weeks. Try to get that one
    past the voters!
    If you're smart, you invest. Invest in something that has proven
    to hold value. But to assert or imply that disposing of only
    the MATERIAL our money is made out of is silly. Any reasonable
    and rational person would tell you the economy pulls a vacuum
    and it wont change a damn thing by using gold for money instead
    of what we do now. If I have to pay $300.00 for a candy bar,
    I'll pay 300 worthless FRN's or I'll pay .91 oz of Gold. In each
    case, I exchange something! DOes it matter WHAT it's made out of?
    Sure, again, if you are SAVING for tomorrow..like in 20 years...
    YES!!!! Do it in GOLD! But Don't be so silly suggesting it makes
    good sense to pay my APS bill with it. $#!+, I'd have a massive
    hernia carrying in all that loot in the summer. :-)
    Nah, if you wouldn't take my worthless FRNs for membership on Apollo,
    then I guess I'd need to take my business elsewhere...like I would
    with ANY TRADE I do. It's all relative. People collectively must
    decide what they want to use to exchange goods and services for.
    Look at it this way, my friend has a baseball card that is even more
    precious than the gold you so eagerly seek. It's got Mickey Mantle's
    face on it instead of some Presidents and its worth $14,500 ; that's
    $174,000 per ounce and it just gets better each year. :-)

    Message: 81504
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Old chinese dude...
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 22:28:22

    The following message was hand-delivered to me by a small, husky looking
    Burmese gentleman with a 7-inch scar on his face in the parking lot
    at Denny's on 7th street and Alice.................................
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Venerable SysOp, is this way to civilized discourse?  What kind rules let
    most esteemed Archimedes insult most esteemed Fred Smith?

    Question for most honorable SysOp.  If gold always have same value, why
    do value of gold depend on value of worthless frn.?  Forget about frn.
    If shiny gold trade for big tractor one year but only trade for little
    tractor in ten year later, gold not same value.  Very simple.  Please to
    think about it.

    Bank fail, most beloved SysOp, because bank spend more than bank have. This
    same thing whether bank have gold or bank have frn.  Is not money: is bank.

    Most wise SysOp, people who lose life savings in investment because
    investment no good.  This same thing whether investment gold or bond.

    Cost of living go up, thrice-blessed one, because prices rise faster than
    wages.  This same whether gold or frn.  Please to read history book.
    Inflation not modern invention.  Inflation exist long before frn. exist,
    many thousand years.
    I go now.  Got big case to solve.

    Message: 81505
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:39:39

    Wow!  That must be more words in one day than Mike posted in the last six
    months!  Keep it up, Mike!

    Message: 81506
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill (1/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:40:30

    You're certainly right that politicians aren't doing what's best for the
    nation as a whole.  But it's all too clear that they're *not* doing what the
    people demand, either, so that isn't the problem.  People demand things like
    honesty, campaign reform, education that actually teaches kids things, and
    justice.  They also demand low taxes and lots of services.  These goals
    aren't all mutually compatible, and some have to be traded off against
    others; but they all add up to efficient government.  Instead, we get lies,
    "image", a tangled legal system that makes money for lawyers and lets
    criminals loose on the streets, schools with teachers who can't even read
    and write correctly themselves, and high taxes with a collection agency run
    amok that makes up the rules as it goes along and tramples citizens into the
    dirt.  Any given government agency, including the school system, is bloated
    with administrators who trip over one another and do little useful in the
    way of actually delivering services.  Efficient government?  It's a huge,
    bloated mass of waste and "business as usual".

    Why does a political system work this way?  Simply because it's far too big,
    and out of control of the public.  These two factors play together.  The
    bigger something gets, the more layers there are between the consumer of
    services (the public) and the vendor of services (the government), and the
    less the consumer can see what's going on inside.  Even when he can see,
    there's nothing he can do about it directly.

    Message: 81507
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill (2/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:41:39

    Wheedling votes out of the public for one party or the other depends on
    trying to convince the public that one party or the other has done a better
    job -- or at least, has done a less atrocious job than the opposition.
    Instead of spending effort actually *doing* the job, all the effort goes
    into "image" -- making politicians *look* good.  Hordes of staffers to take
    surveys and find out, not what the public want (they know that already!) but
    what they want to hear; and lots of scrambling behind the scenes to cover up
    glaring mistakes.  Lies and statistics.  Meanwhile, the government machine
    grows and grows.  It's in the interest of everybody who's fed from the
    public purse to protect one another and keep the status quo.

    Much of the business of government today is grabbing tax money and shuffling
    it from one bloc of the public to another.  That means an enormous amount of
    effort and lobbying goes into trying to grab a piece of the pie.  Hands
    stretched out everywhere.  People fighting one another for money that was
    taken from them in the first place.  More waste.  More futile effort.

    Suppose instead we could see right inside government and make decisions
    ourselves?  Suppose we asked them some questions?

    For example, *why* are you employing that public-relations consultant at
    $120,000 a year?  Answer: to make us look good so that we can keep our jobs.
    What are *we* getting out of it?  Answer: nothing.  Decision: Fire him.

    Message: 81508
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill (3/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:42:48

    *Why* did you spend half a million dollars to send six Congressmen on a trip
    to Trinidad?  Answer: to "improve cultural relations".  Can you justify how
    we'll get half a million dollars worth of benefit out of this?  Well, er...
    Decision: Set strict guidelines on future trips with cost-benefit analysis.

    *Why* are IRS auditors rude and overbearing?  Answer: the people who work
    for the IRS are failed accountants who couldn't make it on the outside, and
    they're full of hostility.  Decision: We don't want people like that having
    power over the public.  Set up a complaint procedure, and fire employees
    with a record of victimizing members of the public without justification.

    *Why* does that agency manager's personal assistant need a personal
    assistant herself?  Answer: it makes him feel more important, and it makes
    jobs for people.  Decision: if people need jobs, they can do something
    productive.  Get rid of these surplus personnel.

    Much nearer home: *Why*, when Happy Valley Road washed away in a flood, was
    it simply resurfaced?  Why not install a culvert underneath, throw in some
    extra fill, and build up the road so that it won't flood or wash away in the
    future?  Answer: Because we'll still have a job to do when it washes away
    next time.  Decision: Next time, fix it properly.  There's lots of work for
    highway workers to do.  We need freeways built around here.

    Message: 81509
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill (4/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:43:59

    Needless to say, it's unthinkable that over 150 million American voters
    could make decisions at this microscopic level.  It is, however, conceivable
    that voters could have far better surveillance over public servants if a
    great deal of government were decentralized, if more decisions were made on
    a local level.  I don't just mean state, I mean town and neighborhood.  I
    ask myself what Federal government does for me, and the answer is "not too
    much that couldn't be done locally, or by subcontracting the work out to
    larger national organizations, probably several of them that compete with
    one another for efficiency."  Suppose voters could say to the Federal
    Government, through their Congressmen and Senators, "Go away.  Leave us with
    the basic protections we have under the Constitution, and keep the Armed
    Forces, and negotiate with foreign governments for us, and keep a justice
    system that will give people redress if local authorities become corrupt and
    tyrannical.  And maybe a few other things.  We'll take care of the rest
    ourselves, including welfare and schools and suchlike, though you'll be
    useful in a strictly advisory capacity."

    I dunno.  I'm just kicking ideas around here.  I didn't know where I was
    going when I started this.  (To tell the truth, I never do!)  But I didn't
    address your point.  I think it's obvious that politicians *don't* do what's
    best for the nation as a whole, let alone what the people demand.  They do
    what's best for the political establishment -- meaning themselves.  I'd ask,
    first of all, whether doing what the people actually ask for could really be
    any worse.

    Message: 81510
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bill (5/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:45:06

    Secondly, a lot of people seem to have the notion that the public are
    incapable of making wise decisions, and that politicians are needed to make
    "courageous" decisions in the face of what's being asked for.  That may be
    true in some countries that are torn by factional strife, but I don't think
    the same problem exists in America.  We have far too many factions, for a
    start.  I don't believe the consideration for minorities was something that
    politicians invented and railroaded through over the heads of the majority.
    I think it came out of most people's feelings for justice.  It's also been
    overdone by certain liberals, which has resulted in a certain reactionary
    backlash.  If so, this situation has arisen *because* people's wishes were
    ignored.

