Re: A New Hope For the Working Engineer

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"R. Steve Walz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ActualGeek wrote:
> >
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> > (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
> >
> > > ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> > > > (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Precious Pup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > > > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Jesus, but read a book sometime.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Name one. If it is Samuelson's text oneconomics, don't forget to
> > > > > > > specify the edition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jesus H. Christ. We'd be happy if you read _any_ academic econ
> > > > > > textbook.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I can share your ideas about the perfection of the free market -
> > > > > which by only collecting data about aggregate cash flows
> > > >
> > > > You have to really try to avoid knowing anything about companies in this
> > > > country to maintain such an illusion.
> > > >
> > > > Plus, you can't have worked at one either.
> > > >
> > > > IF you think Coca-Cola doesn't know how many cans of soda they sell in
> > > > every zip code in the country, every week of the year, going back
> > > > decades-- so that they can predict exactly how many will sell next week
> > > > using that data-- you're not thinking very well.
> > >
> > > European companies document their sales with equal precision - the
> > > data already exists, as I was well aware in making my original
> > > arguement.
> > >
> > > It is not available outside the companies, and doesn't have any direct
> > > effect on the "free market" interactions which regulate the economy.
> > >
> > > My argument was that a (distributed) system of economic regulation
> > > that had access to this more comprehensive information could - at
> > > least in theory - run the economy more efficiently.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you have not made an argument. you have made assertions.
> -------------------
> No, you just CALL them that for your convenience in not having to
> deal with them.
>
>
> > But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach the
> > difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
> > educational goal.
> ------------------
> You're a **** and a liar.
> -Steve

You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here... which
is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.

It doesn't have to be this way.

ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "R. Steve Walz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > ActualGeek wrote:

<snip>

> > > But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach the
> > > difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
> > > educational goal.
> > ------------------
> > You're a **** and a liar.
> > -Steve
>
> You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here

Your claim to "honesty" just means that you have either a poor, or a
very selective memory.

> ... which
> is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.

Got any evidence for this claim? It is a lot to read into a seven word
declarative sentence.

> It doesn't have to be this way.

You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ActualGeek wrote:
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "R. Steve Walz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > ActualGeek wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> > > (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
> > >
> > > > ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > > In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> > > > > (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Precious Pup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > > > > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jesus, but read a book sometime.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Name one. If it is Samuelson's text oneconomics, don't forget to
> > > > > > > > specify the edition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jesus H. Christ. We'd be happy if you read _any_ academic econ
> > > > > > > textbook.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I can share your ideas about the perfection of the free market -
> > > > > > which by only collecting data about aggregate cash flows
> > > > >
> > > > > You have to really try to avoid knowing anything about companies in this
> > > > > country to maintain such an illusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus, you can't have worked at one either.
> > > > >
> > > > > IF you think Coca-Cola doesn't know how many cans of soda they sell in
> > > > > every zip code in the country, every week of the year, going back
> > > > > decades-- so that they can predict exactly how many will sell next week
> > > > > using that data-- you're not thinking very well.
> > > >
> > > > European companies document their sales with equal precision - the
> > > > data already exists, as I was well aware in making my original
> > > > arguement.
> > > >
> > > > It is not available outside the companies, and doesn't have any direct
> > > > effect on the "free market" interactions which regulate the economy.
> > > >
> > > > My argument was that a (distributed) system of economic regulation
> > > > that had access to this more comprehensive information could - at
> > > > least in theory - run the economy more efficiently.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, you have not made an argument. you have made assertions.
> > -------------------
> > No, you just CALL them that for your convenience in not having to
> > deal with them.
> >
> >
> > > But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach the
> > > difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
> > > educational goal.
> > ------------------
> > You're a **** and a liar.
> > -Steve
>
> You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here...
--------------
You're a ****-****ing liar.


> which
> is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.
-------------------
You're REALLY a liar now.


> It doesn't have to be this way.
------------------------
You clearly do, you're a **** and a liar.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz (E-Mail Removed) ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Bill Sloman wrote:
>

> Go away and
> try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Precious Pup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Bill Sloman wrote:
> >
>
> > Go away and
> > try to learn what honest arguement involves.
>
> Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:

> ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > "R. Steve Walz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > ActualGeek wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach
> > > > the
> > > > difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
> > > > educational goal.
> > > ------------------
> > > You're a **** and a liar.
> > > -Steve
> >
> > You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here
>
> Your claim to "honesty" just means that you have either a poor, or a
> very selective memory.
>
> > ... which
> > is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.
>
> Got any evidence for this claim? It is a lot to read into a seven word
> declarative sentence.
>
> > It doesn't have to be this way.
>
> You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Go away and
> try to learn what honest arguement involves.


You are repeating my complaint against you back at me?

Sorry, that just shows I was right in the first place (And you're not
very creative.)

But then, if you had an argument in support of socialism (say, one that
doesn't involve pretending that walmart doesn't exist, or that
capitalism is failing in ways it isn't) you'd present it (we'd hope.)

Until you do, you have nothing.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
(E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:

> Precious Pup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Go away and
> > > try to learn what honest arguement involves.
> >
> > Go away and try to learn.
>
> Go away, I wasn't talking to you.
>
> You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
> before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
> "dishonest".
>
> Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
> leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
> trailing in the dust.
>
> -----
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Getting back on the point.

Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
it.

Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
make the decision.

Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
similar conditions.

Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.

They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
than all the socialist systems ever tried.

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.

(E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> > (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
> >
> > > Precious Pup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Go away and
> > > > > try to learn what honest arguement involves.
> > > >
> > > > Go away and try to learn.
> > >
> > > Go away, I wasn't talking to you.
> > >
> > > You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
> > > before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
> > > "dishonest".
> > >
> > > Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
> > > leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
> > > trailing in the dust.
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> >
> > Getting back on the point.
> >
> > Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
> > capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
> > it.
>
> I've just been reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression
> Economics" ISBN 0-14-028685-3 which fairly clearly indicates that
> there is an information problem with modern more-or-less free market
> capitalism, and that the people in the business of regulating the free
> market economies of the world don't have enough information to be able
> anticipate and smooth out the instabilities of the currency and
> capital markets.

Krugman has been hoping for a return of depression economics for
decades. Any problem faced by the economy at large will be faced by
the regulators of the economy. There is hubris in pretending that you
know what the market is supposed to be doing, and Krugman just can't
shake that control fetish. Let the decentralized decisions of market
participants act on the information they have and regulate to the
least extent possible, and you might avoid a catastrophic unintended
consequence of regulations that affect all market participants.

>
> The information about the economy that these people are working with
> is what is manifest on the stock and currency markets from day-to-day,
> and what governements reveal about their current and expected incomes
> and expenditures. Everything is denoted in terms of its monetary
> value, and the purchase of a single 747 which took nearly a year to
> build and is expected to keep flying for twenty to thirty years could
> be equated with the sale of ten million Harry Potter books.
>
> As a scheme, it works surprisingly well - better than anything else
> that has been tried so far - but it is obviously sub-optimal.

It works surprisingly well because people make continual adjustments
every second of every day. Check the price of ten million Harry Potter
books the day after they are bought and compare it to the price of a
747 the day after it is bought. Interference in the incentives of the
market lead to perverse choices on the part of market participants,
who no longer can trust the information that prices were supposed to
be giving them.

>
> > Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
> > be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
> > distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
> > place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
> > make the decision.
>
> I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
> information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and if
> we could find a way of making this information available outside the
> firms who collect the data for their own use, we should be able to
> devise a *distributed* control system that ought to be more stable,
> and could run a lot closer to full capacity.

The price, at least theoretically, contains all of the information you
might be interested in, doesn't it?

>
> > Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
> > or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
> > similar conditions.
>
> Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy this is
> irrelevant, though a centrally planned economy with modern data
> collection and processing ought to be more efficient than the system
> that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have more
> central planning than India, and grew their economies twice as fast
> during the catch-up phase, some central planning would seem to be a
> good idea.

That is a murky issue. I don't know that I'd hold up India as an
example of notably less government interference than most other
developing countries, it only has less government interference than it
used to have. Its reduction in regulation allowed it to grow at all,
which was not the case before. To compare across countries would be a
much larger task.
>
> > Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
> > gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
> > have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.
>
> Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year - respectable
> for a third world economy catching-up, but half the rate achieved by
> Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up phases. Neither Japan,
> Korea nor China gave up central planning and government interference,
> though this has been used more to direct capitalist investment than to
> control it.

Japan, for example, flung open the export doors right out of the gate.
A good portion of their growth had to do with the extent to which they
adopted market friendly policies. We will never know exactly, of
course. Krugman would argue one way and P.T. Bauer would argue the
other looking at the same cases.
>
> > They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
> > than all the socialist systems ever tried.
>
> That depends what you mean by "socialist".
>
> > Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.
>
> If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest 30
> or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started dismantling
> welfare?

It doesn't work poorly. It only works poorly if you discount
charitable giving from poverty alleviation, and if you discount that
the amount of goods available for redistribution is greater.
>
> The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
> better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
> eventually more productive workers.

More productive? I would have to see those figures. You are telling me
that countries with near infinite unemployment benefits, mandatory 30
hour work weeks, mandatory breaks during the day for all laborers,
regulations that prevent anyone from firing incompetent labor, and
extremely high debt to GDP ratios have more productive labor forces?

Will Hutton's "The World We're In"
> ISBN 0-316-86081-6 reviews a great deal economic research on this and
> other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
> with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
> long out of date).

Lots of books paint pictures about the U.S. Not all pictures are
accurate. Europe has been waiting for us to grow up and become
civilized socialists with no respect for individual liberty for a long
time. We just as a culture have different ideas about what
constitutes progress. A state where everyone can wait in line for an
asprin with equal ability has some virtues, but so does a state where
some people can get brain surgery.

>
> Unsurprisingly, it is out of stock a www.amazon.com (but US dealers
> will sell you an airmailed copy of the U.K. edition for $25.72).
> www.amazon.co.uk have stocks of the paperback at eight U.K.pounds per
> copy (about $12).
>
> -------
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

(E-Mail Removed) (idlemuse) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> > ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> > > (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Precious Pup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > > > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Go away and
> > > > > > try to learn what honest arguement involves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go away and try to learn.
> > > >
> > > > Go away, I wasn't talking to you.
> > > >
> > > > You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
> > > > before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
> > > > "dishonest".
> > > >
> > > > Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
> > > > leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
> > > > trailing in the dust.
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > > > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> > >
> > > Getting back on the point.
> > >
> > > Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
> > > capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
> > > it.
> >
> > I've just been reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression
> > Economics" ISBN 0-14-028685-3 which fairly clearly indicates that
> > there is an information problem with modern more-or-less free market
> > capitalism, and that the people in the business of regulating the free
> > market economies of the world don't have enough information to be able
> > anticipate and smooth out the instabilities of the currency and
> > capital markets.
>
> Krugman has been hoping for a return of depression economics for
> decades. Any problem faced by the economy at large will be faced by
> the regulators of the economy. There is hubris in pretending that you
> know what the market is supposed to be doing, and Krugman just can't
> shake that control fetish. Let the decentralized decisions of market
> participants act on the information they have and regulate to the
> least extent possible, and you might avoid a catastrophic unintended
> consequence of regulations that affect all market participants.

Go read your Keynes. The decentralised decisions of the market
participants is what makes pure free market economies unstable, and
Krugman identifies the "decentralised decisions" of the currency
speculators and the hedge funds as major contributors to the Asian
crashes of the late 1990's (which is what he was actually writing
about).

> > The information about the economy that these people are working with
> > is what is manifest on the stock and currency markets from day-to-day,
> > and what governements reveal about their current and expected incomes
> > and expenditures. Everything is denoted in terms of its monetary
> > value, and the purchase of a single 747 which took nearly a year to
> > build and is expected to keep flying for twenty to thirty years could
> > be equated with the sale of ten million Harry Potter books.
> >
> > As a scheme, it works surprisingly well - better than anything else
> > that has been tried so far - but it is obviously sub-optimal.
>
> It works surprisingly well because people make continual adjustments
> every second of every day. Check the price of ten million Harry Potter
> books the day after they are bought and compare it to the price of a
> 747 the day after it is bought. Interference in the incentives of the
> market lead to perverse choices on the part of market participants,
> who no longer can trust the information that prices were supposed to
> be giving them.

This is arrant "perfect free market" propaganda. Go read Keynes.

> > > Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
> > > be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
> > > distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
> > > place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
> > > make the decision.
> >
> > I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
> > information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and if
> > we could find a way of making this information available outside the
> > firms who collect the data for their own use, we should be able to
> > devise a *distributed* control system that ought to be more stable,
> > and could run a lot closer to full capacity.
>
> The price, at least theoretically, contains all of the information you
> might be interested in, doesn't it?

No. Because the price reflects the pressures of the moment. If the
price of 747's goes through the floor, Boeing still has about a year's
production stacked up in the factory in various states of completion.
Harry Potter books can be reprinted and distributed a lot more
quickly.

The metal markets are unstable for the same sort of reason - is the
price of a metal creeps up, the owners of various more or less
marginal mines are persuaded to invest the money to pump out the
mine-shafts again and get the machinery running so they can extract
the relevant mineral, all of which takes time. When they finally start
shipping ore, the market is suddenly over-supplied, and the price
crashes.

> > > Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
> > > or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
> > > similar conditions.
> >
> > Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy this is
> > irrelevant, though a centrally planned economy with modern data
> > collection and processing ought to be more efficient than the system
> > that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have more
> > central planning than India, and grew their economies twice as fast
> > during the catch-up phase, some central planning would seem to be a
> > good idea.
>
> That is a murky issue. I don't know that I'd hold up India as an
> example of notably less government interference than most other
> developing countries, it only has less government interference than it
> used to have. Its reduction in regulation allowed it to grow at all,
> which was not the case before. To compare across countries would be a
> much larger task.

Why do you think that it was "the reduction in regulation that allowed
it to grow at all"?

> > > Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
> > > gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
> > > have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.
> >
> > Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year - respectable
> > for a third world economy catching-up, but half the rate achieved by
> > Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up phases. Neither Japan,
> > Korea nor China gave up central planning and government interference,
> > though this has been used more to direct capitalist investment than to
> > control it.
>
> Japan, for example, flung open the export doors right out of the gate.
> A good portion of their growth had to do with the extent to which they
> adopted market friendly policies. We will never know exactly, of
> course. Krugman would argue one way and P.T. Bauer would argue the
> other looking at the same cases.

Japan is almost as good as the U.S.A. at using non-tariff barriers to
trade to protect the domestic market while exporting furiously. I
don't know exactly what you meant to say with "flung open the export
doors right out of the gate" but they certainly protected their
domestic market, and they still do.

> > > They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
> > > than all the socialist systems ever tried.
> >
> > That depends what you mean by "socialist".
> >
> > > Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.
> >
> > If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest 30
> > or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started dismantling
> > welfare?
>
> It doesn't work poorly. It only works poorly if you discount
> charitable giving from poverty alleviation, and if you discount that
> the amount of goods available for redistribution is greater.

In the U.S.A. the poor are getting poorer. Poverty is not being cured,
but made worse. Capitalism is *not* working as a cure for poverty in
the U.S.A.

> > The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
> > better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
> > eventually more productive workers.
>
> More productive? I would have to see those figures.

Get hold of Will Hutton's book and track down the academic studies
that he references.

> You are telling me
> that countries with near infinite unemployment benefits,

I've received unemployment benefit in the Netherlands. It wasn't
generous.

> mandatory 30 hour work weeks,

Until the end of May I was working a 40-hour week, which is perfectly
normal.
Some unions have negotiated 37 hour weeks. Mandatory thirty hour weeks
sound like the stuff of right-wing propaganda.

> mandatory breaks during the day for all laborers,

Half an hour for lunch? And you don't get paid for it.

> regulations that prevent anyone from firing incompetent labor,

They don't prevent you from firing incompetents, you just have to go
through a multi-stage procedure, and document each stage, and that
only if you managed to miss the incompetence in the first six months
of employment.

> and extremely high debt to GDP ratios have more productive labor forces?

Yep. Some of them do. Read the book. Chase up the references. Wash out
some of that propaganda that seems to fouling up your world-view.

> Will Hutton's "The World We're In"
> > ISBN 0-316-86081-6 reviews a great deal economic research on this and
> > other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
> > with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
> > long out of date).
>
> Lots of books paint pictures about the U.S. Not all pictures are
> accurate.

This book has a twelve and a half page list of references cited, and
fourteen and a half pages of specific citations. Will Hutton knows the
published literature.

> Europe has been waiting for us to grow up and become
> civilized socialists with no respect for individual liberty for a long
> time.

Why do you think that European socialist have no respect for
individual liberty? Certain capitalist excesses are illegal, but in
most respects the Europeans are less picky than the U.S. about
behaviour that doesn't create immediate problems for other people. The
Netherlands is famously liberal about soft drugs and same sex
relationships - to name two areas where the U.S. has a number of
fatuous and unenforceable laws which demonstrate a singular lack of
respect for individual liberty.

> We just as a culture have different ideas about what
> constitutes progress. A state where everyone can wait in line for an
> asprin with equal ability has some virtues, but so does a state where
> some people can get brain surgery.

If you've got money, you can buy exactly the same level of health care
in (Western) Europe as you can in the U.S. If you haven't got money,
you may have to wait a bit for your brain surgery (for non-emergency
operations), but it will be performed every bit as well. Averaged over
the population as a whole, (Western)European health care performs
better than the U.S. system, which fails the poor quite badly - and in
the sense of not catching up with infectious diseases as well as it
might, it also fails to protect the rich as well as more comprehensive
systems do.

> > Unsurprisingly, Hutton's book is out of stock a www.amazon.com (but US
> > dealers will sell you an airmailed copy of the U.K. edition for $25.72).
> > www.amazon.co.uk have stocks of the paperback at eight U.K.pounds per
> > copy (about $12).

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> (E-Mail Removed) (Bill Sloman) wrote:
>
> > ActualGeek <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:<ActualGeek-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > "R. Steve Walz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ActualGeek wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach
> > > > > the
> > > > > difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
> > > > > educational goal.
> > > > ------------------
> > > > You're a **** and a liar.
> > > > -Steve
> > >
> > > You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here
> >
> > Your claim to "honesty" just means that you have either a poor, or a
> > very selective memory.
> >
> > > ... which
> > > is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.
> >
> > Got any evidence for this claim? It is a lot to read into a seven word
> > declarative sentence.
> >
> > > It doesn't have to be this way.
> >
> > You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Go away and
> > try to learn what honest arguement involves.
>
>
> You are repeating my complaint against you back at me?

Which complaint? The main point that I was making above was that your
claim that Steve was "tearing his hair out" was not supported by any
evidence.

> Sorry, that just shows I was right in the first place (And you're not
> very creative.)

I'm actually quite creative, but there isn't a lot to be said about
relentlessly superficial fatuities - even Steve doesn't find you worth
serious abuse.

> But then, if you had an argument in support of socialism (say, one that
> doesn't involve pretending that walmart doesn't exist, or that
> capitalism is failing in ways it isn't) you'd present it (we'd hope.)

Free market capitalism is failing to provide a stable business
environment, it doesn't provide full employment, and it doesn't seem
to be compatible with the sustainable exploitation of natural
resources.

Keynesian constrained-market capitalism did seem to keep the
instabilites of of the market under control, and did seem to be able
to get a lot closer to full employment. You probably think that Keynes
was a socialist - he wasn't, and voted with the liberals in the House
of Lords when he was made a lord.

The slightly socialist-tinged economies of western Europe aren't as
Keynesian as they ought to - the introduction of the euro gave the
bankers a lot too much power - but they do reasonably well. The
lip-service to socialism provides a mechanism for getting
sustainability via the market, by charging extra for the depletion of
a finite resoure, but it doesn't actually seem to be happening yet.

My basic arguement was that some - as yet unspecified - system which
had access to all the information we collect about the things we buy
and sell should be able to do better than the current system which is
controlled by just the aggregated cash prices on the days when things
are bought and sold.

I imagine that such a system would have to rely on distributed
control, rather than the central planning which used to be so popular
with socialist administrations, but I'm not doctriniare.

> Until you do, you have nothing.

Since I'm not arguing in support of socialism, you don't seem to
understand what the arguement is about. The "nothing" here seems to be
your failure to be able think outside the "capitalist versus
socialist" box.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen