conservation of Euros

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greegor wrote:

On May 20, 12:14 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At
least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some
understanding of how it works and why it works that way.

Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone.

There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of
course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like
"We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two
available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures.

A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not
bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and
talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority.

I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era.

A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students
with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist
utopianism. They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together
in peace, equality, and free love. A commune, where all is fair and
free.

They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm
make, and that equality sucked. The chicks split, and then the guys
soon after.

The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their
eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in
the process...

James

These experiments resemble cults, where
they attempt to shut out REALITY and
replace it with their BELIEF!

For every bunch of people actually trying this
and eventually seeing the results, there are
bunches of well wishers who are eventually
forced to wake up to the problems such
systems have IN REALITY.

I've seen coop grocery stores last for
some time in Minneapolis and St Paul,
depending heavily on support from the
extremely liberal community around them.
Shop in one and you cannot possibly
miss the cult like POLITICAL beliefs that
permeate everything in those places.

Coffee beans, for example, reflect a big
effort to help the coffee growers who
regularly get ripped off by the normal
coffee companies.

I'm conservative but I actually LIKE the
idea of their alternative supply chain
that helps out the poor coffee farmers,
supposedly breaking a monopoly and
forcing the free market to help out
those poor farmers.

On the other hand, when walking through
the coop grocery, they have similarly
politicized so many products that it
gets old quickly.

Only the most CULT LIKE liberal zombies
refuse to learn from the reality they
discover, and refuse to acknowledge
the real world limitations that came up.
Usually they blame external causes.

All of this makes it even more bizarre
that Bill Slowman is over 50 years old
yet his political rantings have the
maturity of idealistic and inexperienced
18 year olds in the USA.

It's also bizarre that he obsesses about
United States economic politics considering
he claims to be an Aussie ex-pat living
in Netherlands.

For a NON-PRODUCER living off his wife
to urge socialism is cartoon like.

Taz. He destroys everything he touches.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:10:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Greegor wrote:

G > Sloman, Do you see yourself as egotistical,
G > smarter, or superior to other people?
G
G > In the US, your arguments and reasoning
G > are more typical of the occasional misfit,
G > usually 17 or 18 years old and struggling
G > for IDENTITY, and going for shock value.
G
G > Generally, these people lack real world
G > experience, and so obsess about the
G > ACADEMIC. As they get more real
G > world experience, they soon realize the
G > difference between academia and real world.
G
G > Did you think that the KOOK LEFT was
G > populated mostly by PRODUCERS?
G
G > You claim you are over 50, yet you still
G > place great stock in academic sources,
G > and you claim to be an Aussie ex pat
G > living off your wife in Netherlands, yet
G > you obsess about economics in the USA.
G
G > Your situation as you've described it
G > is a bit like a cartoon!
G > A 50+ year old misfit NON-PRODUCER
G > who lives off his wife and advocates socialism?
G
G > How amazing is that?
G
G > There are some American retirees who
G > were cold hard capitalists but lost almost
G > everything in 2008-2009 and now that
G > they see themselves as recipients of
G > socialistic handouts, they are more
G > receptive to ideas of socialism.
G
G > How amazing is that?

Cat got your tongue, Bill? LOL


If it did it would die a slow, painful death for whatever it caught
from Bill.

Mange ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:


You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At
least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some
understanding of how it works and why it works that way.

Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone.

There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of
course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like
"We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two
available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures.

A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not
bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and
talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority.


I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era.

A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students
with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist
utopianism. They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together
in peace, equality, and free love. A commune, where all is fair and
free.

They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm
make, and that equality sucked. The chicks split, and then the guys
soon after.

The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their
eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in
the process...

James

I was just talking to Phil Hobbs about that recently. He pointed out
that bad management is better than no management. At least it gets
everybody pulling in the same direction.

John

 

[Greegor]

On May 20, 12:14 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At
least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some
understanding of how it works and why it works that way.

Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone.

There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of
course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like
"We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two
available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures.

A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not
bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and
talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority.

I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era.

A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students
with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist
utopianism.  They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together
in peace, equality, and free love.  A commune, where all is fair and
free.

They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm
make, and that equality sucked.  The chicks split, and then the guys
soon after.

The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their
eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in
the process...

James

These experiments resemble cults, where
they attempt to shut out REALITY and
replace it with their BELIEF!

For every bunch of people actually trying this
and eventually seeing the results, there are
bunches of well wishers who are eventually
forced to wake up to the problems such
systems have IN REALITY.

I've seen coop grocery stores last for
some time in Minneapolis and St Paul,
depending heavily on support from the
extremely liberal community around them.
Shop in one and you cannot possibly
miss the cult like POLITICAL beliefs that
permeate everything in those places.

Coffee beans, for example, reflect a big
effort to help the coffee growers who
regularly get ripped off by the normal
coffee companies.

I'm conservative but I actually LIKE the
idea of their alternative supply chain
that helps out the poor coffee farmers,
supposedly breaking a monopoly and
forcing the free market to help out
those poor farmers.

On the other hand, when walking through
the coop grocery, they have similarly
politicized so many products that it
gets old quickly.

Only the most CULT LIKE liberal zombies
refuse to learn from the reality they
discover, and refuse to acknowledge
the real world limitations that came up.
Usually they blame external causes.

All of this makes it even more bizarre
that Bill Slowman is over 50 years old
yet his political rantings have the
maturity of idealistic and inexperienced
18 year olds in the USA.

It's also bizarre that he obsesses about
United States economic politics considering
he claims to be an Aussie ex-pat living
in Netherlands.

For a NON-PRODUCER living off his wife
to urge socialism is cartoon like.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled
to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA.

Employees can walk out on zero notice, leaving projects in random
states. And they sometimes do. How about some symmetry?

John

 

[Greegor]

JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory
insurance
JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and
neither
JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's
really no
JA > point in debating you on this.

Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that
it's like arguing religion with a Moonie.

Come on! An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who
argues for socialism?

It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled
to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin, You couldn't find your own asshole using a mirror, both hands,
plus an assistant.

Why should we then think you're expert "in the way that seems so
common in the USA" ?

You have no clue of the USA except from your propaganda source.

Jerk-off!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 2:49 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 20, 1:51 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory insurance
JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and neither
JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's really no
JA > point in debating you on this.

Hey, that makes a nice acronym: MAN-datory I-nsurance PU-rchase and
regu-LATION Bill.

Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that
it's like arguing religion with a Moonie.

Come on!   An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who
argues for socialism?

JA > Bill's 67, in the Netherlands, and an expert on
JA > all things American. As a mere American
JA > living in America, I'm glad to have such a
JA > reliable source to redoublethink all the things
JA > I know directly and confirm daily with
JA > experience into politically correct context:
JA > Obama's a centrist, not the ultra farthest
JA > most radical left-voting member of Congress,
JA > and a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, not a
JA > former associate professor and sometime
JA > ACORN subprime-pushing counsel.
JA
JA > Bill's said his nanny state host makes it
JA > impossible for oldsters like him to get a
JA > job--no one wants to hire 'cause then
JA > they're responsible.  Plus the state bribes
JA > companies to hire younger workers,
JA > who'd really rather take welfare anywho[sic].
JA > Or something like that.  If I've
JA > mischaracterized him I'm sure Bill will correct me.
JA
JA > But he still likes it.  What the hell, the money's
JA > still free-living off other people is easy.  Problem
JA > is, they don't work nearly hard enough, and
JA > they whine.  Wimps.  Probably racists and
JA > Nazis, too.  You know, reactionaries.

G > It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag.
G > "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

JA > I looked into the GRA / 401k thing.  If there's a
JA > serious attempt to grab 401ks, I didn't detect it.
JA > Not that it couldn't happen, I just didn't see it
JA > in the several articles Yahoo offered up.

I didn't bring up or assert such a grab for 401K's
but I can tell you that much like the way the
SOCIAL SERVICES agencies grab kids from
parents on a whim as ""Child Protection"",
they have started grabbing senior citizens on
a whim in the guise of ""Elder Abuse"". Apparently,
following their pattern with parents and kids, they
don't need to actually PROVE any of their crap.
The one really NEW wrinkle has these statist
zombies drooling is that when they grab a
grandma or grandpa for no reason, they get
to grab and control or confiscate their ESTATE.

A tendancy for them to grab seniors who have
considerable ESTATES has already been observed.

Seniors with family farm empires including land
and considerable savings are being grabbed
and administered until liquidation, to pay
for their remaining years at a social security/
welfare level.

Situations where farms should be passed on
to the next generation are stopped cold.