    If we're talking about making tough economic decisions, I don't see why
    people should be treated like children.  The more they're treated like
    children, the more they'll behave that way.  Suppose the people of a nation
    were in direct control of voting for decisions that affected their economic
    destiny.  Suppose they made a couple of disastrous decisions.  I think they
    would soon learn.  But when the responsibility for people's fate is
    constantly dumped onto politicians, the whole thing develops into a game
    where the politician pursues his own interests (which is exactly what you'd
    expect any human being to do), and the people get the satisfaction of
    blaming someone else for their ills instead of taking responsibility
    themselves.  It's a classic game, but very poor recompense.

    Message: 81511
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/leaders (1/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:46:18

    I'm afraid I don't have anybody at all in mind at the moment.  I won't deny
    that a "leader with charisma" is needed, because it's necessary to have a
    focus for the energies of a movement, to keep it moving in the right
    direction.  That's part of the problem today.  Most of the figures on the
    political scene are churning out some variant of the same weary old
    doctrines of either the left, the right, or somewhere in between.  People
    would like to see a leader who would help them move *forward*, but all they
    do is keep dodging to left and right.  Anything to avoid giving up power.

    More than just charisma is needed, because people are rightly suspicious of
    manufactured image.  They've been fooled often enough in the past.  They're
    realizing that we put far too much trust in "leaders".  Leaders are only
    human.  That's why religions are often strong enough to last for thousands
    of years, while political parties fade.  If you idolize a leader, sooner or
    later he'll let you down.  If instead you follow an abstract ideal, or
    worship a Deity, that isn't subject to the same human weaknesses.

    What are some of the best-remembered things that leaders of the past have
    said?  "I have a dream..."  A lot of people complain about the warts on this
    particular leader, and how we see the man himself is very much a personal
    matter.  But he is best remembered for this dream, this goal.  A good leader
    sets clear goals.  What goals are today's leaders setting, and how will we
    accomplish them?  This dream was one that many people devoutly wished for,
    and most others could share with him, unless they were hopelessly racist.

    Message: 81512
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/leaders (2/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:47:33

    It was this dream that united people and gave him a large following.  I'd
    bet if you put a proposal on the ballot for a Dream Day instead of a King
    Day, a lot more people would vote for it.  A good leader must genuinely
    share what his followers want.  If he tries to maintain his position in
    spite of what they want, he is doomed to failure, and deservedly so.  It's
    worth noting that King himself lost some support later by propounding other
    ideas that a lot of people disagreed with.

    Talking about King seems appropriate since next Wednesday is his birthday.
    He's useful as a starting-point to discuss three important things.  One is
    that working for the civil rights movement took a great deal of courage.
    People were killed for it, including of course King himself.  If we look at
    many leaders of the past, especially military leaders, we find that they had
    a lot of personal courage.  Even Hitler had enormous balls to pull some of
    the things he did in the late thirties.  Compare Jack Kennedy, a war hero,
    with his brother that we're left with today.  Jack Kennedy owned up to
    making a pig's ear out of the Bay of Pigs, and got on with the job.  Teddy-
    boy couldn't even own up to drunk driving.  Not that military leaders
    necessarily make the best political leaders, but I will point out the large
    number of people who wished that Schwartzkopf would run for President.

    Secondly, the civil rights movement was something that people got up and
    made happen for themselves.  King would have looked awfully silly marching
    along by himself with a placard round his neck.  Nobody would have noticed.

    Message: 81513
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/leaders (3/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:48:46

    Nobody could fail to notice several thousand people marching, though.  Every
    one of those people played a part, and made a difference.  What other well-
    remembered things have leaders of the past said?  "Don't ask what your
    country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."  Kennedy
    started the Peace Corps, for one thing.  All right, that was for other
    countries.  But it was an opportunity to get involved.  The sixties were
    more than anything else a time of involvement: in this movement, in that
    movment.  This isn't to say that every one of them was a movement in the
    right direction.  The sixties were experimental, and the results have taught
    us some useful lessons.  An experiment is never a total waste of time.  But
    the point is that people want to get involved.  They want to do things *for*
    themselves, but above all they want to *do* things themselves.

