T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 10:49, Rick C wrote:
Funny. That's my attitude too.
Funny. That's my attitude too.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Guest
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:17:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
No, only individuals and parties do that. The only way to vote between
governments is to move. In the USA, the option for a person or a
business to move is to another state with different policies and laws.
Thet happens, but it only fixes about a third of the problem.
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones. It allows economic mutation and selection. And it
directs investment functionally, not politically. Governments don't
care about profit so tend to double-down on bad ideas, and select
"investments" based on passion and politics, not on what works.
If you define gain factor Kp = (money made) divided by (cost of
lobbyists + cost of political contributions) the number can be huge,
millions and more. The US political system is blatant in this respect,
but it shows up in many forms around the world.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 00:25:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/20 22:36, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 17:29, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:41:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:50:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:20:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 11:46:27 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/03/20 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
These are quite an interesting and worrying set of graphs - scroll
down to "world" to see the comparison of USA with Japan and Italy:
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn
Thanks for those graphs; I've been waiting for somebody with the raw
data to plot them.
Recommended.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
has been plotting the data for several weeks now. They were the first
website I found that did it, and when I got jeered at for taking them
seriously I did point out that that they did say where they got their
data from, but that my main reason for using them was the fact that
they did post graphs.
GIGO. Remember that? If not, it stands for "Garbage In, Garbage Out." And
the fucking Chinese comms are feeding us GARBAGE!
Flyguy doesn't realise that his claims about the reliability of the data
the Chineses are sending out are based solely on his moronic
misconceptions, which makes him the obvious garbage emitter around here.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hardly. You are the moron who sucks up to the Chicomms. And I know why:
Australia's NUMBER ONE trading partner is China. I've seen that attitude
here: our NBA was also sucking up to the Chicomms because they do a huge
business there, and muzzled an owner at the Chicomm's insistence when he
criticized them. Now, they are stopping shipments of medical supplies to the
US. When you lie down with snakes don't be surprised when you are bitten.
At least the Chinese are dealing with the problem
better than the USA is.
Your rants are what I would expect from a neocon that
is correctly afraid that their philosophy is about to
become very unpopular. Unless there is a big smokescreen
people will eventually realise that big government will
do a better job of protecting them than market forces.
Why? Because politicians can be removed by individuals,
unlike companies.
I do not rant very often as it never seems to make any difference. But I think that it is good to have some countries with big government and some with market forces being dominate.
It's nice to have some countries with big government and some with
market forces because that way the countries with big governments
can still have vaccines, medicines, technology, etc.
But it's always weird to me, in the very middle of a demonstration
of the limitations of centralizing government, to see bigger,
more centralized government being advocated as the solution.
If that's the solution, then why shouldn't all European nations'
health care be centrally coordinated in India (they have a big
government). Or Rome? Or Washington D.C. I mean, why not? For
'efficiency,' right?
Companies are run by people.
Governments are run by people.
Companies compete.
Governments don't compete.
So what, and wrong anyway.
Governments compete for votes.
No, only individuals and parties do that. The only way to vote between
governments is to move. In the USA, the option for a person or a
business to move is to another state with different policies and laws.
Thet happens, but it only fixes about a third of the problem.
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones. It allows economic mutation and selection. And it
directs investment functionally, not politically. Governments don't
care about profit so tend to double-down on bad ideas, and select
"investments" based on passion and politics, not on what works.
If you define gain factor Kp = (money made) divided by (cost of
lobbyists + cost of political contributions) the number can be huge,
millions and more. The US political system is blatant in this respect,
but it shows up in many forms around the world.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
Guest
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:56:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
What gets interesting, and very annoying, is companies that are
dominated by bureaucrats. If they are big enough to monopolize an
economic sector, they can make a lot of money, but a majority of their
employees are worse than useless.
It's unforgivable that they couldn't predict the future and invest to
protect us.
The economic experiment here is epic. The entire electronic supply
chain is in shatters. Too many things depend on too many other things.
It will take a long time to put things back together. I expect insane
parts shortages much worse than toilet paper and garlic.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:25:14 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 22:36, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 17:29, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:41:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:50:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:20:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 11:46:27 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/03/20 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
These are quite an interesting and worrying set of graphs - scroll
down to "world" to see the comparison of USA with Japan and Italy:
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn
Thanks for those graphs; I've been waiting for somebody with the raw
data to plot them.
Recommended.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
has been plotting the data for several weeks now. They were the first
website I found that did it, and when I got jeered at for taking them
seriously I did point out that that they did say where they got their
data from, but that my main reason for using them was the fact that
they did post graphs.