Well off seniors are suddenly made equal with
other seniors living on social security/welfare.

Families who were WELL ABLE and willing
to care for or contract for their elders to be
cared for AT HOME are finding the money
is seized even if the elder themself are not.

In several cases, the mental faculties of
the "seized" seniors are still sharp and the
whole thing is a SOCIAL SERVICES nightmare
as absurd as most bogus ""Child Protection"" cases.

What state(s) is this happening?

Good reason to have a living will that includes financial management
in case of loss of mental faculties.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[Martin Brown]

On 20/05/2010 21:44, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled
to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA.

Employees can walk out on zero notice, leaving projects in random
states. And they sometimes do. How about some symmetry?

I agree. Don't you have written contracts of employment?

In the UK that symmetry exists at least on paper in many contracts of
employment. When I worked for a corporate I was on 3 months notice (for
either side - it might have been 6 months for the company later on) and
my boss when he decided to leave was forced to work out his notice.

It is a bit pointless though as someone who has signed a contract with
another company and especially a competitor would have to be marched off
site pretty much immediately anyway. That did happen sometimes.

Only when the move was to a non competitor could you really insist on
working out the notice period less any holidays due.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Greegor]

BS > Marx was a genius, when it came to economics.
BS > As a politician, he was a dud. I do critical
BS > commentary, not fanatical support. Since you
BS > don't seem to be up to critical commentary,
BS > you may not appreciate the difference. And
BS > this is reiterating a point I made later in the
BS > post to which you are responding - you
BS > might go to the trouble of reading the whole
BS > post before you respond to particular parts
BS > of it, if you don't want to be accused of
BS > text-chopping.

You are a NON-PRODUCER living off your wife
and promoting socialism.

How critical can you be?

Wait, you mean as in the academic term
"critical thinking", right?

You hope everybody gets past the idea
that you're a a NON-PRODUCER, living
off your wife and fanatically supporting socialism.

You bemoan the distrust and hostility with
which outright socialism and the political
thoughts of Marx are received by Americans.

After that you try to say you're
not trying to ""sell"" socialism??

 

[tm]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:gm7bv5trrjjrl1q7cvbtid8fteop5rholj@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled
to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA.

Employees can walk out on zero notice, leaving projects in random
states. And they sometimes do. How about some symmetry?

John

Yep, it's called a contract.

 

On May 20, 1:51 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory insurance
JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and neither
JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's really no
JA > point in debating you on this.

Hey, that makes a nice acronym: MAN-datory I-nsurance PU-rchase and
regu-LATION Bill.

Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that
it's like arguing religion with a Moonie.

Come on! An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who
argues for socialism?

Bill's 67, in the Netherlands, and an expert on all things American.
As a mere American living in America, I'm glad to have such a reliable
source to redoublethink all the things I know directly and confirm
daily with experience into politically correct context: Obama's a
centrist, not the ultra farthest most radical left-voting member of
Congress, and a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, not a former
associate professor and sometime ACORN subprime-pushing counsel.

Bill's said his nanny state host makes it impossible for oldsters like
him to get a job--no one wants to hire 'cause then they're
responsible. Plus the state bribes companies to hire younger workers,
who'd really rather take welfare anywho[sic]. Or something like
that. If I've mischaracterized him I'm sure Bill will correct me.

But he still likes it. What the hell, the money's still free-living
off other people is easy. Problem is, they don't work nearly hard
enough, and they whine. Wimps. Probably racists and Nazis, too. You
know, reactionaries.

It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

I looked into the GRA / 401k thing. If there's a serious attempt to
grab 401ks, I didn't detect it. Not that it couldn't happen, I just
didn't see it in the several articles Yahoo offered up.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 22:14:05 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/05/2010 21:44, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled
to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA.

Employees can walk out on zero notice, leaving projects in random
states. And they sometimes do. How about some symmetry?

I agree. Don't you have written contracts of employment?

Our Constitution abolished slavery. I can't compel anyone to work. And
if I could, I couldn't trust their quality.

In the UK that symmetry exists at least on paper in many contracts of
employment. When I worked for a corporate I was on 3 months notice (for
either side - it might have been 6 months for the company later on) and
my boss when he decided to leave was forced to work out his notice.

How do you force someone to work? What happens if they don't? What
happens if they work very, very badly?

It seems simpler to me if an employer can hire and fire at will (as we
can in California) and an employee can take a job or quit as he
chooses. Let people make deals.

Employment contracts are rare here.

John

 

[Joel Koltner]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:ngbbv5l83dca02uqc3kc13k022e86vqomf@4ax.com...

It seems simpler to me if an employer can hire and fire at will (as we
can in California) and an employee can take a job or quit as he
chooses. Let people make deals.

When you're talking skilled labors such as engineers, that makes a lot of
sense, since either party leaving has the potential to significnatly harm the
other.

With unskilled labor, it's a rather more lop-sided arrangement -- Wal*Mart
firing a cashier with no notice hurts the cashier a lot more than the cashier
leaving without notice. This is one of the original reasons unions were
formed -- mass representation, essentially the workers organizing themselves
so as to be at a lesser advantage relative to their bosses.

Of course, these days most unions seem to do rather more harm than good.

And *most* employees and employers are decent human beings who don't go around
taking actions that they know will unnecessarily harm the other guy anyway.
You're pretty much guaranteed to be written up in your local newspaper as a
dick if you lay anyone office within a handful of weeks prior to Xmas, for
instance.

---Joel

 

[Greegor]

JA > The AFL-CIO can only be seen as
JA > monopolists.  They'd have taken over
JA > the country, except that they killed
JA > all their hosts.

BS > Don't be silly. Unions are alive and
BS > tolerably healthy in Europe, and are
BS > quite sensible enough to function
BS > as benign symbiotes.

JA > That is, culturally, possible.  In Japan
JA > unions actually press management to
JA > improve production.  In the US they do
JA > the opposite. They create strife
JA > strictly to enrich the union bosses,
JA > create an artificially adversarial
JA > relationship with management, all
JA > so the union can fleece its members.
JA >
JA > That's why unions should be restricted
JA > --they can get out of hand, and
JA > that should not be allowed.

When I was 18 years old, my first job after
high school was a summer job in a Printed
Circuit board plant. Having actually made
printed circuits myself for hobby circuits at
age 10, I was excited.

A few of the UNION women working there
were obese and sat on stools so much
that when they stood up they had a round
stool shaped impression in their butt.

I was troubling to them.

I was very productive, and quickly saw how
several people who blatantly should have
been fired were kept on because it was a
UNION shop and they had relatives with
long histories at the company.

One woman was the company slut who
routinely "comes on" to every new male
employee, her Mom had been an inspector
there for more than a decade.

The other newbie hired right aftter me, and
sometimes paired with me was hired
because of a relative also, and as for
work, he was worthless. Apathetic, no
eye for detail, no work ethic, etc.

I was dumped out but he was kept.
It was only a summer job.

I ran into him some time later at the
same University, but he was one of those
who didn't last more than a few quarters.

I have also worked at jobs that can only
be described as SWEAT SHOP jobs,
where a little bit of UNION activity could
improve things tremendously.

At one of the computer stores that I ran,
an older man lived next door who told me
of his experience at a UNION meat packing plant.

The UNION kept pressing for wages so high
that the older workers became alarmed that
they might break the company and ruin
their chances of collecting retirement.

The younger unionists said "To hell with
that, I want my MONEY" and the UNION
kept pushing until the company closed.

Because of such behavior, unions have turned
an amazing portion of LABOR against them.

UNIONS in the USA have easily become
just as much the enemy of labor as
any hard core capitalist management
who would make it a sweat shop.

I see UNIONS as beneficial in small doses,
but toxic in large doses. I see capitalism
as beneficial in large doses but toxic if
monopolistic abuses take place.
I see socialism in small doses as beneficial,
but toxic in large doses.

But that's just my REAL WORLD experience, Sloman!

 

[Greegor]

On unions:

I know of a guy who worked at a large post office
and like so many there, hated the job.

He won millions in a lottery in the 1980's.

He hated it so bad that he actually kept going
to work to deliberately slack off, just to
get revenge on the supervisors.

It took them an ENTIRE YEAR to get rid
of this blatantly insubordinate and deliberately
unproductive worker.

I had a friend who worked there for years
and who got to see the spectacle play out!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:37:16 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 12:14 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At
least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some
understanding of how it works and why it works that way.

Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone.

There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of
course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like
"We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two
available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures.

A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not
bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and
talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority.

I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era.

A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students
with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist
utopianism.  They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together
in peace, equality, and free love.  A commune, where all is fair and
free.

They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm
make, and that equality sucked.  The chicks split, and then the guys
soon after.

The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their
eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in
the process...

James

These experiments resemble cults, where
they attempt to shut out REALITY and
replace it with their BELIEF!

Kinda like The Church of AGW.

For every bunch of people actually trying this
and eventually seeing the results, there are
bunches of well wishers who are eventually
forced to wake up to the problems such
systems have IN REALITY.

Hope it's soon.

I've seen coop grocery stores last for
some time in Minneapolis and St Paul,
depending heavily on support from the
extremely liberal community around them.
Shop in one and you cannot possibly
miss the cult like POLITICAL beliefs that
permeate everything in those places.

There is one in Burlington VT that was supported by taxpayer money. The only
"supermarket" (a grungy hole, really) finally closed down so there was no
grocery store servicing the downtown area. One chain wanted to come in, but
wanted the same deal the co-op was offered; loan guarantees, IIRC. The
problem with the co-op is that it's all *expensive* granola crunching stuff.
The lower income and seniors in the city have nowhere to shop.

Coffee beans, for example, reflect a big
effort to help the coffee growers who
regularly get ripped off by the normal
coffee companies.

I'm conservative but I actually LIKE the
idea of their alternative supply chain
that helps out the poor coffee farmers,
supposedly breaking a monopoly and
forcing the free market to help out
those poor farmers.

If you're willing to pay for that, there's nothing wrong with it. As long as
it's not forced; winners and losers chosen by government.

On the other hand, when walking through
the coop grocery, they have similarly
politicized so many products that it
gets old quickly.

Only the most CULT LIKE liberal zombies
refuse to learn from the reality they
discover, and refuse to acknowledge
the real world limitations that came up.
Usually they blame external causes.

All of this makes it even more bizarre
that Bill Slowman is over 50 years old
yet his political rantings have the
maturity of idealistic and inexperienced
18 year olds in the USA.

He's over 65. Just chalk it up to ageless senility.

It's also bizarre that he obsesses about
United States economic politics considering
he claims to be an Aussie ex-pat living
in Netherlands.

He likes to whine, like all leftists. He's unemployable so that's all he has
left.

For a NON-PRODUCER living off his wife

....and the tax payer.

to urge socialism is cartoon like.

What do you expect from Goofey.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:37:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:


You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At
least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some
understanding of how it works and why it works that way.

Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone.

There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of
course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like
"We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two
available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures.

A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not
bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and
talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority.


I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era.

A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students
with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist
utopianism. They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together
in peace, equality, and free love. A commune, where all is fair and
free.

They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm
make, and that equality sucked. The chicks split, and then the guys
soon after.

The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their
eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in
the process...

James

I was just talking to Phil Hobbs about that recently. He pointed out
that bad management is better than no management. At least it gets
everybody pulling in the same direction.

Opposite management? It's not good going in the opposite direction as the guy
with the purse, either.

 

[Greegor]

On May 20, 2:49 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 1:51 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory insurance
JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and neither
JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's really no
JA > point in debating you on this.

Hey, that makes a nice acronym: MAN-datory I-nsurance PU-rchase and
regu-LATION Bill.

Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that
it's like arguing religion with a Moonie.

Come on!   An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who
argues for socialism?

JA > Bill's 67, in the Netherlands, and an expert on
JA > all things American. As a mere American
JA > living in America, I'm glad to have such a
JA > reliable source to redoublethink all the things
JA > I know directly and confirm daily with
JA > experience into politically correct context:
JA > Obama's a centrist, not the ultra farthest
JA > most radical left-voting member of Congress,
JA > and a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, not a
JA > former associate professor and sometime
JA > ACORN subprime-pushing counsel.
JA >
JA > Bill's said his nanny state host makes it
JA > impossible for oldsters like him to get a
JA > job--no one wants to hire 'cause then
JA > they're responsible.  Plus the state bribes
JA > companies to hire younger workers,
JA > who'd really rather take welfare anywho[sic].
JA > Or something like that.  If I've
JA > mischaracterized him I'm sure Bill will correct me.
JA >
JA > But he still likes it.  What the hell, the money's
JA > still free-living off other people is easy.  Problem
JA > is, they don't work nearly hard enough, and
JA > they whine.  Wimps.  Probably racists and
JA > Nazis, too.  You know, reactionaries.

G > It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag.
G > "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

JA > I looked into the GRA / 401k thing.  If there's a
JA > serious attempt to grab 401ks, I didn't detect it.
JA > Not that it couldn't happen, I just didn't see it
JA > in the several articles Yahoo offered up.

I didn't bring up or assert such a grab for 401K's
but I can tell you that much like the way the
SOCIAL SERVICES agencies grab kids from
parents on a whim as ""Child Protection"",
they have started grabbing senior citizens on
a whim in the guise of ""Elder Abuse"". Apparently,
following their pattern with parents and kids, they
don't need to actually PROVE any of their crap.
The one really NEW wrinkle has these statist
zombies drooling is that when they grab a
grandma or grandpa for no reason, they get
to grab and control or confiscate their ESTATE.

A tendancy for them to grab seniors who have
considerable ESTATES has already been observed.

Seniors with family farm empires including land
and considerable savings are being grabbed
and administered until liquidation, to pay
for their remaining years at a social security/
welfare level.

Situations where farms should be passed on
to the next generation are stopped cold.

Well off seniors are suddenly made equal with
other seniors living on social security/welfare.

Families who were WELL ABLE and willing
to care for or contract for their elders to be
cared for AT HOME are finding the money
is seized even if the elder themself are not.

In several cases, the mental faculties of
the "seized" seniors are still sharp and the
whole thing is a SOCIAL SERVICES nightmare
as absurd as most bogus ""Child Protection"" cases.

 

On May 20, 3:11 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

JA > The AFL-CIO can only be seen as
JA > monopolists.  They'd have taken over
JA > the country, except that they killed
JA > all their hosts.

BS > Don't be silly. Unions are alive and
BS > tolerably healthy in Europe, and are
BS > quite sensible enough to function
BS > as benign symbiotes.

JA > That is, culturally, possible.  In Japan
JA > unions actually press management to
JA > improve production.  In the US they do
JA > the opposite.  They create strife
JA > strictly to enrich the union bosses,
JA > create an artificially adversarial
JA > relationship with management, all
JA > so the union can fleece its members.
JA
JA > That's why unions should be restricted
JA > --they can get out of hand, and
JA > that should not be allowed.

When I was 18 years old, my first job after
high school was a summer job in a Printed
Circuit board plant.  Having actually made
printed circuits myself for hobby circuits at
age 10, I was excited.

A few of the UNION women working there
were obese and sat on stools so much
that when they stood up they had a round
stool shaped impression in their butt.

I was troubling to them.

I was very productive, and quickly saw how
several people who blatantly should have
been fired were kept on because it was a
UNION shop and they had relatives with
long histories at the company.

One woman was the company slut who
routinely "comes on" to every new male
employee, her Mom had been an inspector
there for more than a decade.

The other newbie hired right aftter me, and
sometimes paired with me was hired
because of a relative also, and as for
work, he was worthless.  Apathetic, no
eye for detail, no work ethic, etc.

I was dumped out but he was kept.
It was only a summer job.

I ran into him some time later at the
same University, but he was one of those
who didn't last more than a few quarters.

I have also worked at jobs that can only
be described as SWEAT SHOP jobs,
where a little bit of UNION activity could
improve things tremendously.

At one of the computer stores that I ran,
an older man lived next door who told me
of his experience at a UNION meat packing plant.

The UNION kept pressing for wages so high
that the older workers became alarmed that
they might break the company and ruin
their chances of collecting retirement.

The younger unionists said "To hell with
that, I want my MONEY" and the UNION
kept pushing until the company closed.

Because of such behavior, unions have turned
an amazing portion of LABOR against them.

UNIONS in the USA have easily become
just as much the enemy of labor as
any hard core capitalist management
who would make it a sweat shop.

I see UNIONS as beneficial in small doses,
but toxic in large doses.  I see capitalism
as beneficial in large doses but toxic if
monopolistic abuses take place.
I see socialism in small doses as beneficial,
but toxic in large doses.

But that's just my REAL WORLD experience, Sloman!

The trap unions fall into is defending people who don't deserve it,
and pushing for wages their productivity can't pay for. In fact they
deliberately aim to maximize the number of workers (reduce
productivity), /and/ increase wages. The two are incompatible, and
kill the host. Then they collapse, company and union both.

If unions were to simply push for safer working conditions, and
cooperate with management to /improve/ a company's productivity,
that'd be super. That grows the pie for everyone.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur