Apollo BBS Archive - January 1992

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.