Apollo BBS Archive - September 1988

Apollo BBS Archive - September 12 - 13, 1988



*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

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

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 4177
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 09/11/88  Time: 08:14:55

The rich are indeed getting richer, but the middle class and the poor are
getting richer as well.  According to the Census Bureau's 1987 report on
poverty and family income, the number of people in all income classes,
except for the top two ($35,000-$50,000 a year and $50,000 and over) have
been declining steadily for the last five years.  (Note that these income
figures are in constant 1987 dollars, not current dollars -- that is, they
are adjusted for inflation.)  The poverty rate has also declined every year
since 1982, though the decline last year was statistically insignificant.
Your complaints simply have no basis in fact.

Message: 4178
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Rod/Stupidity
Date: 09/11/88  Time: 19:57:37

  A smooth running system would not require any more mental capacity on the
part of the human race, just a more consistent use of the capacity already
available. Human history is full of cases where an idea (like Marxism) was
proven completely wrong without any residual doubt, and yet people were
fooled into embracing it again through emotional appeals and falsehoods.
  A socialist (like you) is always looking for ways to take things away
from people who have them and give them to people who don't. There has
been ample time for us all to learn that a thing must be created before
it can be given away (it is not a difficult concept), and yet the socialist
says, 'Give these who have nothing their fair share!', and many people
will agree with them without bothering to think it through and see what
it really means. It means enslaving all those who produce for the sake of
those who do not. The result is always a decline in liberty and incentives
for everyone and a stagnant system. That which is created only to be taken
away will not be created for long, if at all.
  Like every other socialist, you want to call your schemes something else,
but the bottom line is still to put a new claim on each producer every time
a new non-producer comes into existence. This claim of ownership against
the producer has been passed off as moral when it is clearly immoral. Your
idea to take away land and hand it out evenly is more of the same, since
someone had to make that land worth stealing or you wouldn't want it.

Message: 4179
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Ann/Rod
Date: 09/11/88  Time: 19:59:07

  You obviously misunderstood David Burkhart's comment on Rod's message
against capitalism. David did not call Rod idiotic for not understanding
'why things can't be better!' as you said. He called him idiotic for not
understanding how things ARE.
  The idea that capitalism (which is based on competition) causes inflation
is unsupportable. Competition lowers prices and improves products along
with the standard of living. Marx also said that capitalism would come to a
dead end soon, and he said it well over a hundred years before Rod did.
Both of them were unable to comprehend the fact that, unlike a stagnant
socialist system, capitalism's opportunities and incentives cause whole new
methods and enterprises to develop and replace those which become
unprofitable or run out of room for growth.
  You should reconsider your policy of automatically congratulating Rod
on his truth and brilliance every time he writes one of these Marxist
economic lessons and take a close look at what he is saying.
  You and Rod consistently point to one fraction of our system (the
capitalist fraction) and then say that since things could obviously be
better if changes were made we should move away from capitalism. Take a
look at the rest of our system and you will find the reasons for economic
problems, war, and social upheaval. That is the part that needs change.
 

Message: 4180
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean/last
Date: 09/12/88  Time: 08:11:01

I do believe that Rod understands. He might have some far out ways to change
things - but he knows whats going on

As far as capitalism is conserned, I believe in it - but only in moderation.
Any system can get out of control and right now that is happening. It is
based on the concept that you work, you get paid accordingly - you create
something and sell it - etc. Nothing wrong in that - but we have to many
'middle men'! Too many making fortunes off of other's hard earned money.
That was my point re: the landlord subject! The government is probably the
biggest culpret right now. They take & take & take and are giving us less
each year! =*--ANN--*=

Message: 4181
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Last....
Subject: Ann
Date: 09/12/88  Time: 13:47:52

  As long as you believe in being paid for your work, why don't you believe
in 'middle men' being paid for their work? If their work were not needed
the market would bypass them on its own. Only government interference (the
moderation you speak highly of) can force the market to support
non-contributing 'middle-men'.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 4182
Author: $ Todd Reese
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Llody/Ann
Date: 09/12/88  Time: 15:28:17

My dog's name is Quarter-Pack.  His mother's name was Half-Pack.  Her
father's name was Six-Pack.
 
But we call him El Perro.

Message: 4183
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 01:16:40

You've only proved my point.  I explained to you, emphatically, why I do not
believe that the world is perfect, or even good, right now, several months
ago.  I also explained that taxes had not been overtly raised, merely
covertly (inflation, greater withholding, higher social security taxes,
etc.)  You admitted I was correct.  But now you're back to your old ways.
I mistated.  You have absorbed new ideas in the last twenty years, but they
haven't survived in your "brain" for more than a few days.
You obviously aren't even attempting to look at the arguments Dean, JT, Jim,
Ron, Cliff, Sandy and others have made.
You're more closed-minded than any christian I've ever met.

Message: 4184
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean/last
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 06:51:13

I will agree that some middlemen are needed and certainly should be paid for
their work. We could not get fresh produce at the super market without them.
etc. etc. I was talking about those parties that create their positions that
are needless - yet we must pay. Examples: when you go to buy or sell a
house, you must have a 'Title Search' if you are taking a loan out. Now by
law, it is your right to go to the hall of records and do this yourself. BUT
- it is almost impossible! We tried it once and found so many stumbling
blocks that we gave up. For one thing, the loan company wants the Title co.
to do it??! That Title co. charged $300 for this service! There are also
many fees like that that the company charges. They pay a secretary a weekly
salery, she does the paper work regardless - yet they charge extras for even
writting up the document! 'Points' are another thing - you are charged a
interest rate and then they tack on points that are usually around $2,000
for the paper work! This is above all the little extras! Another thing is
'termite' inspections. I never saw a bigger scam than that. If you buy a
house - the seller must have it termite inspected - if you sold it with in
the year (or less) - you must have it termite inspected also. I never
figured this one out - it isn't a law. Does the Title com. get a cut back?
Anyway - it is these kinds of 'middlemen' that I refer to. 
The biggest middlemen that have came along in the last few years are the
supposed experts that give seminars and sell tapes at a high price that
tells you how to buy and sell realistate without money! I know of several
people that have used these methods and most went bankrupt! Yet they tie up
realistate for years, which can't be good for the economy.

One particular man we got to know pretty well. My husband went to one of his
seminars. (he did not try his method!) This guy bragged of being poor 2
years before this - now he was driving a Rolls Royce and lived in a mansion
in Paradice Valley! He claimed that initially he only has spent $5,000 by
buying realistate without cash. Well, now he is a realistate salesman in
some small office - went bankrup a couple of years ago - no Rolls and no
mansion! He came out of it pretty well - but that realistate will be tied up
for years in the loan companies and banks - they cannot sell it until it is
all strightened out. When he gave his seminars, he also instructed how you
can get away without paying taxes. 
Anyway - this is a classic example of someone getting something for nothing!
Some of these people did make good though - but it didn't help the market
and someone has to eventually pay for the loan. You may say this is a good
way to invest in property - a Capitalistic way - but it isn't like buying a
piece of property at below cost and selling it at cost. These people tie up
hugh amounts  and minipulate - milk every penny out of it and then get out
of it - leaving nothing left. They also buy apartments with a very small
down - take over terrible loans with 25% or more interest - collect the
rents for 6 months (not making the payments) and then let it go into
forclosure - taking the rents with them. They get around the law. This is a
common practice - and tutoring on this practice was given in that seminar!
This is getting something without working for it! Do you get my point?
=*--ANN--*=

Message: 4186
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 18:40:44

At least learn to spell properly.  It's "realistic," not "realistate."  And
it's "Pair of dice," not "Paradice."

Message: 4187
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann/Stuff
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 19:29:25

  Your examples back up my position entirely. The problems are there in
spite of the free enterprise system and because of interference in the
market.
  These extra charges on buying property are caused by government either
directly (through laws, rules, regulations) or indirectly (by restricting
competition in the industry, which would otherwise work to reduce costs and
streamline operations.) Even if this were not true and the companies
involved were doing it strictly on their own and for no good reason, the
free market would eventually catch on to them and someone would take their
business away from them by delivering a better service. The alternative is
more interference through some kind of government solution. This is
guaranteed to cost a fortune, be worse than the original problem, and
outlive its reason for being by generations. 
  The real estate scammers you mentioned can hardly be called middle-men.
A middle-man is an agent between two parties in a voluntary transaction. If
a contract to buy property is made with no intention of making any payments
and the proceeds of rental on such property is then withheld from the true
owner, this is fraud. The property owner did not volunteer to rent his
property to anyone for free and the renter did not volunteer to pay his
rent to someone who did not own any property. The fact that this scenario
often ends with the scammer leaving town suddenly should tell you that this
is theft by fraud and not capitalism. If the victims of this scam are
unable to recover damages from the scammer it is a failure of government.

Message: 4188
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 21:03:28

 Well put, Dean.

Message: 4189
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 23:42:26

        No, the ONLY thing I see that everyone is entitled to is a share of
the land, a place they can call their own for the short time they are here
on this planet.  I am not talking about a postage sized piece either nor am
I talking about 10 acres.  I am talking about a plot big enough to have a
garden on though.
        If this were the case at present, crime would be way down from
today's levels.  The unemployed or underemployed would not have the
pressures that exists in todays scheme if this were so.  Yes, a person would
not have the fear of eviction simply because they broke their leg, etc., and
could not work. 
        Stress, if you don't know, causes many, many things, including
health problems, crime, suicide and general ill will on this planet. 
Negative thoughts cause a chain recation just as positive thoughts causes
smiles.  Whatever evil deed is committed in this atmosphere carries with it
all the bad shit we see every day.
        I am saying, take away a major cause of stress and we will enjoy a
more peaceful world.
        With a safe place for people to dwell without the usual fear of
defaulting to some greedy capitalistic (David) landlard, a family could
conceivably be unemployed and not suffer the heart ache that todays
unemployed suffer.  They could eat from their garden and the welfare
departments expenses would be a drop in the bucket compared to what they are
now.
        Give peace a chance, geek, okay?          Rod

Message: 4190
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: David/christian
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 23:46:12

        I don't agree......my answer to you is the same I wrote for Dean.

Message: 4191
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 09/13/88  Time: 23:49:14

        What do you know?

Message: 4192
Author: $ Ro