    Being a leader is not just a matter of saying "vote for me, and I'll do
    such-and-such for you".  Neither is it just a matter of bossing people
    about.  People have to be motivated to follow the leader.  A leader fulfills
    a special role in a team, and the whole team must have a common goal.

    It's the team that does the work, guided and welded together by the leader.
    A good leader gives credit to his team.  A good leader resolves disputes.  A
    good leader *listens*, and takes up suggestions.  If the team members all
    have the same serious gripe, a good leader does his level best to fix it.
    Do today's politicians listen, or do they just say a lot of words about "a
    thousand points of light" and similar glitz and glitter?

    Message: 81514
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/leaders (4/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:49:55

    The third point is that a leader has to deliver.  King delivered, and
    enormous progress was made toward the goal of racial equality in his
    lifetime.  Gorbachev started off down the right road in an atmosphere of
    hope, but he wasn't moving fast enough and balked at going all the way.  And
    economically, he didn't deliver.  So he fell.

    Franklin Roosevelt delivered economic revival in his lifetime, and is still
    well remembered for it by many people, in spite of the debt that his methods
    left to be paid by future generations.

    People will follow a leader who delivers.  The Duke of Marlborough was
    enormously respected, even loved, by his soldiers, and it was said that
    they'd follow him anywhere.  He delivered victory.

    Later, in the same time as Roosevelt, the Duke of Marlborough had a
    descendant who set that same clear goal and delivered it: victory.  "I have
    nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears, and sweat," he said.  It's
    curious that these words are so often remembered, wrongly, as "blood, sweat,
    and tears".  Why should anybody follow a leader with nothing to offer but
    misery?  But they missed out the most important word: toil.  Churchill
    didn't have "nothing to offer".  Far from it.  He offered people something
    to *do*.  It was a chance to work, and make a difference.  No more sitting
    around while pacifist dreamers spun their fantasies of peace and cowards
    like Chamberlain sold out to dictators who were enslaving all of Europe.

    Message: 81515
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/leaders (5/5)
    Date: 01/11/92  Time: 23:51:04

    He also offered them a way to do it.  "We will fight them on the beaches..."
    War is a grim business, but there's no denying that in many ways people like
    a good fight.  They'll put their heart into it, if they can first identify a
    clear enemy.

    Churchill too was a man with enormous personal courage.  But that "blood and
    toil" speech had something else, besides offering something to do.  It was
    honest.  Brutally honest, in fact.  Churchill *had* nothing to offer the
    people besides those things -- that, and a good chance of victory.  So he
    told them the truth.  They appreciated that, and they trusted him.  A good
    leader is trusted.  This means that a good leader is trust*worthy*.  Trust
    has to be earned.  Delivering the goods earns trust.  So does telling the
    truth.  Today's politicians have an enormous obstacle of distrust to
    surmount.

    Yet Churchill had spent years telling the truth about the situation in
    Europe, and what would have to be done to fix it.  Unfortunately, that
    wasn't what people wanted to hear at the time.  The threat of world tyranny
    had to be knocking at the door before people in Britain were ready to
    listen.  A good leader must be *right*, but it doesn't matter a damn how
    right he is if people would rather hear comforting lies.  There are probably
    a lot of good leaders buried somewhere in the wilderness of American
    politics.  They will emerge if and when the situation becomes so disastrous
    that people are finally ready to listen to them.

    Message: 81516
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: economics
    Date: 01/12/92  Time: 02:42:06

    Working class people would be in better shape if government money was backed
    by something that had an actual value instead of just printed paper.  A
    precious or semi-precious metal can only go so low but will always have a
    value.  Government FRNs can sink to the level of pure paper whereas gold
    cannot.  That's it for me.  I'm outta here.

    P.S.  James Matlock aka Mark Adkins left a note on my door while I was away
    this evening.  He would like for me to post it for him, which I will do
    tomorrow.  I came home at 2:20 (ten minutes ago) and I need bed more than I
    need to type another message.  -Rod

    P.P.S.  My above message on economics could not be simpler.  It is easy to
    understand and I guess it is my best shot. -R

    Message: 81517
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Religion
    Subject: James Taranto
    Date: 01/12/92  Time: 02:45:38

    Start talking bub.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.