GIGO. Remember that? If not, it stands for "Garbage In, Garbage Out." And
the fucking Chinese comms are feeding us GARBAGE!
Flyguy doesn't realise that his claims about the reliability of the data
the Chineses are sending out are based solely on his moronic
misconceptions, which makes him the obvious garbage emitter around here.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hardly. You are the moron who sucks up to the Chicomms. And I know why:
Australia's NUMBER ONE trading partner is China. I've seen that attitude
here: our NBA was also sucking up to the Chicomms because they do a huge
business there, and muzzled an owner at the Chicomm's insistence when he
criticized them. Now, they are stopping shipments of medical supplies to the
US. When you lie down with snakes don't be surprised when you are bitten.
At least the Chinese are dealing with the problem
better than the USA is.
Your rants are what I would expect from a neocon that
is correctly afraid that their philosophy is about to
become very unpopular. Unless there is a big smokescreen
people will eventually realise that big government will
do a better job of protecting them than market forces.
Why? Because politicians can be removed by individuals,
unlike companies.
I do not rant very often as it never seems to make any difference. But I think that it is good to have some countries with big government and some with market forces being dominate.
It's nice to have some countries with big government and some with
market forces because that way the countries with big governments
can still have vaccines, medicines, technology, etc.
But it's always weird to me, in the very middle of a demonstration
of the limitations of centralizing government, to see bigger,
more centralized government being advocated as the solution.
If that's the solution, then why shouldn't all European nations'
health care be centrally coordinated in India (they have a big
government). Or Rome? Or Washington D.C. I mean, why not? For
'efficiency,' right?
Companies are run by people.
Governments are run by people.
Both are less than perfect because people are less than perfect.
I know which people I can help cause to be removed and replaced,
and which people are unaccountable to me and outside my control.
You cannot cause bureaucrats to be removed and replaced; they are
unaccountable to you and outside your control. In the present
circumstance, those are the people responsible for a critical
shortage of ventilators in New York, those are the people who erred
fielding tests, and their punishment, in the end, will be to get
more resources.
What gets interesting, and very annoying, is companies that are
dominated by bureaucrats. If they are big enough to monopolize an
economic sector, they can make a lot of money, but a majority of their
employees are worse than useless.
And you are wrong about market forces not being able to remove companies. Currently the retail companies are changing or being removed.
Right. Every single person gets to vote on every company, every day.
And they only get your vote if they're doing something you like,
want, or approve of.
Precisely.
And the Covidien example will probably turn out to be
a classic example of market forces being lethal for
individual people.
I think rather more people would die if, like in Third World
countries, companies like Coviden are simply expropriated.
If Covidien's thing is so unique, so valuable that it needs to be
stolen from them in an emergency, then it is also something they
would never have developed in the first place, had they'd known
their rights to it were so insecure. We wouldn't have it at all.
That's why Africa's poor. No one bothers trying if it'll just
be taken from you if you succeed.
Meanwhile, where's New York's responsibility in this matter? How
did they wind up the center of this cyclone, and why didn't they
make preparations years ago? Why have they been closing hospitals
and preventing expansions of capacity and equipment?
"New York's Certificate of Need (CON) process governs establishment,
construction, renovation and major medical equipment acquisitions
of health care facilities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, home
care agencies, and diagnostic and treatment centers.
...CON provides the Department of Health oversight in limiting
investment in duplicate beds, services and medical equipment
which, in turn, limits associated health care costs."
https://www.health.ny.gov/facilities/cons/
Great. Let's limit competition, because that'll reduce cost and
increase supply!
It sucks to pay a lot more for health care, but it is nice to have companies working on manufacturing ventilators and developing vaccines.
Or working to prevent there being a supply of cheap
plentiful ventilators when the are most needed.
It is a fact that New York City, with its 20-ish odd million
residents, already has approximately twice as many ventilators
as the sixty million residing in the entire U.K.
So, as a starting point, that doesn't seem awful.
But perhaps they should have set aside some of their great wealth
and revenue for foreseeable contingencies, and perhaps they should
have more closely emulated the U.K.'s restraint in the face of the
pandemic, rather than urge their residents to throng together in
public spectacles.
I see every evidence that markets and free enterprise have (and
are) performing magnificently; the gripe seems to be that they are
unable to respond to the hysterical demands of desperate,
irresponsible localities whose profligacy and intemperance
sabotaged their own futures.
It's unforgivable that they couldn't predict the future and invest to
protect us.
The economic experiment here is epic. The entire electronic supply
chain is in shatters. Too many things depend on too many other things.
It will take a long time to put things back together. I expect insane
parts shortages much worse than toilet paper and garlic.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 1:33:54 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
So there is a second option - you can either move between states to get a different government or pay lobbyists and political contribution to get your government to pass legislation to suit you.
It's a special case of bribery and corruption, but the US has set up regulations that allow very rich people to do it transparently and legally. It's totally immoral, but that's a different problem.
One of the advantages of living in a blatant plutocracy, if you are rich enough to take advantage of it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:17:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 00:25:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/20 22:36, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 17:29, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:41:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:50:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:20:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 11:46:27 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/03/20 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
Companies are run by people.
Governments are run by people.
Companies compete.
Governments don't compete.
So what, and wrong anyway.
Governments compete for votes.
No, only individuals and parties do that. The only way to vote between
governments is to move. In the USA, the option for a person or a
business to move is to another state with different policies and laws.
That happens, but it only fixes about a third of the problem.
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones. It allows economic mutation and selection. And it
directs investment functionally, not politically. Governments don't
care about profit so tend to double-down on bad ideas, and select
"investments" based on passion and politics, not on what works.
If you define gain factor Kp = (money made) divided by (cost of
lobbyists + cost of political contributions) the number can be huge,
millions and more. The US political system is blatant in this respect,
but it shows up in many forms around the world.
So there is a second option - you can either move between states to get a different government or pay lobbyists and political contribution to get your government to pass legislation to suit you.
It's a special case of bribery and corruption, but the US has set up regulations that allow very rich people to do it transparently and legally. It's totally immoral, but that's a different problem.
One of the advantages of living in a blatant plutocracy, if you are rich enough to take advantage of it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 1:22:11 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snip>
James Arthur does seem to have utter faith in the efficacy of unrestrained market ans totally free enterprise.
He doesn't seem to be able to support this point of view by rational argument and prefers to go for persuasive and misleading sounds bites.
"Profligacy and intemperance" means that the localities spend more of tax contributions than he likes.
John Larkin ought to be sending him up here. Predicting the future is tricky.
Making rational allowance for likely eventualities is sensible, bu there are a lot of different - more or less equally likely - eventualities and if you spend money on making an allowance for the wrong eventuality the James Arthurs of this world will get downright vicious.
In tatters or shattered. It's a blend.
It's not an experiment. It's a disruption. You might be able to keep track of what happens, but that's observation, not experimentation. Useful, but it's only one set of eventualities.
It might happen, but heavily automated production lines don't need all that many people, and quite a few of them work is class 10 clean rooms which would pretty much Covid-19 proof.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:56:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:25:14 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 22:36, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 17:29, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:41:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:50:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:20:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 11:46:27 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/03/20 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
<snip>
I see every evidence that markets and free enterprise have (and
are) performing magnificently; the gripe seems to be that they are
unable to respond to the hysterical demands of desperate,
irresponsible localities whose profligacy and intemperance
sabotaged their own futures.
James Arthur does seem to have utter faith in the efficacy of unrestrained market ans totally free enterprise.
He doesn't seem to be able to support this point of view by rational argument and prefers to go for persuasive and misleading sounds bites.
"Profligacy and intemperance" means that the localities spend more of tax contributions than he likes.
It's unforgivable that they couldn't predict the future and invest to
protect us.
John Larkin ought to be sending him up here. Predicting the future is tricky.
Making rational allowance for likely eventualities is sensible, bu there are a lot of different - more or less equally likely - eventualities and if you spend money on making an allowance for the wrong eventuality the James Arthurs of this world will get downright vicious.
The economic experiment here is epic. The entire electronic supply
chain is in shatters.
In tatters or shattered. It's a blend.
It's not an experiment. It's a disruption. You might be able to keep track of what happens, but that's observation, not experimentation. Useful, but it's only one set of eventualities.
Too many things depend on too many other things.
It will take a long time to put things back together. I expect insane
parts shortages much worse than toilet paper and garlic.
It might happen, but heavily automated production lines don't need all that many people, and quite a few of them work is class 10 clean rooms which would pretty much Covid-19 proof.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 15:33, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Er. Governments are made up of individuals
that group themselves into parties.
I don't really understand that, but normally that
succeeds in getting different advantage and disadvantages.
Choose your poison.
If that wasn't the case then all similar businesses
would end up in a single location.
And you think companies don't do that?!
You have a sheltered view of how large companies work
and the dysfunctional behaviour they exhibit.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:17:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 00:25:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/20 22:36, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 17:29, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:41:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:50:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:20:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 11:46:27 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/03/20 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
These are quite an interesting and worrying set of graphs - scroll
down to "world" to see the comparison of USA with Japan and Italy:
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn
Thanks for those graphs; I've been waiting for somebody with the raw
data to plot them.
Recommended.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
has been plotting the data for several weeks now. They were the first
website I found that did it, and when I got jeered at for taking them
seriously I did point out that that they did say where they got their
data from, but that my main reason for using them was the fact that
they did post graphs.
GIGO. Remember that? If not, it stands for "Garbage In, Garbage Out." And
the fucking Chinese comms are feeding us GARBAGE!
Flyguy doesn't realise that his claims about the reliability of the data
the Chineses are sending out are based solely on his moronic
misconceptions, which makes him the obvious garbage emitter around here.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hardly. You are the moron who sucks up to the Chicomms. And I know why:
Australia's NUMBER ONE trading partner is China. I've seen that attitude
here: our NBA was also sucking up to the Chicomms because they do a huge
business there, and muzzled an owner at the Chicomm's insistence when he
criticized them. Now, they are stopping shipments of medical supplies to the
US. When you lie down with snakes don't be surprised when you are bitten.
At least the Chinese are dealing with the problem
better than the USA is.
Your rants are what I would expect from a neocon that
is correctly afraid that their philosophy is about to
become very unpopular. Unless there is a big smokescreen
people will eventually realise that big government will
do a better job of protecting them than market forces.
Why? Because politicians can be removed by individuals,
unlike companies.
I do not rant very often as it never seems to make any difference. But I think that it is good to have some countries with big government and some with market forces being dominate.
It's nice to have some countries with big government and some with
market forces because that way the countries with big governments
can still have vaccines, medicines, technology, etc.
But it's always weird to me, in the very middle of a demonstration
of the limitations of centralizing government, to see bigger,
more centralized government being advocated as the solution.
If that's the solution, then why shouldn't all European nations'
health care be centrally coordinated in India (they have a big
government). Or Rome? Or Washington D.C. I mean, why not? For
'efficiency,' right?
Companies are run by people.
Governments are run by people.
Companies compete.
Governments don't compete.
So what, and wrong anyway.
Governments compete for votes.
No, only individuals and parties do that.
Er. Governments are made up of individuals
that group themselves into parties.
The only way to vote between
governments is to move. In the USA, the option for a person or a
business to move is to another state with different policies and laws.
Thet happens, but it only fixes about a third of the problem.
I don't really understand that, but normally that
succeeds in getting different advantage and disadvantages.
Choose your poison.
If that wasn't the case then all similar businesses
would end up in a single location.
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones. It allows economic mutation and selection. And it
directs investment functionally, not politically. Governments don't
care about profit so tend to double-down on bad ideas, and select
"investments" based on passion and politics, not on what works.
And you think companies don't do that?!
You have a sheltered view of how large companies work
and the dysfunctional behaviour they exhibit.
Guest
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:45:11 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
There is a big, high-inertia segment of career employees in government
divisions, operating under laws and regulations that change very
slowly, and are always monotonically more complex. Those segments have
their own interests. Nobody elected the IRS or the EPA or the FBI.
Politicians come and go but mostly don't mess with the established
structures.
If they do it too much, they die.
Oh, I see amazing dysfunction in big businesses, and sometimes profit
from same. But long term, I see the creative and efficient ones pull
ahead of the greedy and dull ones.
IBM, Kodak, HP, DEC, Xerox, Motorola, RCA, the Bell system, Nokia
dominated their industries.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 15:33, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:17:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 00:25:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/03/20 22:36, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 31/03/20 17:29, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:41:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:50:20 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:20:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 11:46:27 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/03/20 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
These are quite an interesting and worrying set of graphs - scroll
down to "world" to see the comparison of USA with Japan and Italy:
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn
Thanks for those graphs; I've been waiting for somebody with the raw
data to plot them.
Recommended.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
has been plotting the data for several weeks now. They were the first
website I found that did it, and when I got jeered at for taking them
seriously I did point out that that they did say where they got their
data from, but that my main reason for using them was the fact that
they did post graphs.
GIGO. Remember that? If not, it stands for "Garbage In, Garbage Out." And
the fucking Chinese comms are feeding us GARBAGE!
Flyguy doesn't realise that his claims about the reliability of the data
the Chineses are sending out are based solely on his moronic
misconceptions, which makes him the obvious garbage emitter around here.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hardly. You are the moron who sucks up to the Chicomms. And I know why:
Australia's NUMBER ONE trading partner is China. I've seen that attitude
here: our NBA was also sucking up to the Chicomms because they do a huge
business there, and muzzled an owner at the Chicomm's insistence when he
criticized them. Now, they are stopping shipments of medical supplies to the
US. When you lie down with snakes don't be surprised when you are bitten.
At least the Chinese are dealing with the problem
better than the USA is.
Your rants are what I would expect from a neocon that
is correctly afraid that their philosophy is about to
become very unpopular. Unless there is a big smokescreen
people will eventually realise that big government will
do a better job of protecting them than market forces.
Why? Because politicians can be removed by individuals,
unlike companies.
I do not rant very often as it never seems to make any difference. But I think that it is good to have some countries with big government and some with market forces being dominate.
It's nice to have some countries with big government and some with
market forces because that way the countries with big governments
can still have vaccines, medicines, technology, etc.
But it's always weird to me, in the very middle of a demonstration
of the limitations of centralizing government, to see bigger,
more centralized government being advocated as the solution.
If that's the solution, then why shouldn't all European nations'
health care be centrally coordinated in India (they have a big
government). Or Rome? Or Washington D.C. I mean, why not? For
'efficiency,' right?
Companies are run by people.
Governments are run by people.
Companies compete.
Governments don't compete.
So what, and wrong anyway.
Governments compete for votes.
No, only individuals and parties do that.
Er. Governments are made up of individuals
that group themselves into parties.
There is a big, high-inertia segment of career employees in government
divisions, operating under laws and regulations that change very
slowly, and are always monotonically more complex. Those segments have
their own interests. Nobody elected the IRS or the EPA or the FBI.
Politicians come and go but mostly don't mess with the established
structures.
The only way to vote between
governments is to move. In the USA, the option for a person or a
business to move is to another state with different policies and laws.
Thet happens, but it only fixes about a third of the problem.
I don't really understand that, but normally that
succeeds in getting different advantage and disadvantages.
Choose your poison.
If that wasn't the case then all similar businesses
would end up in a single location.
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones. It allows economic mutation and selection. And it
directs investment functionally, not politically. Governments don't
care about profit so tend to double-down on bad ideas, and select
"investments" based on passion and politics, not on what works.
And you think companies don't do that?!
If they do it too much, they die.
You have a sheltered view of how large companies work
and the dysfunctional behaviour they exhibit.
Oh, I see amazing dysfunction in big businesses, and sometimes profit
from same. But long term, I see the creative and efficient ones pull
ahead of the greedy and dull ones.
IBM, Kodak, HP, DEC, Xerox, Motorola, RCA, the Bell system, Nokia
dominated their industries.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
Guest
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Absolutely. Do you think the alternative -- enterprises whose
product is worth less than the effort and materials they needed
to produce it (i.e. a net destruction of value and resources) --
are laudable? Or sustainable?
Profits are a vital feedback, critical to ensuring constructive
efforts are directed to productive enterprise (and away from
destructive enterprises).
Government lacks that feedback. They can easily promote destructive
policy without suffering the normal consequences -- their salaries
don't change, they don't lose their jobs, or their pensions.
Cheers,
James Arthur
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
Absolutely. Do you think the alternative -- enterprises whose
product is worth less than the effort and materials they needed
to produce it (i.e. a net destruction of value and resources) --
are laudable? Or sustainable?
Profits are a vital feedback, critical to ensuring constructive
efforts are directed to productive enterprise (and away from
destructive enterprises).
Government lacks that feedback. They can easily promote destructive
policy without suffering the normal consequences -- their salaries
don't change, they don't lose their jobs, or their pensions.
Cheers,
James Arthur
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 17:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
So, you a company's profit is more important than
your health and freedom, and that of your loved ones?
Really?
Agreed. Where have I argued against that?!
> Government lacks that feedback.
Governments have a crude bang-bang form of feedback:
elections.
It helps if you have at least two parties with
different policies and agendas, of course.
I've seen companies (both small and large) promote destructive
paths and practices.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
Absolutely.
So, you a company's profit is more important than
your health and freedom, and that of your loved ones?
Really?
Do you think the alternative -- enterprises whose
product is worth less than the effort and materials they needed
to produce it (i.e. a net destruction of value and resources) --
are laudable? Or sustainable?
Profits are a vital feedback, critical to ensuring constructive
efforts are directed to productive enterprise (and away from
destructive enterprises).
Agreed. Where have I argued against that?!
> Government lacks that feedback.
Governments have a crude bang-bang form of feedback:
elections.
It helps if you have at least two parties with
different policies and agendas, of course.
They can easily promote destructive
policy without suffering the normal consequences -- their salaries
don't change, they don't lose their jobs, or their pensions.
I've seen companies (both small and large) promote destructive
paths and practices.
Guest
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:04:38 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
My company's profit funds the health and freedom of my employees and
their loved ones. If there had been no profit in the past, there would
be no company. No employees. No salaries, vacations, health care,
continued education, bonuses, 401K, ice cream sandwiches. No donuts.
The new tax reforms here are good. Buying a $50K oscilloscope or a
megabuck of pick-and-place line is an expense now, not a taxable
asset.
Really.
But, with a little luck, the market kills them off.
It generally takes a violent revolution to kick out an inefficient
government. People get hurt. China will be interesting some day.
Smaller scale, Cuba and Venezuela.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 17:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
Absolutely.
So, you a company's profit is more important than
your health and freedom, and that of your loved ones?
Really?
My company's profit funds the health and freedom of my employees and
their loved ones. If there had been no profit in the past, there would
be no company. No employees. No salaries, vacations, health care,
continued education, bonuses, 401K, ice cream sandwiches. No donuts.
The new tax reforms here are good. Buying a $50K oscilloscope or a
megabuck of pick-and-place line is an expense now, not a taxable
asset.
Really.
Do you think the alternative -- enterprises whose
product is worth less than the effort and materials they needed
to produce it (i.e. a net destruction of value and resources) --
are laudable? Or sustainable?
Profits are a vital feedback, critical to ensuring constructive
efforts are directed to productive enterprise (and away from
destructive enterprises).
Agreed. Where have I argued against that?!
Government lacks that feedback.
Governments have a crude bang-bang form of feedback:
elections.
It helps if you have at least two parties with
different policies and agendas, of course.
They can easily promote destructive
policy without suffering the normal consequences -- their salaries
don't change, they don't lose their jobs, or their pensions.
I've seen companies (both small and large) promote destructive
paths and practices.
But, with a little luck, the market kills them off.
It generally takes a violent revolution to kick out an inefficient
government. People get hurt. China will be interesting some day.
Smaller scale, Cuba and Venezuela.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 7:33:54 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
That's true enough.
> It allows economic mutation and selection.
Huh? Those don't interact with economics except in a for-profit organization; other
organizations, and individuals, have other performance metrics to meet.
Health, for instance, is kinda important for individuals this year.
Our social institutions, and ourselves, are motivated by OTHER figures-of-merit.
You won't understand personal virtue or reliable defense establishments if you
consider profit and economics instead of the more appropriate principles.
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones.
That's true enough.
> It allows economic mutation and selection.
Huh? Those don't interact with economics except in a for-profit organization; other
organizations, and individuals, have other performance metrics to meet.
Health, for instance, is kinda important for individuals this year.
Our social institutions, and ourselves, are motivated by OTHER figures-of-merit.
You won't understand personal virtue or reliable defense establishments if you
consider profit and economics instead of the more appropriate principles.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:19:00 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
No society, capitalist or socialist or anything, is going to do very
well if it consumes faster than it invests. All the farms and
factories will deteriorate. Profit is what people use to invest. It's
the measure of producing more than you consume.
Henry Ford didn't need government subsidies to build factories to make
affordable cars. He did it with profits. Once you could buy a model T
at Sears for $295.
My company started with one guy with a few thousand in savings, and
made a small profit, and re-invested that over the years, and employs
25 people now. I did it more for fun than money, but it wouldn't have
survived or grown without profit.
Good intentions are useless if you are out of business and producing
nothing.
Even intelligent Communists have realized they do better if they leave
a big segment of the economy alone to make profits. Not in Venezuela.
The problem is, nobody, especially not economists or revolutionaries,
understand how to run an economy. It's best to let people try all
sorts of things, and let the profitable experiments prosper.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 7:33:54 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
What profit does is separate the efficient organizations from the
inefficient ones.
That's true enough.
It allows economic mutation and selection.
Huh? Those don't interact with economics except in a for-profit organization; other
organizations, and individuals, have other performance metrics to meet.
Health, for instance, is kinda important for individuals this year.
Our social institutions, and ourselves, are motivated by OTHER figures-of-merit.
You won't understand personal virtue or reliable defense establishments if you
consider profit and economics instead of the more appropriate principles.
No society, capitalist or socialist or anything, is going to do very
well if it consumes faster than it invests. All the farms and
factories will deteriorate. Profit is what people use to invest. It's
the measure of producing more than you consume.
Henry Ford didn't need government subsidies to build factories to make
affordable cars. He did it with profits. Once you could buy a model T
at Sears for $295.
My company started with one guy with a few thousand in savings, and
made a small profit, and re-invested that over the years, and employs
25 people now. I did it more for fun than money, but it wouldn't have
survived or grown without profit.
Good intentions are useless if you are out of business and producing
nothing.
Even intelligent Communists have realized they do better if they leave
a big segment of the economy alone to make profits. Not in Venezuela.
The problem is, nobody, especially not economists or revolutionaries,
understand how to run an economy. It's best to let people try all
sorts of things, and let the profitable experiments prosper.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 18:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
You can have freedom without profit, and lack of
freedom with profit.
Conclusion: freedom and profit are orthogonal.
That your employees health care depends on your
company's profits is immoral. Many parts of the
world do much better than that.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:04:38 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 17:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
Absolutely.
So, you a company's profit is more important than
your health and freedom, and that of your loved ones?
Really?
My company's profit funds the health and freedom of my employees and
their loved ones.
You can have freedom without profit, and lack of
freedom with profit.
Conclusion: freedom and profit are orthogonal.
If there had been no profit in the past, there would
be no company. No employees. No salaries, vacations, health care,
continued education, bonuses, 401K, ice cream sandwiches. No donuts.
That your employees health care depends on your
company's profits is immoral. Many parts of the
world do much better than that.
It generally takes a violent revolution to kick out an inefficient
government. People get hurt. China will be interesting some day.
Smaller scale, Cuba and Venezuela
Not always, and so what?
Guest
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:09:59 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
That's insensible. Someone who has chosen to be an employee needs
for an employer to exist, first and foremost.
IFF the employer exists, and pays the employee, then the employee
is free to use / spend / allocate the proceeds of his labor as he
sees fit, including purchasing food, clothing, shelter, savings,
cable TV, etc.
> Many parts of the world do much better than that.
No they don't, actually.
Cheers,
James Arthur
That your employees health care depends on your
company's profits is immoral.
That's insensible. Someone who has chosen to be an employee needs
for an employer to exist, first and foremost.
IFF the employer exists, and pays the employee, then the employee
is free to use / spend / allocate the proceeds of his labor as he
sees fit, including purchasing food, clothing, shelter, savings,
cable TV, etc.
> Many parts of the world do much better than that.
No they don't, actually.
Cheers,
James Arthur
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 21:09:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Even the Communists have figured out that's not so.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 18:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:04:38 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 17:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
Absolutely.
So, you a company's profit is more important than
your health and freedom, and that of your loved ones?
Really?
My company's profit funds the health and freedom of my employees and
their loved ones.
You can have freedom without profit, and lack of
freedom with profit.
Conclusion: freedom and profit are orthogonal.
Even the Communists have figured out that's not so.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:35:01 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
No, companies come and go just as employees come and go. Jobs are not hard to find and people should be more proactive in seeking employers with better benefits and pay. Some are.
The ones that do very well are the ones who provide healthcare through the government in a way that benefits all.
In this country we seem to manage to turn everything into a money grab, fighting over which businesses will benefit from each decision the government makes.
That is the single biggest issue I'm concerned about with universal healthcare in the US. The way the lobbyists from the major players will pervert any such legislation to prevent the citizens from benefiting.
You think COVID-19 is an ugly matter... wait until someone tries to get a universal healthcare bill passed.
--
Rick C.
-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:09:59 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
That your employees health care depends on your
company's profits is immoral.
That's insensible. Someone who has chosen to be an employee needs
for an employer to exist, first and foremost.
No, companies come and go just as employees come and go. Jobs are not hard to find and people should be more proactive in seeking employers with better benefits and pay. Some are.
IFF the employer exists, and pays the employee, then the employee
is free to use / spend / allocate the proceeds of his labor as he
sees fit, including purchasing food, clothing, shelter, savings,
cable TV, etc.
Many parts of the world do much better than that.
No they don't, actually.
The ones that do very well are the ones who provide healthcare through the government in a way that benefits all.
In this country we seem to manage to turn everything into a money grab, fighting over which businesses will benefit from each decision the government makes.
That is the single biggest issue I'm concerned about with universal healthcare in the US. The way the lobbyists from the major players will pervert any such legislation to prevent the citizens from benefiting.
You think COVID-19 is an ugly matter... wait until someone tries to get a universal healthcare bill passed.
--
Rick C.
-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 23:17, Flyguy wrote:
Answer the "so what" question.
Google for "velvet revolution"; there are others.
But that is an irrelevant distraction.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 18:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 18:04:38 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/20 17:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 02:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Companies have to make a profit.
Governments don't have to make a profit.
Ah. Do you /really/ think profit is the most
important thing?
Absolutely.
So, you a company's profit is more important than
your health and freedom, and that of your loved ones?
Really?
My company's profit funds the health and freedom of my employees and
their loved ones.
You can have freedom without profit, and lack of
freedom with profit.
Conclusion: freedom and profit are orthogonal.
If there had been no profit in the past, there would
be no company. No employees. No salaries, vacations, health care,
continued education, bonuses, 401K, ice cream sandwiches. No donuts.
That your employees health care depends on your
company's profits is immoral. Many parts of the
world do much better than that.
It generally takes a violent revolution to kick out an inefficient
government. People get hurt. China will be interesting some day.
Smaller scale, Cuba and Venezuela
Not always, and so what?
Name ONE government that left peacefully.
Answer the "so what" question.
Google for "velvet revolution"; there are others.
But that is an irrelevant distraction.
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 22:10, Rick C wrote:
Spot on.
(Unfortunately for people that live and work in the US).
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:35:01 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:09:59 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
That your employees health care depends on your company's profits is
immoral.
That's insensible. Someone who has chosen to be an employee needs for an
employer to exist, first and foremost.
No, companies come and go just as employees come and go. Jobs are not hard
to find and people should be more proactive in seeking employers with better
benefits and pay. Some are.
IFF the employer exists, and pays the employee, then the employee is free
to use / spend / allocate the proceeds of his labor as he sees fit,
including purchasing food, clothing, shelter, savings, cable TV, etc.
Many parts of the world do much better than that.
No they don't, actually.
The ones that do very well are the ones who provide healthcare through the
government in a way that benefits all.
In this country we seem to manage to turn everything into a money grab,
fighting over which businesses will benefit from each decision the government
makes.
That is the single biggest issue I'm concerned about with universal
healthcare in the US. The way the lobbyists from the major players will
pervert any such legislation to prevent the citizens from benefiting.
You think COVID-19 is an ugly matter... wait until someone tries to get a
universal healthcare bill passed.
Spot on.
(Unfortunately for people that live and work in the US).
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 01/04/20 21:34, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
Your imagination and sight are lamentable.
In Europe the employer is rarely directly
involved in healthcare.
That theory leads to unpleasant consequences in the US.
They do, actually.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:09:59 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
That your employees health care depends on your
company's profits is immoral.
That's insensible. Someone who has chosen to be an employee needs
for an employer to exist, first and foremost.
Your imagination and sight are lamentable.
In Europe the employer is rarely directly
involved in healthcare.
IFF the employer exists, and pays the employee, then the employee
is free to use / spend / allocate the proceeds of his labor as he
sees fit, including purchasing food, clothing, shelter, savings,
cable TV, etc.
That theory leads to unpleasant consequences in the US.
Many parts of the world do much better than that.
No they don't, actually.
They do, actually.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 6:17:49 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Parliamentary systems do it all the time. It's called a vote of no confidence. I wish we had that here. So much simpler than impeachment. The real advantage though is the absence of the two party system. That alone is the biggest log jam in our government. It's always one party against the other. With multiple parties in power compromises are required to form a government and get things done because it's not automatic that one party will dominate. Often the largest party still doesn't have a majority and has to form a coalition.
But being able to dump your bad government is the way to go for sure!
--
Rick C.
-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 01/04/20 18:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It generally takes a violent revolution to kick out an inefficient
government. People get hurt. China will be interesting some day.
Smaller scale, Cuba and Venezuela
Not always, and so what?
Name ONE government that left peacefully.
Parliamentary systems do it all the time. It's called a vote of no confidence. I wish we had that here. So much simpler than impeachment. The real advantage though is the absence of the two party system. That alone is the biggest log jam in our government. It's always one party against the other. With multiple parties in power compromises are required to form a government and get things done because it's not automatic that one party will dominate. Often the largest party still doesn't have a majority and has to form a coalition.
But being able to dump your bad government is the way to go for sure!
--
Rick C.
-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209