Discussion:
Population and longevity
(too old to reply)
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-14 06:50:54 UTC
Permalink
NO, THAT SORT OF DECISION SHOULD BE MADE ONLY BY
TAKING EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT !!!
Most especially the opinions of that debased
sub-human primate jumping up and down out in the
hallway screaming "we can't afford to have old
people, kill them all".

Somebody get a bucket and a mop and clean up where
David soiled himself. Again.

xanthian, always a fan of the ape house and Polewka
in it.

If euthenasia ever _does_ come into vogue, I suggest
we top our "little list" with those too damaged by
substance abuse to fit into in our society of calm
discussion, logical thought, communal-oriented
governmental planning, and perfect rationality.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-14 22:43:14 UTC
Permalink
ugly people (like me) get stuck with other ugly
people, for the most part.
I don't think so. My mom, still a dish at age 40,
married a guy whose nose nearly touched his lower
lip.

That it was pulled down by the gravitational
attraction of his wallet may have contributed to
that choice, but I don't think beauty is limited to
beauty in mate selection, nor homeliness to
homeliness.

More than likely, a wide range of parameters
determine mate selection. Right now, for example,
I'm interested in finding a woman whose most
prominent attribute is a huge and enduring capacity
for taking pity, since I'm eligible to start
screwing up Yet Another Marriage sometime in September.

HOWEVER, I think I've finally figured out what makes
t.b elders stay to attain that status. t.b is the
froup where people with rotten self-images about
their personal appearances and attractiveness come
to chat companionably while hidden behind a computer
screen. The "bizarre" bit is all a smoke-screen.

xanthian, waiting to be proved wrong. The proof sure
isn't coming from _this_ direction.

I take it as solid evidence for this viewpoint that
j.j has mated outside the tribe and left, and that
dawn, the other of the two most beautiful women I've
met here, can barely tolerate a highly elliptical
orbit.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Marc Goodman
2004-07-15 00:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
t.b is the
froup where people with rotten self-images about
their personal appearances and attractiveness come
to chat companionably while hidden behind a computer
screen.
Let's all work on that self-image thing.
I propose a new slogan that we can have
emblazoned next to the X-Industries "making
the world safe for technology" logo.
Something like, "t.b: The most attractive
collection of freaks and mutants on USENET".
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-15 15:41:08 UTC
Permalink
And please stop posting to rec.org.mensa, it lowers the tone,
donchaknow.
You _are_ referring to the effect of all that mensa dreck flooding
into talk.bizarre, I presume. And you're right. If the tone of t.b
got any lower, we'd have to merge with alt.religion.kibo.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-15 17:21:56 UTC
Permalink
There used to be 30-some workers for every Social
Security recip. In a few years, there will be 2.
How will you fix this problem--birth control?
Hmmm, let's see where we are, then see where we can
go from there, a usually sound plan for progress.

A program which was meant when it was founded
seventy-odd years ago, to be a safety net for the
profoundly indigent got turned into a universal (in
the US) entitlement program.

The original program set an age for the safety net
to kick in which, in the existing demographics,
covered only a tiny fraction of the population,
pretty much the ones who could get their stories
into the newspapers as "victims of the scourge of
The Depression".

Since then, better nutrition and health care has
moved the expected age at death more than 20 years,
elderward, and huge masses of the population now fit
into that window of entitlement.

When the program changed from "insurance for tragic
poverty" to "entitlement for everyone old enough"
the then power generation in their fifties, folks
now mostly safely dead (they'd be 110 or older
today) and so beyond paying a reckoning, chose not
to install the tax increases to fund that program
fully, and so, pollyannaish, it continued to pay
benefits out of current receipts, a classical
Ponsi scheme.

The nation continued to prosper, and, in what has
become recognized as a natural outgrowth of
prosperity in civilizations with access to birth
control techniques, population growth from births
slowed to a snail's pace.

There are incontrovertably now, or very soon going
to be, too few workers below retirement age to
support the Ponsi scheme by continuing to fund
through their taxes the current account payments of
the entitlement.

A great debt is owed, legally and morally, to the
demographic cohort about to retire, in return for
all the entitlement tax payments extracted from them
over their working lifetimes, but the finances don't
work out, there isn't going to be enough money to
"retire" that debt.

Playing the "grasshopper" role in "the grasshopper
and the ants", the majority of those approaching
retirement age have trivial savings, and so are
anticipating living entirely on their promised
retirement entitlement. Oops.

The Polewka "solution", executive summary version:
kill off the generation to whom the debt is owed,
and *poof*, the debt goes away, the problem goes
away.

The implications of this plan, that the way to
handle debt is to murder those to whom the debt is
owed, should have a rather chilling effect on
recruitment into the ranks of mortgage bankers and
the rest of the lending community, so it is not
likely to be acceptable.

Those lenders are the monied interests, and they own
the politicians by sheer dint of money spent to
purchase the politicians; any political plan that
puts the people in the crosshairs of nutcases like
Polewka is never going to get out of committee.

Polewka's scheme runs also onto the rocks that a purpose of government
is to protect property, and the entitlement money owed is every bit as
much "property" as any other chunk of money. The entire right and
reactionary wings of politics will fight against this one to the death.

Let's see, the Polewka "mass murder is the only
solution" agenda having been rejected, what _sane_
possibilities exist to resolve the situation? Why,
lots and lots! A sampler of those being considered.

* The US government is bankrupt in all but the
formalities needed to make that official. Do what
is done with any bankrupt enterprise: sell off
its assets to pay its debts. The lumber industry
will be slaveringly happy to buy all the national
forests and national parks, for example.

* Replace the congress and the executive branch
budget authority with budgets written under the
supervision of a bankruptcy court, which are
required to run huge surpluses to retire the
national debt and fund the retirement entitlement
fully.

* The age at which people are so aged and infirm
they require a safety net against profound poverty
and age making them incapable of working in any
kind of job at all, has moved forward about the
same roughly 20 years. Move the entitlement age to
match, and let the improvident who saved nothing
for their retirement continue to work until
they've rectified that situation. Big d'oh: that's
already happening. I personally, due to changes in
the age of entitlement, am no longer as originally
promised, eligible to retire at age 65, but at age
66. Problem is, from political timidity, the
solution is happening too slowly; better to just
set the age around 85 now for everyone, and be done
with it.

* Shift the funding of government, including the
retirement entitlement kitty, from an income based
tax system, since earned incomes being diminishing
is the cause of the pyramid scam aspect of funding
government-supplied retirement, to a spending-based
tax system, along the lines of the European VAT
system. The "income tax" was never a good idea; do
away with it.

* Shift the funding of government from the worker to
the employer, get rid of the zillions of
employer-oriented tax loopholes in one gargantuan
"snip" of the tax laws, and void the silliness of
"offshore headquarters" providing a tax dodge for
"onshore operations".

* Replace the missing upcoming generation of workers
with robots and computers, and _tax their
productivity_ as if they were human workers. Oh,
the robots are coming into use, but the concept
that they should pay the taxes of the workers they
replace has gone missing so far.

There are lots of other workable proposals, too,
though mine and the others will need patching up at
the detail level, which I'm not about to undertake.

This isn't particularly a thrilling exercise, and
I'm not a trained economicist who can adjust all
those details, so I'm not about to try.

The interesting thing is that mass murder is nowhere
required in any of the workable schemes. Only in
the festering interstices of the Polewka mind is it
necessary to foment disease to make the lives of the
elders so miserable that they prefer death to being
tormented further by a madman like Polewka.

HTH

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Caustic Soda
2004-07-15 18:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
* Shift the funding of government, including the
retirement entitlement kitty, from an income based
tax system, since earned incomes being diminishing
is the cause of the pyramid scam aspect of funding
government-supplied retirement, to a spending-based
tax system, along the lines of the European VAT
system. The "income tax" was never a good idea; do
away with it.
A national sales tax to replace the income tax? Of
course! Such proposals are already being floated
in both houses of Congress. Doing so would
accomplish many things. For example, it would give
individuals much better control over the amount of tax
they pay. One might put off luxury spending and
concentrate more on necessity spending with such
taxation attached. Thus, with more personal savings
in hand, reliance on entitlements gets reduced. Also,
a big chunk of the "underground economy" would be
flushed out. The gold chains and fancy cars bought
by pimps, mafia thugs and drug dealers would get
taxed just the same as if legitimate people were
buying them. How much could that add to the federal
coffers without placing huge burdens on working
people?

========================================

The success of a government can be most properly
measured by the percentage of the population that
simply needs no assistance from it. The greater the
percentage, the greater the success.
BELANGER
2004-07-15 18:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Caustic Soda
A national sales tax to replace the income tax? Of
course! Such proposals are already being floated
in both houses of Congress. Doing so would
accomplish many things. For example, it would give
individuals much better control over the amount of tax
they pay. One might put off luxury spending and
concentrate more on necessity spending with such
taxation attached.
Despite your President's lovable bumbling, income tax is still, for
the most part, fulfilling its original purpose of taking from the
rich. Sales taxes target the poor.
--
BELANGER

Tabernacle.
Caustic Soda
2004-07-15 18:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by BELANGER
Sales taxes target the poor.
No, they give the poor a decision to make
between wasteful spending and necessity
spending.

Notice the so-called "poor" lady who
wastes $160 a month for digital cable
and then cries that she can't buy
groceries or pay her child's medical
bills. With a hefty sales tax added to
that cable, she's likely to be priced
out of that market and ultimately end
up with grocery and medical money.
Rob Duncan
2004-07-15 22:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Caustic Soda
Post by BELANGER
Sales taxes target the poor.
No, they give the poor a decision to make
between wasteful spending and necessity
spending.
Notice the so-called "poor" lady who
wastes $160 a month for digital cable
and then cries that she can't buy
groceries or pay her child's medical
bills. With a hefty sales tax added to
that cable, she's likely to be priced
out of that market and ultimately end
up with grocery and medical money.
It is a pyramid scheme. It is not intended to provide enough retirement
income to survive off of. I dont know when or why people began thinking
that it is. Nothing needs to be done other than for educating people what
its real purpose is.


Rob
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-16 01:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
It is a pyramid scheme.
More correctly, it's a Ponsi scheme, the two
are not (quite) identical.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-16 01:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Rob Duncan
It is a pyramid scheme.
More correctly, it's a Ponsi scheme,
Or, a "Ponzi scheme", for people who can actually spell.

Sigh.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
the two are not identical [...]
just alliterative:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/ponzi/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

HTH

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Johnny 5
2004-07-16 05:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Caustic Soda
No, they give the poor a decision to make
between wasteful spending and necessity
spending.
Like Bill Cosby said, 200 dollar nikes or free books at the library.
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
r***@telus.net
2004-07-15 22:31:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:15:40 -0400, BELANGER
Post by BELANGER
Despite your President's lovable bumbling, income tax is still, for
the most part, fulfilling its original purpose of taking from the
rich.
Nonsense. Almost all income tax is paid by working people, and for
any given level of income, the fraction of total income actually paid
in tax is inversely related to the fraction that is unearned (i.e.,
the kind of income the rich get).
Post by BELANGER
Sales taxes target the poor.
At least sales taxes don't stop the ablest of the poor from
accumulating the assets needed to offer competition to the rich.
Unlike income taxes.

-- Roy L
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
2004-07-15 23:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@telus.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:15:40 -0400, BELANGER
Post by BELANGER
Despite your President's lovable bumbling, income tax is still, for
the most part, fulfilling its original purpose of taking from the
rich.
Nonsense. Almost all income tax is paid by working people, and for
any given level of income, the fraction of total income actually paid
in tax is inversely related to the fraction that is unearned (i.e.,
the kind of income the rich get).
next youre going to be claiming the frb fights inflation
by throwing people with earned income out of work
instead of trying to reduce portfolio income

arf meow arf
r***@telus.net
2004-07-15 23:35:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:10:35 -0700, edens morgan mair fheal greykitten
Post by edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Post by r***@telus.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:15:40 -0400, BELANGER
Post by BELANGER
Despite your President's lovable bumbling, income tax is still, for
the most part, fulfilling its original purpose of taking from the
rich.
Nonsense. Almost all income tax is paid by working people, and for
any given level of income, the fraction of total income actually paid
in tax is inversely related to the fraction that is unearned (i.e.,
the kind of income the rich get).
next youre going to be claiming the frb fights inflation
by throwing people with earned income out of work
instead of trying to reduce portfolio income
You're catching on.

-- Roy L
kevincar
2004-07-20 20:50:06 UTC
Permalink
in message news:<mair_fheal-***@corp.supernews.com>...
[---]
Post by r***@telus.net
Nonsense. Almost all income tax is paid by working people, and for
any given level of income, the fraction of total income actually paid
in tax is inversely related to the fraction that is unearned (i.e.,
the kind of income the rich get).
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"

Every corporation is an "abstracted" legal individual-
Ergo, the government taxes both the individuals that work,
and the corporation/business that employs them, which is
kinda like "double taxation", but they get away with it.

K.C
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-20 21:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.

If individuals were taxed on profit instead of income,
most of the US, living beyond their means, would be living
tax free too.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tom Spillman
2004-07-21 13:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
If individuals were taxed on profit instead of income,
most of the US, living beyond their means, would be living
tax free too.
xanthian.
Anyone who thinks corporations pay income tax is incredibly naive or
economically challenged. FWIW, I worked as an accountant for a major oil
company before I started working with computers in 1963. Our only source
of income was from our customers, i.e., what money we got for our goods
and services came from the people who bought those goods and services.
Therefore, the taxes we paid where actually paid by the people who bought
those goods and services.

Politicians love corporate taxes because it is not apparent to the public
that they actually pay those taxes.

It is not necessary to take my word for it, look at the annual reports
published on the web. There is always an item on the Income Statement
for taxes.

As another example of multiple taxation, consider the dividends those
corporations pay. They pay them from the income remaining after they pay
those taxes (that you paid, remember?). Then the government taxes the
same income again from the people who recieve those dividends.

Regards...

Tom
kevincar
2004-07-21 22:32:25 UTC
Permalink
[---]
Post by Tom Spillman
Anyone who thinks corporations pay income tax is incredibly naive or
economically challenged.
...And anyone who doesn't think that the vast majority of profitable
legal U.S. corporations do NOT pay taxes is a whack-job. And don't give
me any crap about "hiding profits", because no Ma & Pa investor (much
less a MorningStar-rated MF) will invest in an unprofitable
publicly traded corporation.
Post by Tom Spillman
FWIW, I worked as an accountant for a major oil
company before I started working with computers in 1963. Our only source
of income was from our customers, i.e., what money we got for our goods
Well, yeah (duhhh)- do you wonder where OTHER companies get their
income from, Tom?
Post by Tom Spillman
and services came from the people who bought those goods and services.
Therefore, the taxes we paid where actually paid by the people who bought
those goods and services.
The only thing you're telling me is your net profits within the
corporation were zero, which means it was a crappy company- Okay,
I understand why you don't work for them anymore, but you do nothing
to bolster your point, unless you're confusing STATE taxes for FEDERAL
taxes, and you're even further possibly confused, think you were an
"accountant for a major oil company", when you were probably working
as a cashier at a gas station.

I don't care who you worked for- every legal private or public
company pays income tax... It doesn't matter if you call it
"federal corporate income tax", or you decide to call it
"sacrificial meat to the horny goat-god" - it is what it is; Income tax.

FCIT is usually around the same rate as personal income tax
(35% max, i believe), unless you are an officer of the corporation,
in which case withdrawals from the profits of the corporation are
counted as personal income of the officer; required to be announced
to the stockholders of the corporation.
Post by Tom Spillman
Politicians love corporate taxes because it is not apparent to the public
that they actually pay those taxes.
Huh? What the hell does THIS mean?
The only example I can think of is publicly traded companies
supplying governmental contract-goods and/orlabor...Okay, but
the marginal cost to the individual taxpayer in terms of
taxes paid (pennies to the dollar) is much less that the
(theoretical) benefit received... A better example is taxes
paid to companies providing public education services ... those
who don't have kids end up paying taxes to these companies when they
don't receive any "marginal" benefit... it's been argued (in the
Supreme Court) that the societal benefit of having kids supercedes
the cost to the taxpayer for keeping said kids in school-- ergo,
the original point of this (rapidly descending) thread.
Post by Tom Spillman
It is not necessary to take my word for it, look at the annual reports
published on the web. There is always an item on the Income Statement
for taxes.
Yes, and as I said earlier it's usually around 35% unless
there are weird interest expenses or capital losses;
Here's a couple;

ADM (Archer Daniels) EBIT $738.1M
EAT $484.1

C (Citibank) EBIT: $2,149.0
income tax: $823.0

FMC EBIT: $252.3
income tax: $78.9

Question Tom, what financial statements are YOU looking at?

Sure, there are lots of corrupt and/or weird corporations
out there; Haliburton (sp?), Citibank, Mitre, Raytheon, etc.,
and over the years, the rate of FCIT has fallen to match
FPIT (re; see this url: http://tinyurl.com/52vh9).

But the absolute vast majority of American corporations who
crank out everything from bicycle seats to helicopter rotors
are law-abiding, tax-paying entities, otherwise the country
would have been nuked by the rest of the world eons ago.

However, if you or anyone are convinced that these
exceptions are the rule, then go and believe whatever it is
you're free to believe in, but I feel sorry for you; living
in a world of bent cognitive thinking.

K.C
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-22 00:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
...And anyone who doesn't think that the vast majority of profitable
legal U.S. corporations do NOT pay taxes is a whack-job. And don't give
me any crap about "hiding profits", because no Ma & Pa investor (much
less a MorningStar-rated MF) will invest in an unprofitable
publicly traded corporation.
I stopped reading here, since you were obviously pulling your
economic "facts" from an unsunlit repository.

Or do you really care to claim that the Dot Com bubble and burst
never happened?

xanthian, amused.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tom Spillman
2004-07-22 13:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
...And anyone who doesn't think that the vast majority of profitable
legal U.S. corporations do NOT pay taxes is a whack-job. And don't
give me any crap about "hiding profits", because no Ma & Pa investor
(much less a MorningStar-rated MF) will invest in an unprofitable
publicly traded corporation.
I stopped reading here, since you were obviously pulling your
economic "facts" from an unsunlit repository.
Or do you really care to claim that the Dot Com bubble and burst
never happened?
xanthian, amused.
I agree.

It was apparent rather quickly that his knowledge of econimics was not
deep (or valid!).

Regards...

Tom
kevincar
2004-07-22 18:25:00 UTC
Permalink
[---]
Post by Tom Spillman
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
I stopped reading here, since you were obviously pulling your
economic "facts" from an unsunlit repository.
[---]
Post by Tom Spillman
I agree.
It was apparent rather quickly that his knowledge of econimics was not
deep (or valid!).
Congratulations, Tom; you've just done the stupidest thing
a moron even as big as yourself can stoop to... the ol'
"yeah I think he's dumb to.." argument...

You're a hopeless twit, Tom.

You bleating a pathetic "me too" adds neither credence
or substance to your vacuous previous postings, and just
shows what a cowardly fool you are.

You haven't given one figure- from one company, much less any
source from anywhere on the planet to support anything you
say in this thread... I doubt now if you even can.

In short, just Go crawl back to your freeway underpass, until you
beg another quarter for the priviledge of posting more of your
drivel from your local internet cafe.
Post by Tom Spillman
Regards...
Tom
Likewise, I'm sure. Oh, and P.S.; the subject-at-hand
is one of "economics", not "econimics"; as if even you
care what it is you say.

K.C
Tom Spillman
2004-07-22 18:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
You're a hopeless twit, Tom.
You bleating a pathetic "me too" adds neither credence
or substance to your vacuous previous postings, and just
shows what a cowardly fool you are.
You haven't given one figure- from one company, much less any
source from anywhere on the planet to support anything you
say in this thread... I doubt now if you even can.
In short, just Go crawl back to your freeway underpass, until you
beg another quarter for the priviledge of posting more of your
drivel from your local internet cafe.
I KNEW this was a waste of time. I'll waste no more time on it.


PLONK!

regards...

Tom

Thomas M. Spillman
Asst. Professor (retired)
MBA Program
School of Management

Note: I'm omitting the school. I see no reason to potentially subject my
school to the sort of statements this poster might make...

tms
Post by kevincar
Likewise, I'm sure. Oh, and P.S.; the subject-at-hand
is one of "economics", not "econimics"; as if even you
care what it is you say.
The last refuge of the out-of-touch poster: the spelling flame! FWIW,
I've taken (and taught!) more courses in economics than you have
apparently heard of.

tms
kevincar
2004-07-22 22:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Spillman
I KNEW this was a waste of time. I'll waste no more time on it.
PLONK!
PLONK yourself, T*M.

If you have something legitimate to add to an argument, then bring it.
Fine- I'm willing to listen. But Your Ad Hominem and Ad Baculem
attacks just sound petty without anything to back them up.

...You say "look around the Internet"
...So I look around and find evidence to corroborate my statements.
...So YOU come back and say "I'm not reading anymore from this guy"
and "He's obviously misinformed" Sheesh! All I'm asking for
is for you to get some back-bone and post something worthwile!..
Post by Tom Spillman
regards...
Tom
Thomas M. Spillman
Asst. Professor (retired)
MBA Program
School of Management
Note: I'm omitting the school. I see no reason to potentially subject my
school to the sort of statements this poster might make...
I don't give a crap who or what you are. Neither does anyone else around
here - Hell, *I* could be the one under the freeway for all you know.
The only reason anyone posts anything around here (even in t.b - yikes,
what a thought) is because it's worth posting.

If you you think you have something that someone should read, then
for Ghod's sake do it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Post by Tom Spillman
Post by kevincar
Likewise, I'm sure. Oh, and P.S.; the subject-at-hand
is one of "economics", not "econimics"; as if even you
care what it is you say.
The last refuge of the out-of-touch poster: the spelling flame! FWIW,
I've taken (and taught!) more courses in economics than you have
apparently heard of.
Wrong again; Here's something worthwile for you to read:

If you stoop to petty condescention, then you better
make damn sure you know what you're posting.

Otherwise stand and be branded- the same as all
the rest of us.

This is USENET Tom, where everything from your spelling to your
penis size is open to ridicule.

K.C
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-22 23:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
This is USENET Tom, where everything from your
spelling to your penis size is open to ridicule.
For a fellow who proves by the total BS "facts" he
invents and posts to the 'Net, which anyone with
access to a search engine can quickly refute, that
he is a clueless moron, you sure are quick with an
insult to your betters, wanker.

How about you go back and finish grade school, then
come back to the 'Net when you've achieved some
approximation of adulthood?

Meanwhile, expect to be ridiculed unceasingly for
each bozon "fact" you produce from your defacatory
orifice and post to support some True Believer
argument you've gotten you head wedged into again.

As if talk.bizarre didn't have enough habitual
imbeciles posting here, we now add "kevincar" to the
Constant Drooler hit parade.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
kevincar
2004-07-22 16:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
...And anyone who doesn't think that the vast majority of profitable
legal U.S. corporations do NOT pay taxes is a whack-job. And don't give
me any crap about "hiding profits", because no Ma & Pa investor (much
less a MorningStar-rated MF) will invest in an unprofitable
publicly traded corporation.
I stopped reading here, since you were obviously pulling your
economic "facts" from an unsunlit repository.
Yes, called Schwab.com :-)
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Or do you really care to claim that the Dot Com bubble and burst
never happened?
Nope. The bubble was caused because VC was loose, and dotcom
stock was the new coin of the realm. It had nothing to do with
whether or not dotcoms paid taxes or not.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
xanthian, amused.
K.C, edifying
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-22 17:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Nope. The bubble was caused because VC was loose, and dotcom
stock was the new coin of the realm. It had nothing to do with
whether or not dotcoms paid taxes or not.
The challenge, lackwit, was to your comment that no Mom and Pop
investors would invest in companies that were not profitable.

The dot com bubble consisted of no other kind of investment but
the kind you claim doesn't exist, being done by the people you
claim don't do it.

If you intend to argue economics on Usenet, you won't get far
inventing your facts, there are too many people here who have
first-hand acquaintance with the real situation to point out
your fallacies.

xanthian, patient beyond all necessity.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
kevincar
2004-07-22 22:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Nope. The bubble was caused because VC was loose, and dotcom
stock was the new coin of the realm. It had nothing to do with
whether or not dotcoms paid taxes or not.
The challenge, lackwit, was to your comment that no Mom and Pop
investors would invest in companies that were not profitable.
The dot com bubble consisted of no other kind of investment but
the kind you claim doesn't exist, being done by the people you
claim don't do it.
Ma & Pa took the STOCK AS CASH, dipstick... Sheesh...
Kent, you really, *REALLY* don't read sometimes...
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
If you intend to argue economics on Usenet, you won't get far
inventing your facts, there are too many people here who have
first-hand acquaintance with the real situation to point out
your fallacies.
Oh, shut the hell up, Kent.
Everything I've said in this thread is just fact.
Your pathetic rays of insultry directed at me merely
because I say things that aren't of your opinion
are just amusing.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
xanthian, patient beyond all necessity.
Wow, how *BIG* of you, Kent.
Nothing that I've said isn't even REMOTELY complicated,
yet you find need to refute it with your personal opinion,
which to me appears as nonsense that can be refuted
in too many ways.

K.C
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-23 02:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Oh, shut the hell up, Kent.
You'll have to get used to the idea that when you
start posting idiocy to talk.bizarre, you get called
an idiot. It will assist in your attempts to achieve
adulthood.
Post by kevincar
Everything I've said in this thread is just fact.
Funny how easy it has been to refute with quotes
from the authorities on the issues, then. Perhaps
your definition of "fact" as "whatever kevincar
needs to invent to support a baseless claim" needs
review.
Post by kevincar
Your pathetic rays of insultry directed at me
merely because I say things that aren't of your
opinion are just amusing.
The things you say don't seem to be the opinion of
anyone else with a grain of sense, either. Perhaps
you should review your sources, and find something a
little more reliable than "facts invented by
kevincar" as bases for your arguments?
Post by kevincar
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
xanthian, patient beyond all necessity.
Wow, how *BIG* of you, Kent.
Oh, you haven't received even the first _hint_ of
how "big" that is of me, yet. I'm easily provoked,
sad to say.
Post by kevincar
Nothing that I've said isn't even REMOTELY
complicated,
While you go on criticizing other people's spelling
and grammar, you might want to go back through this
thread, checking all the places your use of double
negatives has resulted in your saying the precise
opposite of what you mean.

Someone with your limited grasp of English would be
well advised to limit his comments on other people's
usage to admiring ones.

So tell me, do you parents let you wear long pants
yet, or is it easiest to clean up the mess of your
constantly soiling yourself if you wear no pants at
all?
Post by kevincar
yet you find need to refute it with your personal
opinion, which to me appears as nonsense that can
be refuted in too many ways.
So far, the only nonsense that has been refuted in
many ways has been yours, but I'm sure you see
things otherwise, through that periscope attached to
your navel so you can see at all with your head
lodged where it stays perpetually stuck.

Welcome to hell, lackwit; your torment has just
begun.

xanthian, tormenter-in-chief.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-22 21:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
...And anyone who doesn't think that the vast
majority of profitable legal U.S. corporations do
NOT pay taxes is a whack-job.
Among those "whack-jobs" appears to be the US
Department of the Treasury.

"The repeal of the alternative minimum tax will
generate reinvestment for small businesses,
according to a congressional aide who worked on the
tax package.

The alternative minimum tax forced profitable
corporations to pay some taxes even if they
qualified for enough loopholes to otherwise avoid a
tax bill. The Treasury believes repeal of the AMT
could result in as many as 76,000 profitable
corporations paying zero taxes. The cost to the
government to repeal the tax is estimated at $762
million over 10 years, plus an additional $872
million for AMT relief provided to farmers."


http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/1997/08/18/smallb1.html

Kevin, you _really_ need to learn something about
the subject matter on which you are filling Usenet
with falsehoods before you start calling people
names who disagree with the "facts" you pull out of
your butt.

Right now you are doing a splendid imitation of a
two year old brat, and contributing nothing but
your flatulance to the 'Net. You are well on your
way to nomination for full blown kook status.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Johnny 5
2004-07-23 02:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Among those "whack-jobs" appears to be the US
Department of the Treasury.
"The repeal of the alternative minimum tax will
generate reinvestment for small businesses,
according to a congressional aide who worked on the
tax package.
The alternative minimum tax forced profitable
corporations to pay some taxes even if they
qualified for enough loopholes to otherwise avoid a
tax bill. The Treasury believes repeal of the AMT
could result in as many as 76,000 profitable
corporations paying zero taxes. The cost to the
government to repeal the tax is estimated at $762
million over 10 years, plus an additional $872
million for AMT relief provided to farmers."
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/1997/08/18/smallb1
.html
Excessive gubbment killed Rome, reduce gubbment, we probably all will get
a reduction in taxes to pay for that smaller gubbment.

Growing gubbment, all our taxes gonna go up.
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-23 03:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny 5
Excessive gubbment killed Rome
Well, no, it didn't.

Try reading history, rather than rewriting it.

Rome fell when her government became too weak
to muster an army sufficient to defend her from
the invading barbarians.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Caustic Soda
2004-07-23 04:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Johnny 5
Excessive gubbment killed Rome
Well, no, it didn't.
Try reading history, rather than rewriting it.
Rome fell when her government became too weak
to muster an army sufficient to defend her from
the invading barbarians.
And, how many Roman citizens were dressing and
acting like barbarians before Rome fell to invaders?
How many of the so-called "intelectuals" of the
Roman government were busy shouting filthy
propaganda about how the citizens should welcome
and accept the barbarians?

"Don't hate them for being different."
Johnny 5
2004-07-23 08:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Johnny 5
Excessive gubbment killed Rome
Well, no, it didn't.
You seem like a smartie Xanthian, I like some of your posts - do you know
more than the people at CATO? Please read this whole link and if you
disagree we can discuss why. Roy L pretty much agrees with it I think,
rich landowners not paying taxes while more and more burderns were put on
the poor.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

HOW EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT KILLED ANCIENT ROME
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Try reading history, rather than rewriting it.
Give me some links that disprove what the smarties at Cato say.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Rome fell when her government became too weak
to muster an army sufficient to defend her from
the invading barbarians.
What caused her government to fall? Cato boys say you are wrong.
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
Raghar
2004-07-31 13:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny 5
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Johnny 5
Excessive gubbment killed Rome
Well, no, it didn't.
You seem like a smartie Xanthian, I like some of your posts - do you
know more than the people at CATO? Please read this whole link and if
you disagree we can discuss why. Roy L pretty much agrees with it I
think, rich landowners not paying taxes while more and more burderns
were put on the poor.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html
HOW EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT KILLED ANCIENT ROME
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Try reading history, rather than rewriting it.
Give me some links that disprove what the smarties at Cato say.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Rome fell when her government became too weak
to muster an army sufficient to defend her from
the invading barbarians.
What caused her government to fall? Cato boys say you are wrong.
Isn't it rather rightist page? I hope theirs economic informations are
better than historical ones.

Funny, when rightist are unknowing they are puting blame on the government.
Actually it's better if they are putting the blame on the government, than
sinking money in the road building, or spawning nonsenses about some middle
class. Especially if they are talking about people from a long time ago.
--
Kizutsuite 'ta ano hi kara
Pepe le Pew
2004-07-23 17:34:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:53:49 +0000 (UTC), Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Johnny 5
Excessive gubbment killed Rome
Well, no, it didn't.
Try reading history, rather than rewriting it.
Rome fell when her government became too weak
to muster an army sufficient to defend her from
the invading barbarians.
xanthian.
Hi Xanthian,
Rome spread her armies too thin when she tried to conquer
germany. She suffered defeats in the field and was
unable or unwilling to withdraw her armies from germany,
so she was vulnerable. The mongol hoardes simply took
advantage of the situation.

Later,
Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan
--
PT Barnum was right !
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
2004-07-23 19:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe le Pew
Rome spread her armies too thin when she tried to conquer
germany. She suffered defeats in the field and was
unable or unwilling to withdraw her armies from germany,
so she was vulnerable. The mongol hoardes simply took
advantage of the situation.
mongols?
which roman empire?

arf meow arf
kevincar
2004-07-23 23:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe le Pew
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:53:49 +0000 (UTC), Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by Johnny 5
Excessive gubbment killed Rome
Well, no, it didn't.
Try reading history, rather than rewriting it.
Rome fell when her government became too weak
to muster an army sufficient to defend her from
the invading barbarians.
xanthian.
[---]

Well, here I go entering xanthworld again :-)
Kent, Pepe has a point; to wit:

"...The Roman empire in the end was overrun by millions
of barbarians from the north and east of Europe. It
is believed to have happened two or three times
in history that huge migrations took place across
Europe, where peoples moved to settle in new territories.
The great migration proved too much for the Romans to
stem. Their armies were designed to defeat other
armies, not entire folks and peoples flooding
toward them..."
(from: http://www.roman-empire.net/children/history.html)

In other words, it was a migration ("gubbment") issue, and
not military in matter.

K.C
Again, as usual, beating my head against the
mousepad, KINDLY telling Kent he's free to
give sources to his ideas.
kevincar
2004-07-23 16:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
...And anyone who doesn't think that the vast
majority of profitable legal U.S. corporations do
NOT pay taxes is a whack-job.
Among those "whack-jobs" appears to be the US
Department of the Treasury.
I already addressed that FCIT is being reduced-
YOUR statement was that they didn't pay ANY-
Thank you Kent for clarifying that corporations
DO INDEED pay income tax.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/1997/08/18/smallb1.html
[---]
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Right now you are doing a splendid imitation of a
two year old brat, and contributing nothing but
your flatulance to the 'Net. You are well on your
way to nomination for full blown kook status.
xanthian.
No thanks- that position is filled quite nicely by
you.
kevincar
2004-07-21 17:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
If individuals were taxed on profit instead of income,
most of the US, living beyond their means, would be living
tax free too.
*sigh*
Kent, for someone so enamoured with hardball-fact,
you spend a *lot* of time assuming things :-)

K.C
kevincar
2004-07-22 20:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
If individuals were taxed on profit instead of income,
most of the US, living beyond their means, would be living
tax free too.
xanthian.
WRONG!
Corporations are taxed on INCOME...
Profits are always AFTER taxes!!!

Goddammit, Kent- puhhleeze take a basic accounting course,
before you drive me me nuts with this idiotica of yours
that you keep posting.

K.C
Mason A. Clark
2004-07-22 20:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
If individuals were taxed on profit instead of income,
most of the US, living beyond their means, would be living
tax free too.
xanthian.
WRONG!
Corporations are taxed on INCOME...
Profits are always AFTER taxes!!!
Goddammit, Kent- puhhleeze take a basic accounting course,
before you drive me me nuts with this idiotica of yours
that you keep posting.
Amusing post. Fact: Corporations, like people, are taxed
on *income after the deduction of expenses* i.e. "profit".

Example: home business has an *income* of $40,000 and an
*expense* of the home office of $10,000. Tax is on $30,000.
(simplified)

For both, tax is on income after expenses *required* to
do business. Business is all a corporation does (we hope).
Individuals also spend money on toys but that is *not* an
expense deductible from income for tax purposes.

Mason C
kevincar
2004-07-23 16:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mason A. Clark
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
[---]
Post by Mason A. Clark
Amusing post. Fact: Corporations, like people, are taxed
on *income after the deduction of expenses* i.e. "profit".
[---]

So you're telling me when a company engages in
"Profit Sharing", they are doing it BEFORE taxes?

K.C
Mason A. Clark
2004-07-23 20:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Post by Mason A. Clark
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
[---]
Post by Mason A. Clark
Amusing post. Fact: Corporations, like people, are taxed
on *income after the deduction of expenses* i.e. "profit".
[---]
So you're telling me when a company engages in
"Profit Sharing", they are doing it BEFORE taxes?
I don't know the IRS opinion on this but I assume that
"Profit Sharing" is a cost of doing business, therefore
before the "income" taxed. (so it is misnamed)

Mason C
kevincar
2004-07-24 06:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mason A. Clark
Post by kevincar
Post by Mason A. Clark
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
Wha?
Please google this: "federal corporate income tax"
Nonsense again. Corporations are taxed on _profits_ not
income, and with skillful accounting can earn hugely and
pay no taxes at all.
[---]
Post by Mason A. Clark
Amusing post. Fact: Corporations, like people, are taxed
on *income after the deduction of expenses* i.e. "profit".
[---]
So you're telling me when a company engages in
"Profit Sharing", they are doing it BEFORE taxes?
I don't know the IRS opinion on this but I assume that
"Profit Sharing" is a cost of doing business, therefore
before the "income" taxed. (so it is misnamed)
Mason C
Heh-
I like your style, Mason. you are quite an amusing
poster yourself; You admit you don't know something, so
it "must be misnamed" - you definitely are going to
go far in this little merry band of newsgroups.

Just for craps and giggles, here is an example.

http://www.cintra.com.mx/english/accionist/operfin/boletin964er.htm

Xanth, if you're reading, please note that "profit sharing"
is AFTER taxes, and that it's the only mention of the
word "profit"... as if you even care.

K.C
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-22 21:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
WRONG!
Corporations are taxed on INCOME...
Profits are always AFTER taxes!!!
Wrong. The net is rife with the required balance sheets
filed by corporations in complaiance with SEC regulations;
go read them and try to understand what you are seeing.

In particular, pay attention to the entry for "profits" and
"profits net of taxes".

As Professor Spillman has already indicated, your ignorance
is rapidly wearing out your welcome.
Post by kevincar
Goddammit, Kent- puhhleeze take a basic accounting course,
before you drive me me nuts with this idiotica of yours
that you keep posting.
Your ability to call names is not balanced by your ability to
have the least clue about the subject matter on which you
claim expertise. I'd refer you to my wife, the accountant
with 20 years experience in the field, who has also filed
taxes for small businesses, for some remedial education,
but she and I aren't speaking any more.

What you think is true, based on an accounting course you heard
rumors someone took, is not anything like what _is_ true, based
on even a minimal amount of research into the subject matter.

Just what, in your fevered brain, did you think _defines_ the
"income" on which corporations pay taxes, but _profits_???

Corporations most assuredly do not pay taxes on income defined
as "revenues", as individuals do.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
kevincar
2004-07-23 18:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
WRONG!
Corporations are taxed on INCOME...
Profits are always AFTER taxes!!!
Wrong. The net is rife with the required balance sheets
filed by corporations in complaiance with SEC regulations;
go read them and try to understand what you are seeing.
In particular, pay attention to the entry for "profits" and
"profits net of taxes".
As Professor Spillman has already indicated, your ignorance
is rapidly wearing out your welcome.
Post by kevincar
Goddammit, Kent- puhhleeze take a basic accounting course,
before you drive me me nuts with this idiotica of yours
that you keep posting.
Your ability to call names is not balanced by your ability to
have the least clue about the subject matter on which you
claim expertise. I'd refer you to my wife, the accountant
with 20 years experience in the field, who has also filed
taxes for small businesses, for some remedial education,
but she and I aren't speaking any more.
YOU are the one that started the name-calling - but to
to show that I am the one here with the ability to show
personal responsibility for my posting content I wish to
say I apologise to you for saying the word "idiotica".
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
What you think is true, based on an accounting course you heard
rumors someone took, is not anything like what _is_ true, based
on even a minimal amount of research into the subject matter.
You will not find the word "profit" as a line-item on a
balance sheet or Income Statement. I challenge you to find the
word "profit" in the FASB guidelines for finacial statements-
look here for a start:

http://www.ffsc.org/guidelines/fs_formats.htm
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Just what, in your fevered brain, did you think _defines_ the
"income" on which corporations pay taxes, but _profits_???
We are merely arguing semantics:
You define "profits" as the net after cost of goods sold.

I define profit as money that go into retained earnings.
Think I'm making that up? read here:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/010704.asp
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Corporations most assuredly do not pay taxes on income defined
as "revenues", as individuals do.
*sigh* here we go again :-)

K.C
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
2004-07-21 02:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Every corporation is an "abstracted" legal individual-
Ergo, the government taxes both the individuals that work,
and the corporation/business that employs them, which is
kinda like "double taxation", but they get away with it.
darn i never realized that

you know i pay taxes when i earn money
taxes when i put it in savings
and taxes when i spend

this is triple taxation

unfair
unfair

arf meow arf
Johnny 5
2004-07-16 05:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@telus.net
At least sales taxes don't stop the ablest of the poor from
accumulating the assets needed to offer competition to the rich.
Unlike income taxes.
The boat factory in my old town made big yachts for the rich, then the
new luxury tax hit for these boats and the plant went out of business -
so the poor people in that town went from having a job with income tax to
NO JOB - haha! They all went on welfare and it is hurting the city.

Doesn't the base laws of supply and demand already do what they need to
and adding more gubbment just gets in the way - when the 200 nikes are in
such demand they cost 900, won't that keep the poor who can't really
afford it out of the equation? Prices will take care of it - why add
more red tape and taxes?
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
kevincar
2004-07-26 21:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@telus.net
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:15:40 -0400, BELANGER
Post by BELANGER
Despite your President's lovable bumbling, income tax is still, for
the most part, fulfilling its original purpose of taking from the
rich.
Nonsense. Almost all income tax is paid by working people, and for
any given level of income, the fraction of total income actually paid
in tax is inversely related to the fraction that is unearned (i.e.,
the kind of income the rich get).
I don't agree, because you are leaving out "The Working Poor",
which by virtue of their tax, makes them as poor as those who
collect public services.

Further, there are social dynamics which you are leaving
out; People move up and down social classes quite a lot-
more than economists for many years thought. At least
according to The Economist magazine. (BTW- which to my taste, the
magazine is becoming more and more of the "just another rag"
category over the last few years.)

In my own mind, because "poor people" become "rich people" and
vice-versa quite a lot in their lifetimes, at least nowadays, the
classification of a "poor person" and a "rich person" is a
question that is NOT really one of income.

/* NO FLAMES PLEASE */
I personally think society should look at factors other than merely
income for taxation; there should be more emphasis based upon
characterizations of class mobility (job history, skills, education,
health, health history, etc.) Hell, *GOOD LOOKS* could be taxed,
under this idea... Is that a bad thing? It could go either way;

PRO:
It could cause some people to LIVE UP TO THEIR POTENTIAL.

CON:
It could cause some people to NOT LIVE UP TO THEIR POTENTIAL.

I guess I just answered my own question, but I still hope that
the concept is someday is given a public hearing.


K.C
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
2004-07-26 21:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
I personally think society should look at factors other than merely
income for taxation; there should be more emphasis based upon
characterizations of class mobility (job history, skills, education,
i once had an idea
that ive since realized is completely immature and unrealistic

collect taxes to pay for government
pay for goverment with taxes collected

arf meow arf
kevincar
2004-07-27 17:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Post by kevincar
I personally think society should look at factors other than merely
income for taxation; there should be more emphasis based upon
characterizations of class mobility (job history, skills, education,
i once had an idea
that ive since realized is completely immature and unrealistic
Thanks emmfgt des anges for following-up; maybe I can
explain what I was thinking better this time;
Post by edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
collect taxes to pay for government
pay for goverment with taxes collected
arf meow arf
But government and the role of government changes with
every election (to a large extent)... as does the
economic status of many of the constituents that
actually changed it.

What I was trying to say in my prev. post is that all we have
in the U.S. is a dollar-fiat system that is so stunningly
arbitrary, as to make the concept of a rich person / poor person
to be pretty meaningless over the course of a citizens lifetime.
And that MAYBE, there are better (ie, fairer) standards by
which to tax the nation..

For instance; Rome fed her poor people from the food that it
"taxed" from the farmers; but in the U.S. there's this opaque
dollar-fiat that is converted several times, in and out of
several different hands, before it gets propagated to wherever it
was going to go...

Today in Mexico, if you are an artist, you can pay your taxes with
pieces of art that you produced...

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3600949

Now I'm not saying Mexico is more fair, advanced, or cruder
than our system, but I think it's a measure of unusual
courage for a modern world government to tax her citizens
on (as I said) their job history, skills, and education.

The only reason the U.S. used a fiat standard is because
they can control it. Unfortunately, with a lot of labor and
influence (ie, "wealth") polluting that standard, the U.S.
government's dollar is losing more and more of it's pull.

I know this goes all the way back to Ricarian economics, but
I would argue that it is not such a bad thing;

Drawbacks? lots...boundaried between personal and states
rights as one, but I could also argue that the U.S. already
has that with imminent domain.

K.C
The Trucker
2004-07-29 05:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Post by edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Post by kevincar
I personally think society should look at factors other than merely
income for taxation; there should be more emphasis based upon
characterizations of class mobility (job history, skills, education,
Actually, we need only consider assets. Tax assets as opposed to income.
Most especially tax land holdings.
Post by kevincar
Post by edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
i once had an idea
that ive since realized is completely immature and unrealistic
Thanks emmfgt des anges for following-up; maybe I can
explain what I was thinking better this time;
Post by edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
collect taxes to pay for government
pay for goverment with taxes collected
arf meow arf
But government and the role of government changes with
every election (to a large extent)... as does the
economic status of many of the constituents that
actually changed it.
The primary role of government is the enforcement of propery rights.
Those that control the most property derive most of the benefit of
this government service.
Post by kevincar
What I was trying to say in my prev. post is that all we have
in the U.S. is a dollar-fiat system that is so stunningly
arbitrary, as to make the concept of a rich person / poor person
to be pretty meaningless over the course of a citizens lifetime.
And that MAYBE, there are better (ie, fairer) standards by
which to tax the nation..
Here again: rich/poor is a question of control. Not just control
of the means of production, but also control of government itself.
Post by kevincar
For instance; Rome fed her poor people from the food that it
"taxed" from the farmers; but in the U.S. there's this opaque
dollar-fiat that is converted several times, in and out of
several different hands, before it gets propagated to wherever it
was going to go...
Today in Mexico, if you are an artist, you can pay your taxes with
pieces of art that you produced...
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3600949
Now I'm not saying Mexico is more fair, advanced, or cruder
than our system, but I think it's a measure of unusual
courage for a modern world government to tax her citizens
on (as I said) their job history, skills, and education.
It merely shows the ability of the aristocracy/nobility to control
information and to mislead and constantly distract the common people.
Post by kevincar
The only reason the U.S. used a fiat standard is because
they can control it. Unfortunately, with a lot of labor and
influence (ie, "wealth") polluting that standard, the U.S.
government's dollar is losing more and more of it's pull.
I know this goes all the way back to Ricarian economics, but
I would argue that it is not such a bad thing;
Drawbacks? lots...boundaried between personal and states
rights as one, but I could also argue that the U.S. already
has that with imminent domain.
K.C
--
http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)
>parr(*>
2004-07-27 22:19:44 UTC
Permalink
"edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mair_fheal-***@corp.supernews.com...
| > I personally think society should look at factors other than
merely
| > income for taxation; there should be more emphasis based upon
| > characterizations of class mobility (job history, skills,
education,
|
| i once had an idea
| that ive since realized is completely immature and unrealistic
|
| collect taxes to pay for government
| pay for goverment with taxes collected

I have a better one. The state hands out to everyone (i.e. whether
needy or not) exactly the same amount of benefit. Tax goes up to pay
for this.

I suspect there ae not more than 300,000,000 fundamental flaws in
America alone.
--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º> Parr
kevincar
2004-07-15 23:25:28 UTC
Permalink
"Kent Paul Dolan" <***@well.com> wrote in message news:<***@mygate.mailgate.org>...
[---]
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
* Replace the missing upcoming generation of workers
with robots and computers, and _tax their
productivity_ as if they were human workers. Oh,
the robots are coming into use, but the concept
that they should pay the taxes of the workers they
replace has gone missing so far.
[---]

Well, you had me up until here-

I think what you are actually proposing is a capital goods
tax which was originally dreamt of by The Lord Exchequer
to keep the Kings colonies in check; This was talked about
quite well in Barbara Tuchman's book

"The March Of Folly", where she quotes a 1700's MP as saying

"...Not one farthing; not one hobnail is to
be manufactured in the colonies"

...and later the same tax structure was implimented in
India and Hong Kong - Do you see the overall trend in
popularity of this idea?

Granted, your intent is different, but I would argue that
your purpose is the same; to increase economic barriers
to market entry ... and this is something that makes governments
very unpopular.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
HTH
Time for me to hit the hay too.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
xanthian.
K.C
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-16 01:47:32 UTC
Permalink
I would argue that your purpose is the same; to
increase economic barriers to market entry
Well, the idea isn't new with me, so first, it isn't
"my purpose".

Next, _ALL_ taxes increase economic barriers to
market entry, that's precisely why, in the US, taxes
on the Internet have been forbidden and that measure
renewed; give the baby time to grow before you break
its back.

Thus, "they increase economic barriers to market
entry" is not a better argument against any one tax
than it is against taxes in general, and we _need_
taxes in general, so that argument is invalid.

The rest of the story is, though, it isn't that we
(in the US) don't have work that needs doing, it's
that we don't have humans to fill those jobs, due to
our ongoing "baby bust" demographic bubble being the
cohort entering the workforce, nor a great love for
massive immigration, and absolutely (except for CEOs
and CFOs) _detest_ outsourcing to overseas sites.

So, if we want the work done within our own borders,
we need to automate a great deal of it.

Now, however, a big portion of the "workforce" is
automata, and under the current system, they have no
income taxes, and thus contribute no great amount of
tax revenue, and most of that to the local, not
federal, tax base. Nothing, that is to say, at least
in comparision to an income tax on a human working
doing the same tax. There are indeed local revenue
physical plant taxes (I think not Federal ones, but
I don't _know_ that), but by having the income tax as
an alternative to employer oriented taxes, the
greater politician buying power of big business than
of the individual employee, assures that the tax
burden will never be fairly shared by the business
side while individual income taxes exist to absorb
it instead.

By treating a robot worker as a taxable entity with
an "income tax" at the same level as a/several
human(s) with the same productive abilities, we put
tax money lost by the baby bust back into the
Federal treasury, and the existing Ponzi scheme of
government social security can at least stagger
along until a better solution is implemented.
and this is something that makes governments
very unpopular.
Robots don't vote, and a campaign to "let the robots
pay their fair share" would find _immense_ support
from folks who thought the the result would be
lower, or less rapidly rising, taxes on them, IMAO.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Johnny 5
2004-07-16 06:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Next, _ALL_ taxes increase economic barriers to
market entry, that's precisely why, in the US, taxes
on the Internet have been forbidden and that measure
renewed; give the baby time to grow before you break
its back.
Absolutely, get out of the tax business, get out of the law business, let
people take care of themselves, they are pretty good at it most of the
time if they don't feel someone is oppressing them - they will be
benevolent.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Thus, "they increase economic barriers to market
entry" is not a better argument against any one tax
than it is against taxes in general, and we _need_
taxes in general, so that argument is invalid.
We need LESS TAX, LESS red tape. I tried to read the tax code, I tried
to read the laws, there are too damn many, we need less, less is good and
simple, we dont need more taxmen or lawyers, we are clogging up our pipes
with that shit - the people can't flow from the logjam in gubbment and
courts and business. Less trickery, less complexity, more simplicity and
more honesty.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
The rest of the story is, though, it isn't that we
(in the US) don't have work that needs doing, it's
that we don't have humans to fill those jobs,
If Warren BUffet starts to go hungry, I bet he will pay more for that
made in mexico banana, or he will get out on the farm himself and start
growing it if he goes broke - we do not need to IMPORT the work here, we
just need to trade with the poorer countries who already have poor farm
workers and let them make the money there through trade. I hear we are
opening trade barriers with cuba - we don't have to import the cubans.

due to
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
our ongoing "baby bust" demographic bubble being the
cohort entering the workforce, nor a great love for
massive immigration, and absolutely (except for CEOs
and CFOs) _detest_ outsourcing to overseas sites.
If we don't want to do the work and have the money to pay someone else
and they do - let it happen - if you don't want to pick your crops - let
the farmer in mexico pick them and pay him a good amount of dollars to do
it. Don't invite the negative effects of multiculturalism because you
don't want mexico getting richer.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
So, if we want the work done within our own borders,
we need to automate a great deal of it.
Train mexico boy to speak english before he comes here - don't make my
life harder because half my stores are all spanish speaking now.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Now, however, a big portion of the "workforce" is
automata, and under the current system, they have no
income taxes, and thus contribute no great amount of
tax revenue,
I was on greyhound bus last month going to neuvo laredo, and this mexican
worker that was a truck driver was talking to an american truck driver,
see the mexico boy gives a fake SS - so when employer takes that Fica
money out of his check - which is the biggest tax on workers

http://www.worthpublishers.com/krugmanwellsnew/pdf/EIA_FICA.pdf

mexico boy can never collect - the gubbment knows this, it is a FREE
payment from mexico boys check into the Tax coffers - and they encourage
the truck company to hire mexico boy over american because they would
have to pay american on a REAL ss number, not mexico boy. Mexico boy is
replacing america boy, and bringing his culture with him, I like zorro.

See the gubbment and its red tape do not want to die, they want to grow,
and to do so they are KILLING americans with MEXICANS so they can LIVE
and GROW, we must not let the fungus grow beyond its USE. We stop mexico
boy from coming here and the gubbment using him to grow, the US gubbment
defaults, gubbment workers lose jobs, we get poorer in the USA, they get
richer in mexico, but my nieghbor speaks my language, we have shared
community, we help each other out - we rebuild and are stronger - the way
it is going now - when we default, me and blackie and mexico boy not
gonna have a common bond at walmart and might shoot each other cause we
dont all speak the same language. Fracturing this country is not good.

and most of that to the local, not
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
federal, tax base. Nothing, that is to say, at least
in comparision to an income tax on a human working
doing the same tax. There are indeed local revenue
physical plant taxes (I think not Federal ones, but
I don't _know_ that), but by having the income tax as
an alternative to employer oriented taxes, the
greater politician buying power of big business than
of the individual employee, assures that the tax
burden will never be fairly shared by the business
side while individual income taxes exist to absorb
it instead.
By treating a robot worker as a taxable entity with
I don't want you taxing the internet - ever - I like how it is now,
perhaps I don't need it policed or monitored and it is good free and
cheap. If krugman wants to watch animated child porn let him have at it,
it's legal, why should I pay some team of feminazis 80K per year each to
stop krugman? They are probably better utilized sitting at home raising
good kids.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
an "income tax" at the same level as a/several
human(s) with the same productive abilities, we put
No no no no, no more red tape, you introduce inefficiency into the free
flow - who decides the number of humans, do some humans get counted more
than others, blind humans can't function on the internet as well - HECK
lets grow GUBBMENT JOBS to figure all this shit out - and pay MORE TAXES
for MORE gubbment JOBS for more CONTROl over FREEDOM - no no - bad ideas
- stop this evil thinking you are going down, less - not MORE tax.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
tax money lost by the baby bust back into the
Federal treasury,
Population shocks should have been smoothed out, they weren't - we have
to suffer the consequences.

and the existing Ponzi scheme of
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
government social security can at least stagger
along until a better solution is implemented.
Let it die if it must, you only delay the fix. Not MORE red tape, less
red tape. less laws, less taxes, less hatred.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by kevincar
and this is something that makes governments
very unpopular.
Robots don't vote,
Go watch the MATRIX or I, ROBOT again - read some asimov sci fi books.
Check out the Borg in Star Trek.

and a campaign to "let the robots
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
pay their fair share" would find _immense_ support
from folks who thought the the result would be
lower, or less rapidly rising, taxes on them, IMAO.
Do not tax my internet, do not impede the greatest exchange for ideas and
freedom and knowledge that has ever existed in our history, don't start
paying large rule making bodies to limit the freedoms, stop it before it
starts.
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
kevincar
2004-07-17 07:26:08 UTC
Permalink
[---]
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Next, _ALL_ taxes increase economic barriers to
market entry, that's precisely why, in the US, taxes
on the Internet have been forbidden and that measure
renewed; give the baby time to grow before you break
its back.
Not true anymore- Sales tax everywhere.
And OK Kent, I'll bite on this one :-) Taxes are
NOT a market barrier-to-entry but a "fee" for
services performed by the government (is it just me
or is it getting hot in here?)
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Thus, "they increase economic barriers to market
entry" is not a better argument against any one tax
than it is against taxes in general, and we _need_
taxes in general, so that argument is invalid.
THAT my dear sir is a VERY broad-brushed opinion, and
not fact; I could more easily say (and 3 branches
of govt parrot this) that the gubermint performs vital
functions that can't be performed by the private sector
and therefore we need to give %50 of our income
to them every, oh, lets make it April.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
The rest of the story is, though, it isn't that we
(in the US) don't have work that needs doing, it's
that we don't have humans to fill those jobs, due to
our ongoing "baby bust" demographic bubble being the
cohort entering the workforce, nor a great love for
massive immigration, and absolutely (except for CEOs
and CFOs) _detest_ outsourcing to overseas sites.
No, the simple problem is (as you said earlier,) that
there is an un-fulfillable promise being made that was
implied over 70 years ago that most people are betting
the farm on - Economic equilibrium is what it is; JMK
proved in the 30's that economies can be in full
equilibrium during a raging depression;
Overseas outsourcing is an expression of economic
equilibrium, in that US programmers, financial
planners, radiologists and insurance actuarials were
demanding $100K + salaries a year for work that
was really not that hard (yes, I'm a programmer,
have been for 32 years), AND not heeding history's
lessons that cheaper alternatives will ALWAYS be
found... It's the first rule of business: You make
a buck on either the turnaround or the margin.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
So, if we want the work done within our own borders,
we need to automate a great deal of it.
Now, however, a big portion of the "workforce" is
automata, and under the current system, they have no
income taxes, and thus contribute no great amount of
tax revenue, and most of that to the local, not
federal, tax base. Nothing, that is to say, at least
in comparision to an income tax on a human working
doing the same tax. There are indeed local revenue
physical plant taxes (I think not Federal ones, but
I don't _know_ that), but by having the income tax as
an alternative to employer oriented taxes, the
greater politician buying power of big business than
of the individual employee, assures that the tax
burden will never be fairly shared by the business
side while individual income taxes exist to absorb
it instead.
Well, yes and no. Businesses pay LOTS of things
that we don't; payroll taxes, communications taxes,
malpractice tax, reinsurance fees, and lots more...
it's no bed of roses, lemme tell U.

I think what may be skewing your judgement is a belief
(and a not-invalid one, I may add) is that corruption
plays a part in corporate finance; I have had many
jobs in the largest companies in the world, and there
have been malapropisms in many- that is why
companies WANT to be huge; they can get away with more,
through the guise of "economic leverage" - yupyup.

There HAS been a real reason for this in the past;
Government was banking on corporations getting big,
so that they can hire of us hoi polloi... ie, the
"trickle-down economics" theory. But nowadays, as
companies become more global, there is less that both
governments, AND the companies themselves can do
to control their destinies... both legally AND
illegaly ... Why do you think gambling is
becoming accepted in all 50 states? heck, it's about
the only thing that you (and the state) can DEPEND
on (that the house always wins). The reality is
that no one really knows what to do; economics is
becoming too hard to figure out.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
By treating a robot worker as a taxable entity with
an "income tax" at the same level as a/several
human(s) with the same productive abilities, we put
tax money lost by the baby bust back into the
Federal treasury, and the existing Ponzi scheme of
government social security can at least stagger
along until a better solution is implemented.
Define "Robot". My digital watch? My automated SQL
Server DTS that replaced four secretaries? Or do I
limit it to my Cincinnatii Millicron Model 1200
Assembly Armature?
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Robots don't vote, and a campaign to "let the robots
pay their fair share" would find _immense_ support
from folks who thought the the result would be
lower, or less rapidly rising, taxes on them, IMAO.
Again, you're really losing me- U might have some great
economic grand idea, but it's as clear as fog...
people are people, and machines are machines, and labor
is labor.
But to follow-thru with your idea, I could
argue that the government is taking the path of least
resistance, by taxing those people who CREATE the
labor-saving machinery at a higher rate... to the
government it's a wash; to use the automated SQL
Server doo-hickyprogram that replaces 4 secretaries
as an example;

1 single geek-engineer @ $100K = $40K in tax revenue
vs.
4 married secretaries @ $35K/year = 4 * $10K in tax revenue

Granted, as more jobs disappear overseas, the gov't
will get more and more upset, as the tax base dwindles,
but a new equilibrium will be found; probably via
economic protectionism, war, terrorism, but you already
poo-pooed that idea, so I won't bother you with it :-)

One thing that someone considered is a "mileage tax"
for IP packets, but then along cane P2P... We are in
a very interesting time; it's almost like a "Global
Economic Warming" trend; it's very hard to stop a planet
(or so I've heard... I haven't reallt tried, though).
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
xanthian.
K.C
Johnny 5
2004-07-16 05:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevincar
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
* Replace the missing upcoming generation of workers
with robots and computers, and _tax their
Go see I, Robot or the MATRIX for the ultimate effects of this.
Post by kevincar
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
productivity_ as if they were human workers. Oh,
All you economists, tax this, tax that, tax land, tax work, Tax tax tax -
more gubbment, more red tape, more tax, more tax collectors, let the free
market decide - get out of the tax business. Less rules, less lawyers,
less IRS, less gubbment.
Post by kevincar
...and later the same tax structure was implimented in
India and Hong Kong - Do you see the overall trend in
popularity of this idea?
Right, metropolis was a good movie - it came out in 1921 or so didn't it?
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
David James Polewka
2004-07-17 03:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Let's see, the Polewka "mass murder is the only
solution" agenda having been rejected, what _sane_
possibilities exist to resolve the situation? Why,
lots and lots! A sampler of those being considered.
[...]
And not a peep about all the other creatures on the
planet, and their disappearing habitat. Oops! I guess
you're not taking everything into account!

A: "We can't fight wars! People will die!"
B: "Are there any other considerations?"
A: "Nope! That's it!"


=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
Johnny 5
2004-07-17 06:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David James Polewka
And not a peep about all the other creatures on the
planet, and their disappearing habitat. Oops! I guess
you're not taking everything into account!
A: "We can't fight wars! People will die!"
B: "Are there any other considerations?"
A: "Nope! That's it!"
Exactly, if you get right down to it, perhaps the leaders of the g7 may
view the rest of us as animals and just dont care wether we live or die,
we are a tool to thier power. Are you really worried about those
bacteria getting killed off inside your gut by the millions every second?
Come on.
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-16 16:44:28 UTC
Permalink
I keep my killfile empty these days after I
discovered the bastards were plotting to break out
and fry me.
There must have been a fish ladder involved. That
one practically _leapt_ into the siggie file.

xanthian.

===== selected archival quality quote =====

I keep my killfile empty these days after I discovered
the bastards were plotting to break out and fry me.
-- Laury King, <***@BTinternet.com>
writing as Parr, the juvenile salmon.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-25 19:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Stare at _this_ for a while, and then pretend you
don't understand at what point in the demographic
equations the population problem needs to be
addressed.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=UG&out=d&ymax=300
From 1975 to 2005 it shows the median age going
from 16 years old down to 14 in Uganda, but then
the projections change from 2010 to 2050 from
going to median age 14 to 23 - I don't know that I
agree with those predictions - too far out of
whack with the empirical data supplied in that
same link.
The point that matters is that the part of the
population Polewka wants to murder, the geezers,
form a trivial part of that population pyramid,
and contribute nothing at all to the horrific
growth at the bottom, where application of
population control _is_ needed, and birth control is
the method of choice to achieve that goal.

The point has long ago been made to Polewka, he is
just too demented with his plans to gain his
inheritance early to take that point: no population
controls applied past the breeding age are
meaningful at all. Killing off every Ugandan without
exception at age 50 wouldn't change how that graph
grows one bit, it would just lack the trivial part
at the top.

The boom in Uganda (one of three small countries
anticipated to provide over one third of the
population growth for the _entire world_ over the
next 300 years) is entirely due to high birth rate,
not to longevity, which is in fact pretty
non-existent there, as the nation and its population
are too poor for modern medicine to have much impact
on demographic longevity.
Where do we need to maximize our Population - what
age are nobel peace prize winners at on Median
when they make thier breakthrough research? I
know in the chess world grandmasters get better
until about 30 - then from 30 til 40 they do thier
best chess playing, then after about 45 or so they
go down. SO we need a median population age
between 30 - 40 or so for most benefit.
Bogus criteria.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=US&out=d&ymax=250
As I suspected, the US population age is Median
between 30-40 from 1950 to 2050.
We have the best median for PRODUCTIVE people, so
we will have the greatest produce.
You really need to work on writing coherent English.
Now I want to invest my dollars where I can get
the greatest rate of return - do you invest where
the median age is already 30-40 - or do you invest
in countries where the median is going up to
30-40?
Population growth is _not_ a guide to business
success for a nation, nor is it a guide for where to
do your investing. China only began to enter the
realm of prosperity when it got its run-away
population growth under control. India, still not
successful at reining in its population explosion,
continues to be plagued with poverty as a nation and
individually.
It seems more growth is what you want if you are
gonna maximize your returns - for this Reason I
think warren buffet sees the US is not a good
place to invest anymore to maximize returns -
there is no growth left here - its already maxed
out - what do you think?
I think the US problems are not due to a decreasing
workforce -- we cannot manage to keep the workers we
have employed, so that _can't_ be the problem, but
to a broken business model of managing for the short
term approval of the stockholders, rather than the
long term health of the company, that puts the
planning horizon at 90 days when it needs to be at
ten years.

This is not news to Warren Buffet or to any other student
of the US Economy.

And by the way, Mr. Buffet's investment success is due to
doing detailed, complex analyses of individual businesses,
not due to some simplistic model of how whole economies
will fare.

Trying to find some one "investment bite" that will let
you imitate his success without imitiating his hard work
to achieve that success is a fool's mission. Don't go there.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Johnny 5
2004-07-26 08:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
The point has long ago been made to Polewka, he is
just too demented with his plans to gain his
inheritance early to take that point: no population
controls applied past the breeding age are
meaningful at all. Killing off every Ugandan without
exception at age 50 wouldn't change how that graph
grows one bit, it would just lack the trivial part
at the top.
I like to make a spreadsheet with interesting posters - In the columns I
list his major points, in the rows why they do or don't make sense. Once
I have satisfied myself to a conclusion one way or the other I no longer
care to argue with that person, Polewka wanting people to willingly
publicly endorse the flu is stupid, it's no longer worth mine and your
time debating it, if he wants to talk about NEW things great, but that
subject is closed on my spreadsheet. Time to let that meme die.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
The boom in Uganda (one of three small countries
anticipated to provide over one third of the
population growth for the _entire world_ over the
next 300 years) is entirely due to high birth rate,
High birth rate is good sometimes, human race needs births to continue
on.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
not to longevity, which is in fact pretty
non-existent there, as the nation and its population
are too poor for modern medicine to have much impact
on demographic longevity.
Bill Gates is gonna pump many billions into these poor areas, the IMF is
pumping dollars too, the peace corps and the red cross make the medicine
and knowledge better,
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/25/2022203.shtml?tid=126 Even Good
Jobs are going to these areas - its getting better all the time.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Where do we need to maximize our Population - what
age are nobel peace prize winners at on Median
when they make thier breakthrough research? I
know in the chess world grandmasters get better
until about 30 - then from 30 til 40 they do thier
best chess playing, then after about 45 or so they
go down. SO we need a median population age
between 30 - 40 or so for most benefit.
Bogus criteria.
Bogus? What do you want for the world? Maximized research and progress
or maintenance of the status quo?
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=US&out=d&ymax=250
As I suspected, the US population age is Median
between 30-40 from 1950 to 2050.
We have the best median for PRODUCTIVE people, so
we will have the greatest produce.
You really need to work on writing coherent English.
People can struggle through and get my meaning, what don't you
understand? People's most productive years in chess is from 30-45, I bet
this is true of many other areas.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Now I want to invest my dollars where I can get
the greatest rate of return - do you invest where
the median age is already 30-40 - or do you invest
in countries where the median is going up to
30-40?
Population growth is _not_ a guide to business
success for a nation,
I believe it is, you are going to see the NEGATIVE effects of declining
population growth in this country when SS becomes insolvent in a few
years. Used to be 47 workers to 1 beneficiary, in 2030 there will be 2
workers to 1 beneficiary, brittney wanted a career, she didn't want to
raise 3 kids and be a baby sitter. In fact I would argue that singularly
population growth is one of the key factors if NOT the most important
factor to a good growing economy - smoothing out the population shocks
makes for a stable economy.

nor is it a guide for where to
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
do your investing.
Again I think you are wrong, research the links I provided - read
www.nationmaster.com data - see the correlation between population growth
and economic growth.

China only began to enter the
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
realm of prosperity when it got its run-away
population growth under control.
You want population growth, controlled so as it does not outstrip your
resources, but growth is a FUNDAMENTAL and population growth even MORE
fundamental. You said a few lines up population growth is NOT a guide
for investing or business success, but now you say with china that
controlled population growth helped prosperity - STOP contradicting
yourself. Population growth is a very good guide for investment, if the
shocks are smoothed out, and even if they aren't, UNCONTROLLED population
growth can also be great for investment, you can short and go long. I
would start shorting the US if I felt the population shock of the baby
boomers was going to cause a serious harm to our economy. Warren Buffet
pulled out of the USA - Bill Gates is investing in china and africa with
his money - both through charity and his business, wake up! They are
smart, they see things you don't. They arent investing here anymore.

India, still not
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
successful at reining in its population explosion,
continues to be plagued with poverty as a nation and
individually.
Look at the forest, not the trees - see the long term trends, you said it
yourself, the places with high population growth are taking over the
worlds population in 300 years - Africa is already the new hotbed for IT
outsourcing.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
It seems more growth is what you want if you are
gonna maximize your returns - for this Reason I
think warren buffet sees the US is not a good
place to invest anymore to maximize returns -
there is no growth left here - its already maxed
out - what do you think?
I think the US problems are not due to a decreasing
workforce
I think you are very deluded and so do most of my smartie and richie
friends. The baby boom generation was able to support the old - many
more young baby boomers to old, that ratio is declining, lots more old
baby boomers to young generation X - things are going to get UGLY, didn't
smooth out the population shock. Wanted a good slow controlled growth.
Time to short the US, go long other places in the world, my US dollar
dropped 30% on the world market the past few years - wake up and quit
being silly.

-- we cannot manage to keep the workers we
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
have employed,
Right, we didn't have the babies and india, china, africa, and mexico
did. If they had stopped having babies and we started having more
americans would be invading thier economies taking the jobs.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
so that _can't_ be the problem, but
You are wrong.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
to a broken business model of managing for the short
term approval of the stockholders, rather than the
long term health of the company, that puts the
planning horizon at 90 days when it needs to be at
ten years.
I used to think as you do, and then one day I called my weatherman, he
has a PHD and lots of other titles and awards and lots of knowledge and
intelligence and asked him would it rain at my house next week - he said
I cant tell you, look out the window that morning, that is what I will
do, and then I called my local physics professor, and I said how far
ahead can we predict a chaotic system such as economics - and he started
laughing at me - read my tagline at the bottom of this page for what a
well respected economist says about his own profession. Gordon Lightfoot
used to sing a song - IF YOU COULD READ MY MIND, in it he says plans
often fail, which brings us to another one of his songs - the WRECK OF
THE EDMUND FITZGERALD - some people think it was this wave that sunk it
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/22/1543233&tid=134&tid=
160 - we can't predict where these waves will strike - 10 year plans in
a chaotic environment is silly, Jesus said LIVE FOR TODAY. But you are
smarter than the PHd's, the physics guys, Gordo and Jesus - right.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
This is not news to Warren Buffet or to any other student
of the US Economy.
He puts his money where there is value, he said recently for the first
time in his life he has to leave the US investment market, no more value
here, no more fast growth. Imagine a snowball rolling down a mountain or
a person falling from a plane approaching terminal velocity, they
accelerate very fast - and then they reach a point and there is no more
acceleration, Warren Buffet thinks there is no more acceleration here -
he has moved his money out, bill gates thinks there is no more
acceleration here - he is building universities and jobs in foreign
countries - but you are smarter than both of those billionaires, I am
going to listen at your words over thier actions right?
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
And by the way, Mr. Buffet's investment success is due to
doing detailed, complex analyses of individual businesses,
not due to some simplistic model of how whole economies
will fare.
You are flat wrong - he said recently that he is exiting the US economy
for the first time - he does indeed look at the global picture, google
for yourself.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Trying to find some one "investment bite" that will let
you imitate his success without imitiating his hard work
to achieve that success is a fool's mission. Don't go there.
Only a fool would see the USA tree growing 2% a year and think he is
doing well when the global forest around him is growing 10% - wake up -
see the forest - not the tree.

Understand that the currency markets trade far more than the NYSE or
Nasdaq. Look at the entities in our world, the strongest and richest are
nations and states, then multicorps, then microcaps. True MSFT has the
more money than many NATIONS, but if you are looking for growth, MSFT
stock hasn't grown much in the past few years has it? While you made 2%
apr on MSFT in the USA recently, I made 25% APR in Ireland the past 2
years - don't be dumb Xanthian.
--
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look
respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-07-27 02:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Namecaller.
_This_ from the author of:

:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!

et cetera ad infinitum? You are giving
brain-damaged alcoholic hypocrites a
bad name, Polewka.

"Moron" isn't name-calling, it is purely
a level-headed assessment of your thinking ability.
Uganda isn't the one occupying the Middle East, to
keep oil flowing, so it can satisfy its thirst,
which is so powerful because of bonehead
government policies promoting sprawl, and goofball
state suppression of the diseases that are meant
to bring lives to a timely and merciful end, all
of which _guarantees_ decades (or more) of global
terrorism!
Ummm, we _used_ to be talking about the population
problem, of _the world_, moron. The US has such a
low birth rate it has negative population growth
before immigration is added to the mix, so the US is
the _last_ place that needs more help reducing it's
population. It is already more-or-less voluntarily
accepting population overflow from countries where
birth control needs to be more readily available,
such as predominently Catholic Mexico.

Uganda, which you so cavilierly dismiss, to the
contrary, is one of three countries expected to
contribute overwhelmingly to the continuing
population explosion _of the world_, moron. That is
where population control is needed. As indicated
in the URL from my previous article, your suggested
"population control mechanism" will do absolutely
no good in the countries, like Uganda, with high
birth rates.

By changing the subject, you have effectively
admitted you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. If you care to
claim otherwise, show, with numbers, how decreasing
the non-breeder old-aged part of the population, as you
propose for a population control mechanism, _of
Uganda_ is going to make any difference at all in
the population growth shown in the dynamic graph
pointed to by, one more time, _this_ URL:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=UG&out=d&ymax=300

Otherwise, moron, shut up and go away, humiliated by
your inability to think a coherent stream of thought
after burning your brains out with alcohol.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
David James Polewka
2004-08-04 17:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Namecaller.
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
Talk.bizarre stats per MailGate for May 2004
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
March 2004 in Talk.Bizarre
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
Mailgate Top 25 Users for t.b for July 2003
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
Mailgate Top 25 Users in talk.bizarre for October 2003
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
mailgate.org stats for T.B, Jan, 2002

[66] Kent Paul Dolan <***@well.com> 6.8%
[46] Ace Lightning <***@verizon.net> 4.7%
[36] Blair P. Houghton <blair[no> 3.7%
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
t.b. Stats, Nov 1999

55 72.5 ( 31.3/ 41.2/ 34.0) ***@cs.com (Nochsfentor)
36 46.8 ( 24.1/ 18.9/ 16.1) // u l i a n <***@uiuc.edu>
35 39.1 ( 22.3/ 16.8/ 8.9) ***@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton)
34 54.4 ( 33.0/ 21.3/ 17.1) "Ken Johnson"
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
t.b. Stats Oct 1999
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
t.b. stats, September 1999

73 113.9 ( 58.8/ 41.3/ 13.2) ***@gis.net
70 66.3 ( 40.1/ 26.1/ 18.5) ***@ews.uiuc.edu (waldby julian f)
55 100.6 ( 43.3/ 57.2/ 43.8) ***@ibm.net
54 104.1 ( 42.3/ 61.7/ 47.7) fool <***@lexicon.net>
46 77.9 ( 33.5/ 44.3/ 36.5) "Robert Bowman" <***@m
36 43.0 ( 22.3/ 20.6/ 13.3) ***@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
34 61.5 ( 23.9/ 37.6/ 28.4) ***@mail.nhn.ou.edu (Rollin T)
33 37.5 ( 25.3/ 12.2/ 8.6) "nikolai kingsley" <***@ware
31 76.7 ( 23.0/ 53.7/ 49.7) ***@freenet.carl (Nikolaus Maack)
31 51.9 ( 32.7/ 19.1/ 8.1) wenchpoet <***@q7.com>
31 37.2 ( 24.7/ 12.4/ 6.5) acelightning <***@monmou
27 39.2 ( 21.0/ 18.2/ 14.1) ***@webtv.net (Interloper)
23 40.1 ( 14.8/ 23.7/ 16.3) ***@best.com (girl guitarist liberti
22 36.9 ( 12.2/ 24.6/ 21.1) ***@uiuc.edu (Mirage)
21 361.1 ( 15.4/302.0/272.9) ***@mindspring.com
20 27.6 ( 16.2/ 11.4/ 5.0) "Mr. Sweetness & Light" <***@s
20 20.3 ( 13.2/ 5.8/ 4.9) Stephen Oakes <Stephen.Oakes@
18 17.3 ( 10.8/ 6.4/ 3.8) ***@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton)
17 25.8 ( 10.1/ 15.7/ 14.0) ***@best.com (Crisper Than Thou)
14 22.6 ( 10.4/ 12.3/ 11.0) Matthew Marchese <***@sgi.com>
14 19.7 ( 8.4/ 8.2/ 4.4) ***@ro.com (Gary Heston)
14 36.9 ( 13.8/ 23.1/ 16.2) Tom Carlson <***@ix.netcom.com>
14 18.8 ( 11.5/ 7.3/ 5.5) "R Seal" <***@terraworld.net>
14 19.6 ( 10.2/ 9.4/ 6.6) ***@NEWTS.connect.ab.ca
13 16.4 ( 9.4/ 7.0/ 2.2) ***@surrey.ac.uk (Lloyd Wood)
13 11.9 ( 7.4/ 4.5/ 4.0) ***@aol.comical.isp (Lm
12 16.3 ( 9.8/ 6.4/ 3.4) "Markian M. Gooley" <***@ga
12 39.3 ( 10.3/ 29.0/ 19.8) HellPope Huey <***@troi.csw.net>
12 23.7 ( 8.8/ 12.5/ 7.5) ***@halcyon.com (Rimrunner)
11 19.6 ( 8.8/ 10.7/ 1.8) ***@flash.net
11 18.4 ( 10.4/ 8.0/ 5.0) ***@vader.boutell.com (cmb adams)
11 13.6 ( 7.2/ 4.9/ 3.5) Ronan Waide <***@scope.ie>
11 12.9 ( 9.3/ 3.7/ 2.9) Patrick Tufts <***@cs.brandeis.edu>
10 12.5 ( 7.7/ 4.8/ 4.8) ***@webtv.net (Elspeth)
10 17.4 ( 8.3/ 6.2/ 5.1) ***@nepean.uws.edu.au
10 13.2 ( 8.4/ 4.8/ 3.4) ci75554-b.nash1.tn.home.comcarroll)
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
t.b. Stats, August 1999

72 104.1 ( 47.7/ 56.4/ 37.5) ***@netcom.com (Lisa Chabot)
66 121.4 ( 54.8/ 53.2/ 15.1) ***@gis.net
66 109.0 ( 54.6/ 54.4/ 47.6) "Nikolai Kingsley" <***@w
57 98.9 ( 46.6/ 52.3/ 43.8) fool <***@lexicon.net>
51 81.4 ( 40.9/ 40.5/ 24.3) acelightning <***@m
43 53.9 ( 35.5/ 18.3/ 13.9) "R Seal" <***@terraworld.net>
43 65.4 ( 28.2/ 37.1/ 21.2) ***@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
34 64.1 ( 25.0/ 39.0/ 31.5) ***@mail.nhn.ou.edu (Rollin T
33 56.7 ( 24.8/ 31.9/ 28.4) ***@webtv.net (Interloper)
32 52.8 ( 33.4/ 19.3/ 12.8) wenchpoet <***@q7.com>
32 34.4 ( 22.3/ 12.1/ 8.1) ***@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton)
31 88.4 ( 31.8/ 56.6/ 55.8) "Jeff Wasserman
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
t.b. Stats, July 1999

59 107.8 ( 54.1/ 42.1/ 8.5) ***@gis.net
53 76.7 ( 42.0/ 34.7/ 23.9) "R Seal" <***@terraworld.net>
44 43.1 ( 26.8/ 16.2/ 9.8) ***@primenet.com (Blair P. Houghton)
42 55.4 ( 25.1/ 30.2/ 22.9) ***@ews.uiuc.edu (waldby julian f)
41 79.4 ( 28.4/ 51.0/ 41.6) ***@mail.nhn.ou.edu (Rollin Th
34 43.8 ( 20.1/ 23.6/ 17.4) ***@netcom.com (Lisa Chabot)
30 56.8 ( 22.3/ 34.4/ 29.6) ***@webtv.net (Interloper)
30 51.0 ( 25.6/ 25.4/ 18.6) "Nikolai Kingsley" <***@w
29 40.9 ( 22.4/ 18.5/ 9.6) acelightning <***@monm
24 50.6 ( 17.2/ 33.3/ 30.8) ***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolau
22 31.7 ( 14.2/ 17.5/ 12.6) ***@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
21 44.9 ( 18.0/ 26.9/ 17.4) ***@ibm.net
21 48.8 ( 19.0/ 29.8/ 21.8) fool <***@lexicon.net>
21 28.6 ( 13.6/ 13.8/ 9.6) ***@best.com (rdc)
19 44.4 ( 12.2/ 32.2/ 29.6) ***@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan)

D I D Y A F E R G I T ? % %? (he forgot)


=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
zerge
2004-08-11 22:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Namecaller.
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
:- COMPULSIVE OVERPOSTER!!!
et cetera ad infinitum? You are giving
brain-damaged alcoholic hypocrites a
bad name, Polewka.
"Moron" isn't name-calling, it is purely
a level-headed assessment of your thinking ability.
Uganda isn't the one occupying the Middle East, to
keep oil flowing, so it can satisfy its thirst,
which is so powerful because of bonehead
government policies promoting sprawl, and goofball
state suppression of the diseases that are meant
to bring lives to a timely and merciful end, all
of which _guarantees_ decades (or more) of global
terrorism!
Ummm, we _used_ to be talking about the population
problem, of _the world_, moron. The US has such a
low birth rate it has negative population growth
before immigration is added to the mix, so the US is
the _last_ place that needs more help reducing it's
population. It is already more-or-less voluntarily
accepting population overflow from countries where
birth control needs to be more readily available,
such as predominently Catholic Mexico.
We do not have birth control problems in Mexico.
Mexico: 2.53 children born/woman
United States: 2.07 children born/woman

Birth control is readily available in pharmacies, and free of charge
in government hospitals.

Our population does not "overflow" into the US because of
overpopulation.
Rather, we have a large % of your population still living in rural
areas, something like 25-30%. In Mexico there is something like
100,000 (yes one hundre thousand) small villages with a population of
<2000. Most developed countries have a rural population of less than
5%.
All those villages are far from markets, and far from government
services. This perpetuates their poverty. Most illegal immigrants come
from these poor rural areas.
One of Mexico's greatest unrecognized problems is the lack of
urbanization of its population.
I invite you to update your knowledge about my country.


http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Total_Fertility_Rate_dall.htm
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-08-12 00:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by zerge
We do not have birth control problems in Mexico.
Mexico: 2.53 children born/woman
That is a tragically, devastatingly high birth rate;
far above the replacement level, and guarantees your
already overcrowded nation an ever increasing
imbalance between mouths and food.

On the bright side, things are apparently improving:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9907/28/mexico.population/
Post by zerge
United States: 2.07 children born/woman
Well, no, not for quite a while:

: VITAL STATISTICS 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002
: Total fertility rate(*) 2,081 1,978 2,056 2,034 2,013

: (*) The number of births that 1,000 women would have
: in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they
: experienced the birth rates occurring in the
: specified year.

http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part1.html

Which is _below_ the usually accepted replacement
level of 2,100. The higher birth-rates after the
1995 minimum are usually attributed to the higher
fecundity of the rapidly growing immigrant
population, while the native-born birthrate
continues to fall.
Post by zerge
Birth control is readily available in pharmacies,
and free of charge in government hospitals.
And officially anathema according to the Roman
Catholic Church to which most of your country's
population owes allegience, thus the continuing
higher than replacement level birth rate.
Post by zerge
Our population does not "overflow" into the US
because of overpopulation.
Sorry, but yes, it does. Your country's population
exceeds the resources to support that population,
the resources of the USA are much more abundant per
person, and the many living in lack in Mexico find
relocating to the US attractive to the point of
risking their lives to accomplish it.
Post by zerge
Rather, we have a large % of [y]our population still
living in rural areas, something like 25-30%. In
Mexico there is something like 100,000 (yes one
hundre[d] thousand) small villages with a
population of <2000. Most developed countries have
a rural population of less than 5%.
Yes, but that doesn't make having a large rural
population wrong or poverty-inducing. Given the
existing improvements in communications, much of the
US would work much better if the population were
divided into 300,000 rural communities than the ugly
mega-human-heaps that currently contain our
population.
Post by zerge
All those villages are far from markets, and far
from government services. This perpetuates their
poverty. Most illegal immigrants come from these
poor rural areas.
Neither access to "markets" nor to "government
services" are particularly related to a village's
ability to support itself. If you only measure
"poverty" by "cash income", you miss the point that
many of these peoples supported themselves quite
nicely for thousands of years without a cash
economy, and are still able to do so, creating all
necessities of life locally.
Post by zerge
One of Mexico's greatest unrecognized problems is
the lack of urbanization of its population.
Well, no, quite the opposite.

Mexico City is one of the well-known sewers of the
world,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/mexenv.html

and an object lesson in over-urbanization run amok,
with its encircling camps of homeless garbage
scavengers.

In many ways, Mexico continues to be a class
society where inequality is one of its primary
characteristics and where barriers and
delineation are particularly acute for young
people. A small percentage, the privileged
classes, find access to the best schools and
post-secondary training abroad. For the rest of
the population opportunities are severely
restricted. For instance, the average length of
schooling for the population over the age of 25
is under five years. Extreme misery exists in
the large metropolises. The homeless, destitute,
street children and garbage and food scavengers,
many of them young men and women, epitomize the
growing disparity between rich and poor and are
a daily reminder of the difficulties facing
young people in Mexico.

http://www.ashoka.org/fellows/viewprofile3.cfm?reid=96725

The very last thing Mexico needs is to increase
urbanization, and exacerbate its part in the tragedy
of many similarly impoverished countries, caused by
drawing a rural population to cities that have no
jobs or other resources to support them, but where
the increased population concentration leads to
increased misery and strife.

http://www.google.com/search?q=rural.flight+poverty
Post by zerge
I invite you to update your knowledge about my
country.
And I invite you to stop living in denial.

Patriotism is fine, jingoism is a disease.
Post by zerge
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Total_Fertility_Rate_dall.htm
xanthian.

More:

: The impending peak of the U.S. population

: This is the shocker. The U.S. population is 290
: million and growing. It is common to assume
: that we will double in size this century. But
: we will not. The concept of the "population
: bomb" is so imbedded in our thinking that it
: does not occur to us that human population
: growth may end, not because of disaster, but
: because of other natural processes. It is
: happening. The U.S. population will peak by
: 2070 at the latest, most likely by 2050, and
: perhaps even as early as 2025. Why? Birth
: rates are falling all over the world, including
: the U.S. It takes a birth rate (technically a
: "fertility rate") of 2.1 children per woman to
: maintain a steady state in the population. All
: of the former Soviet Union, all of Western
: Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, and now the
: U.S. have birth rates below replacement.
: (Japan’s population will begin to decline in
: 2005, while Russia declined by 10 million in the
: past ten years.) The birth rate in the U.S. is
: 2.08, Canada is 1.52, and Mexico has fallen from
: 7 to 2.9 in the past two decades. All countries
: in the world, save four, have seen declines in
: birth rates since 1980. Explanation? Improved
: communication, thus better information about
: family planning, global economic development and
: the economic emancipation of women, and improved
: global health care all work together.

: The bottom line: The U.S. population will peak
: at no more than 430 million, and will possibly
: peak at more like 325-350 million. Thus, on the
: realistic planning horizon is the prospect that
: communities will achieve their maximum size, and
: then begin a gradual decline.


http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/poptrends_transportation.htm

Stick it in your ear, Polewka.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
zerge
2004-08-12 18:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
We do not have birth control problems in Mexico.
Mexico: 2.53 children born/woman
That is a tragically, devastatingly high birth rate;
far above the replacement level, and guarantees your
already overcrowded nation an ever increasing
imbalance between mouths and food.
LOL you exaggerate my friend. Tragical? DEVASTATING? No. Just slightly
above replacement level. And we'll get there soon enough.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9907/28/mexico.population/
Post by zerge
United States: 2.07 children born/woman
: VITAL STATISTICS 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002
: Total fertility rate(*) 2,081 1,978 2,056 2,034 2,013
: (*) The number of births that 1,000 women would have
: in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they
: experienced the birth rates occurring in the
: specified year.
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part1.html
Which is _below_ the usually accepted replacement
level of 2,100. The higher birth-rates after the
1995 minimum are usually attributed to the higher
fecundity of the rapidly growing immigrant
population, while the native-born birthrate
continues to fall.
Oh, my source was off. Thanks for the correction.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Birth control is readily available in pharmacies,
and free of charge in government hospitals.
And officially anathema according to the Roman
Catholic Church to which most of your country's
population owes allegience, thus the continuing
higher than replacement level birth rate.
LOL you STILL believe that most Mexicans rule their lives based on
what the Pope says? :)
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Our population does not "overflow" into the US
because of overpopulation.
Sorry, but yes, it does. Your country's population
exceeds the resources to support that population,
the resources of the USA are much more abundant per
person, and the many living in lack in Mexico find
relocating to the US attractive to the point of
risking their lives to accomplish it.
Nope. It does NOT overflow because of overpopulation. We could have a
population of 20 million, and you would STILL see illegal immigration.
It has NOTHING to do with resources, and EVERYTHING to do with
productivity. The US is much more productive than Mexico. Thus, hourly
salaries are on average superior in the US. Thus, unskilled workers in
Mexico can sell their hourly labor higher in the US than Mexico. Then
they proceed to send most of the dollars back home. They get to earn
dollars, and spend pesos.
Learn economics. Use your brain. Analyze things beyond commonly held
factoids.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Rather, we have a large % of [y]our population still
living in rural areas, something like 25-30%. In
Mexico there is something like 100,000 (yes one
hundre[d] thousand) small villages with a
population of <2000. Most developed countries have
a rural population of less than 5%.
Yes, but that doesn't make having a large rural
population wrong or poverty-inducing. Given the
existing improvements in communications, much of the
US would work much better if the population were
divided into 300,000 rural communities than the ugly
mega-human-heaps that currently contain our
population.
Nope. When population is highly dispersed, market economies of scale
are not achieved, and government services are hard to deliver. If you
live in a tiny village lost in the middle of the sierra, you are far
away from schools, far away from labor markets, product markets,
financial services, telecommunications, logistics, etc etc.
I agree that our current mega-human-heaps are ugly. But the world
would be better with pretty, well designed mega-human-heaps, than tiny
communities spread all over the place. Simple economics.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
All those villages are far from markets, and far
from government services. This perpetuates their
poverty. Most illegal immigrants come from these
poor rural areas.
Neither access to "markets" nor to "government
services" are particularly related to a village's
ability to support itself. If you only measure
"poverty" by "cash income", you miss the point that
many of these peoples supported themselves quite
nicely for thousands of years without a cash
economy, and are still able to do so, creating all
necessities of life locally.
Oh man, what bs! I see you have never been to a poor area. Sure. They
may have enough food from their little farms. But they have little
water, no drainage, no electricity, no doctors, no medicine, and
crappy houses. You need to travel more.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
One of Mexico's greatest unrecognized problems is
the lack of urbanization of its population.
Well, no, quite the opposite.
Mexico City is one of the well-known sewers of the
world,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/mexenv.html
and an object lesson in over-urbanization run amok,
with its encircling camps of homeless garbage
scavengers.
Mexico City holds 20 million people. It is a country in itself. Mexico
City has the most beautiful neighborhoods, and the most ugly "camps",
as you call them. It is a city full of culture, beautiful museums, and
fine dining. It is also a city with areas plagued by violent crime. It
is the city with the highest GDP/capita in the country. It is the city
with the greatest number of college graduates also.
So you cannot take the mental construct called "Mexico City" and apply
the simple-minded label "sewer". Doing that only evidences your mental
simplicity.

Anyhow, I didn't say we needed to urbanize rural areas by bringing
population INTO Mexico City, did I? There are PLENTY of middle sized
cities in Mexico that could easily absorb this population.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
In many ways, Mexico continues to be a class
society where inequality is one of its primary
characteristics and where barriers and
delineation are particularly acute for young
people. A small percentage, the privileged
classes, find access to the best schools and
post-secondary training abroad. For the rest of
the population opportunities are severely
restricted. For instance, the average length of
schooling for the population over the age of 25
is under five years. Extreme misery exists in
the large metropolises. The homeless, destitute,
street children and garbage and food scavengers,
many of them young men and women, epitomize the
growing disparity between rich and poor and are
a daily reminder of the difficulties facing
young people in Mexico.
http://www.ashoka.org/fellows/viewprofile3.cfm?reid=96725
The very last thing Mexico needs is to increase
urbanization, and exacerbate its part in the tragedy
of many similarly impoverished countries, caused by
drawing a rural population to cities that have no
jobs or other resources to support them, but where
the increased population concentration leads to
increased misery and strife.
I didn't say we should MINDLESSLY urbanize, did I? Do you think the
Mexican government can just arrive with trucks to the villages and
haul people away to the big cities?? :)
Of course not! The IDEA is to create job opportunities in mid sized
cities, and then CATALIZE the migration, provinding villagers with
schooling opportunities in those cities, and providing local companies
with finances for expansion, etc. There are plans to do exactly this.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
http://www.google.com/search?q=rural.flight+poverty
Post by zerge
I invite you to update your knowledge about my
country.
And I invite you to stop living in denial.
Patriotism is fine, jingoism is a disease.
Where was I jingoist?? An AMERICAN talking about jingoism! THAT'S
rich! :)
WHAT denial? Did I say Mexico does not have a severe problem with
poverty?

My main point is this: most people, American and Mexican alike,
DO-NOT-UNDERSTAND-ECONOMICS. They think they understand the
cause-and-effect that creates, or fixes poverty. Most do not.
Including you. But hey, it's not your fault. Economics is hard. You
just THINK it's easy.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Total_Fertility_Rate_dall.htm
xanthian.
: The impending peak of the U.S. population
: This is the shocker. The U.S. population is 290
: million and growing. It is common to assume
: that we will double in size this century. But
: we will not. The concept of the "population
: bomb" is so imbedded in our thinking that it
: does not occur to us that human population
: growth may end, not because of disaster, but
: because of other natural processes. It is
: happening. The U.S. population will peak by
: 2070 at the latest, most likely by 2050, and
: perhaps even as early as 2025. Why? Birth
: rates are falling all over the world, including
: the U.S. It takes a birth rate (technically a
: "fertility rate") of 2.1 children per woman to
: maintain a steady state in the population. All
: of the former Soviet Union, all of Western
: Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, and now the
: U.S. have birth rates below replacement.
: (Japan?s population will begin to decline in
: 2005, while Russia declined by 10 million in the
: past ten years.) The birth rate in the U.S. is
: 2.08, Canada is 1.52, and Mexico has fallen from
: 7 to 2.9 in the past two decades. All countries
: in the world, save four, have seen declines in
: birth rates since 1980. Explanation? Improved
: communication, thus better information about
: family planning, global economic development and
: the economic emancipation of women, and improved
: global health care all work together.
: The bottom line: The U.S. population will peak
: at no more than 430 million, and will possibly
: peak at more like 325-350 million. Thus, on the
: realistic planning horizon is the prospect that
: communities will achieve their maximum size, and
: then begin a gradual decline.
http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/poptrends_transportation.htm
Stick it in your ear, Polewka.
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-08-12 20:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by zerge
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Mexico: 2.53 children born/woman
That is a tragically, devastatingly high birth
rate; far above the replacement level, and
guarantees your already overcrowded nation an
ever increasing imbalance between mouths and
food.
LOL you exaggerate my friend.
Do I? Or is it perhaps the situation that you don't
have the gut understanding of compound interest that
a math major does?

Removing the 2.1 for "replacement" leaves a .43
surplus; normalizing back to a unit base gives .215;
putting the unit back in place gives 1.215. Now
let's look at the results:

generations population ratio

0 1
1 1.215
2 1.476
3 1.794
4 2.179
5 2.648
6 3.217

With the Mexican custom of marrying in the teens,
that's roughly one century, and the population has
already more than TRIPLED. That's a _tragically
high_ reproduction rate, no exaggeration at all.

All the bailing you do to solve economic problems
without first solving that one overwhelming cause
of those economic problems will still leave your
ship of state sunk when all the bucket handlers
drop dead of exhaustion.

It's hard to do "economics" when you don't have
the math sense to recognize *that* problem _by
instinct_, as the driving force in your economic
mess, because all your instincts are then
incorrect, and you pursue "solutions" that don't
address "the problem" at all, and live in denial
that it even _is_ a problem, as in this interchange.
Post by zerge
Nope. When population is highly dispersed, market
economies of scale are not achieved,
You are, I see, innumerate. With 300,000 rural
centers in the US (stick to the continental US to
simplify the math), that puts a center every mile,
east-west, and every ten miles, north-south, or
on a grid with 3.1 mile centers if spread out
evenly. That is hardly an insurmountable barrier to
trade; human drawn handcarts can cover distances
that small easily in a couple of hours.

"Market economies of scale" stopped working, at
least in the US, at least 50 years ago. Now, most
of the job creation happens in the "small business"
sector while the unmanageable behemoth businesses
waste their time alternating between buyouts and
bankruptcies, never able to focus long enough to
matter on the essentials of productivity.
Post by zerge
and government services are hard to deliver.
Lose the focus on bailing out the structural poverty
with government services, and your thinking will
clarify wonderfully.

We've been through the "markets", "government
services" bit once already. You were wrong the first
time, you remain wrong now, you will remain wrong no
matter how many times you repeat yourself.
Post by zerge
[...] the world would be better with pretty, well
designed mega-human-heaps,
Too bad there are no existing examples to suggest
that humankind is capable of such wonders.
Post by zerge
than tiny communities spread all over the place.
You live in a dream world. I live two miles away
from the nearest city, a city with one of the
highest violent crime rates in America. I not only
never lock my doors, I never even bother to close
them, even when going away for days at a time. That
small amount of separation changes my life
completely from the lives of the city dwellers.

"Urbanism" in and of itself is a dehumanizing idea.
Post by zerge
Simple economics.
Replace "simple" with "simple minded", and we agree.

You suffer from the mental illness of a "one simple
solution to a slew of complicated problems, grasped
with bulldog determination" syndrome. There's a lot
of that on Usenet, just as there's a lot of that out
in the real world.

Hint: simple solutions to complex problems, as a
general thing, don't work.
Post by zerge
I see you have never been to a poor area.
I've spent years living in ghettos, years living
homeless and raiding dumpsters, it is you who lack
any ground truth. It happens I've been to Mexico
many times on business as well, granted only to a
few of your cities, and seen at least some of the
problems there first hand.
Post by zerge
Sure. They may have enough food from their little
farms. But they have little water, no drainage, no
electricity, no doctors, no medicine, and crappy
houses.
None of which kept them from surviving quite nicely
for thousands of years. The problem is in your
perceptions of their lives, not in their lives.

It would do you good to realize that your metric
doesn't work to measure other people's happiness,
only your own.
Post by zerge
You need to travel more.
I've travelled from Hong Kong, where over
urbanization led to twenty story apartment buildings
surrounded two stories deep in garbage, to Senegal,
where over urbanization led to a population 10% of
which sleeps each night on a sidewalk. Perhaps it is
you who should get out more.
Post by zerge
So you cannot take the mental construct called
"Mexico City" and apply the simple-minded label
"sewer".
All the amenities you mention don't make the air
breathable, or the garbage scavengers less poor or
less numerous.

"Sewer" is an exactly appropriate label, and
precisely reflects the world's opinion of the mess
you have made of your capital city.

Cope.
Post by zerge
Doing that only evidences your mental simplicity.
"Mental simplicity" is your "urbanization is the
cure" thinking. I gave you links to "rural flight"
and "poverty", did you bother to read them? You
have had the information you need to be able to
think coherently laid in front of you. Use it or be
ridiculed, your choice.
Post by zerge
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
http://www.google.com/search?q=rural.flight+poverty
There are PLENTY of middle sized cities in Mexico
that could easily absorb this population.
The problem of depopulating the countryside to
produce a multi-generational urban poor is well
known world wide. It doesn't require that the
biggest city in a nation be the target, for the
problem to evidence itself. However, it is the
normal case that the idiocy of over-urbanization
shows itself _first_ in each country's largest city.

In the case of the US, _most_ of our large cities
are object lessons in why _not_ to create large
cities.
Post by zerge
I didn't say we should MINDLESSLY urbanize, did I?
You promote urbanization as the sole cure for
Mexico's economic problems, and for the illegal
immigration from Mexico to the US. I call that
mindless, yes, especially as urbanization is well
known to lead to much worse problems.

If you want to "solve Mexico's poverty problem",
start with those Mexico City garbage scavengers. If
you cannot invent and implement the means to bring
them into the middle class, you are going to play
bloody hell making other man-heaps work, so would be
well advised not to create them in the first place.

The problems of your 100,000 isolated(*) villages
can be better fixed in situ than by depopulating
them in pursuit of some fantasy of urban bliss that
has never occurred anywhere in the world and never
will.
Post by zerge
Where was I jingoist?? An AMERICAN talking about
jingoism! THAT'S rich! :)
And that's an example of your offensive jingoism.
Post by zerge
My main point is this: most people, American and
Mexican alike, DO-NOT-UNDERSTAND-ECONOMICS. They
think they understand the cause-and-effect that
creates, or fixes poverty. Most do not. Including
you. But hey, it's not your fault. Economics is
hard. You just THINK it's easy.
I don't suffer, as you do, from the delusion that
economic problems are so easy a "one size fits all"
solution will ever work, least of all one proved
such an abysmal failure in too many real life tests
world wide, and never showing a speck of success
anywhere.

Your delusion that you understand the cause and
effect that creates or fixes poverty gets in the way
of your learning enough economics to make an
intelligent contribution. You can change that
thinking or not, I'm not going to pretend to care
either way.

I cannot claim to be a professor of economics, but I
did get A grades in the few economics classes I took,
and as a math major, I'm well capable of working the
numbers. You, on the other hand, seem to put wishful
thinking far ahead of harsh reality and the lessons
of history, and to have no grasp of numbers at all.

The harsh reality: what you propose won't work; the
math doesn't work.

Population control will work; that math _does_ work.

End of argument.

Cope.

xanthian.

(*) Notice that by the same math as for the US,
100,000 villages _cannot_, in any meaningful
sense, be _on average_ "isolated" in a land mass the
area of Mexico. "Isolated" would be more than a
day's walk apart, and there just isn't room to do
that. In Mexico's almost two million square
kilometers, spreading them evenly would put them on
a grid with 4.44 kilometer centers. I can walk that
far in less than an hour, and I'm 60 years old and
not in good physical condition.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
zerge
2004-08-13 17:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Mexico: 2.53 children born/woman
That is a tragically, devastatingly high birth
rate; far above the replacement level, and
guarantees your already overcrowded nation an
ever increasing imbalance between mouths and
food.
LOL you exaggerate my friend.
Do I? Or is it perhaps the situation that you don't
have the gut understanding of compound interest that
a math major does?
Removing the 2.1 for "replacement" leaves a .43
surplus; normalizing back to a unit base gives .215;
putting the unit back in place gives 1.215. Now
generations population ratio
0 1
1 1.215
2 1.476
3 1.794
4 2.179
5 2.648
6 3.217
Did you take into consideration the rate at which the fertility rate
is diminishing? No you did not. Hence, your calculations are
meaningless.


[snip all the irrelevant nonsense]
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
You promote urbanization as the sole cure for
Mexico's economic problems, and for the illegal
immigration from Mexico to the US. I call that
mindless, yes, especially as urbanization is well
known to lead to much worse problems.
Oh, do I? Where? Did I explicitly SAID that urbanization is the sole
cure? No I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
If you want to "solve Mexico's poverty problem",
start with those Mexico City garbage scavengers. If
you cannot invent and implement the means to bring
them into the middle class, you are going to play
bloody hell making other man-heaps work, so would be
well advised not to create them in the first place.
Of course! Big DUH! for me! Bring the garbage scavengers into the
MIDDLE CLASS! Why didn't I ever THINK of that!
Tell me my gringo friend, how do YOU plan to bring 35 million
Americans living under the poverty line in your country into YOUR
middle class? I mean, there's GOTTA be an easy answer out there,
right? :)
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
The problems of your 100,000 isolated(*) villages
can be better fixed in situ than by depopulating
them in pursuit of some fantasy of urban bliss that
has never occurred anywhere in the world and never
will.
No it cannot.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
Where was I jingoist?? An AMERICAN talking about
jingoism! THAT'S rich! :)
And that's an example of your offensive jingoism.
No, this is an example of my offensive mordacity. I'm not a fanatical
nationalist.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by zerge
My main point is this: most people, American and
Mexican alike, DO-NOT-UNDERSTAND-ECONOMICS. They
think they understand the cause-and-effect that
creates, or fixes poverty. Most do not. Including
you. But hey, it's not your fault. Economics is
hard. You just THINK it's easy.
I don't suffer, as you do, from the delusion that
economic problems are so easy a "one size fits all"
solution will ever work, least of all one proved
such an abysmal failure in too many real life tests
world wide, and never showing a speck of success
anywhere.
Did I not just say that Economics is hard? You seem to have a reading
comprehension problem buddy.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Your delusion that you understand the cause and
effect that creates or fixes poverty gets in the way
of your learning enough economics to make an
intelligent contribution. You can change that
thinking or not, I'm not going to pretend to care
either way.
You see poor Mexicans steaming out of Mexico, and your only conclusion
is that we have an OVERPOPULATION problem??
You think that the wealth of a nation depends on NATURAL RESOURCES??
Go check on the Japanese, buddy!
These two lines of thought of yours are enough evidence that your
understanding of economic cause-and-effect is poor. Period.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
I cannot claim to be a professor of economics, but I
did get A grades in the few economics classes I took,
and as a math major, I'm well capable of working the
numbers. You, on the other hand, seem to put wishful
thinking far ahead of harsh reality and the lessons
of history, and to have no grasp of numbers at all.
Well mister math major, I'm a physics major AND economics major! Beat
you! LOL
Your math is fucked up up there where you forgot to take into
consideration the rate of reduction of the fertility rate in Mexico.
Go do some research.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
The harsh reality: what you propose won't work; the
math doesn't work.
Population control will work; that math _does_ work.
So you say that we stay at 104 million in Mexico, eventually we will
all be rich?? LOL.
End or argument INDEED.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
End of argument.
Cope.
xanthian.
(*) Notice that by the same math as for the US,
100,000 villages _cannot_, in any meaningful
sense, be _on average_ "isolated" in a land mass the
area of Mexico. "Isolated" would be more than a
day's walk apart, and there just isn't room to do
that. In Mexico's almost two million square
kilometers, spreading them evenly would put them on
a grid with 4.44 kilometer centers. I can walk that
far in less than an hour, and I'm 60 years old and
not in good physical condition.
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-08-10 17:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Why do you have to be so greedy regarding
longevity? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins!
You keep whining this same pointless drone, David,
yet won't ever answer when asked why you don't
declare your useless and miserable self "surplus"
and remove _yourself_ from the longevity struggle,
since you think so little of it.

Let's trot out all _seven_ of those "deadly sin"
puppies and see how you rank:

Pride is excessive belief in one's own
abilities, that interferes with the individual's
recognition of the grace of God. It has been
called the sin from which all others arise.
Pride is also known as Vanity.

And there's one David James Polewka, thinking he is
smarter than God, and so should be allowed to visit
the plagues once again upon humankind. You suffer
from too much pride, I think, David.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status,
abilities, or situation.

And there's one David James Polewka, envious of his
dad's spending the inheritance David thinks is
David's before his dad is dead, on that dad's health
care. Envy is not pretty, David.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more
than that which one requires.

And there's one David James Polewka, frankly
admitting his income covers all his needs, yet
consumed by the desire to consume more, and so
trying to get the government to help him sicken all
the elderly, in hopes his dad will die sooner.
Your gluttony's not that attractive when spelled
out, is it David?

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures
of the body.

Brain burned by alcohol, one must assume David is
already paying the price of lust for the bodily
pleasure of being constantly drunk.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns
love and opts instead for fury. It is also known
as Wrath.

Anger? David, anger is all you ever bring here,
anger at government, anger at innocent children,
anger at the elderly, anger at your past, anger at
your present, anger at your reception.

Lose the anger, David.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain,
ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also
called Avarice or Covetousness.

That would be one David James Polewka, trying to
murder off the elderly, and specifically his dad, to
increase his share of the material things of life.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual
work.

Work for a living, David, don't try to steal one
from your dad. Sloth is not one of your prettier
aspects either.

So, David James Polewka, once more. If you think the
excess population problem needs solving, start with
that brain damaged and worthless carcass you
inhabit, and leave the rest of the planet alone.

Since you score seven out of seven on "deadly sins",
you must agree you should be the first to go.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
David James Polewka
2004-08-10 18:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Why do you have to be so greedy regarding
longevity? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins!
You keep whining this same pointless drone, David,
The sheer size of our population is why we have to be entangled
in Middle East affairs to keep the oil flowing. That involvement is
the direct cause of anti-U.S. terrorism.

Give us your solution to the problem.


=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
David James Polewka
2004-08-11 22:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Why do you have to be so greedy regarding
longevity? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins!
You keep whining this same pointless drone, David,
yet won't ever answer when asked why you don't
declare your useless and miserable self "surplus"
and remove _yourself_ from the longevity struggle,
since you think so little of it.
I'm employed, unlike you, and have been since
age 16. I'm NOT useless, miserable OR "surplus"!
I don't "think so little" of the "longevity struggle."
I take everything into account at the same time,
unlike you, and arrive at the truth, which is that
we need limited government and limited longevity
everywhere.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Let's trot out all _seven_ of those "deadly sin"
Pride is excessive belief in one's own
abilities, that interferes with the individual's
recognition of the grace of God. It has been
called the sin from which all others arise.
Pride is also known as Vanity.
And there's one David James Polewka, thinking he is
smarter than God, and so should be allowed to visit
the plagues once again upon humankind. You suffer
from too much pride, I think, David.
There is no God. Remember?
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status,
abilities, or situation.
And there's one David James Polewka, envious of his
dad's spending the inheritance David thinks is
David's before his dad is dead, on that dad's health
care. Envy is not pretty, David.
My dad gives me thousands of dollars in cash or
securities every year. The longer he lives the more
I get, and the less Uncle Sam gets in inheritance taxes.
Your read on my motives is way off.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more
than that which one requires.
And there's one David James Polewka, frankly
admitting his income covers all his needs, yet
consumed by the desire to consume more, and so
trying to get the government to help him sicken all
the elderly, in hopes his dad will die sooner.
Your gluttony's not that attractive when spelled
out, is it David?
The sheer size of our population is why we have to be entangled
in Middle East affairs to keep the oil flowing. That involvement is
the direct cause of anti-U.S. terrorism.

Give us your solution to the problem.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures
of the body.
Brain burned by alcohol, one must assume David is
already paying the price of lust for the bodily
pleasure of being constantly drunk.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/q-a.htm#question2
Q #2: Is alcoholism a disease?

Yes, alcoholism is a disease. The craving that an alcoholic feels for
alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water. An alcoholic
will continue to drink despite serious family, health, or legal
problems.

Like many other diseases, alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a
person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has
symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a
person's genes and by his or her lifestyle.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns
love and opts instead for fury. It is also known
as Wrath.
Anger? David, anger is all you ever bring here,
anger at government, anger at innocent children,
anger at the elderly, anger at your past, anger at
your present, anger at your reception.
Lose the anger, David.
Anger is rooted in fear. Fear is lack of faith.
You're the one who has no faith.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain,
ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also
called Avarice or Covetousness.
That would be one David James Polewka, trying to
murder off the elderly, and specifically his dad, to
increase his share of the material things of life.
See above.
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual
work.
Work for a living, David, don't try to steal one
from your dad. Sloth is not one of your prettier
aspects either.
You're the one without a job. Didja fergit? (he forgot)
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
So, David James Polewka, once more. If you think the
excess population problem needs solving, start with
that brain damaged and worthless carcass you
inhabit, and leave the rest of the planet alone.
Since you score seven out of seven on "deadly sins",
you must agree you should be the first to go.
Since you support the status quo, you need to get
yer ass to the Middle East and fight the good fight
to keep the oil flowing, at any cost!


=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-08-12 00:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David James Polewka
Give us your solution to the problem.
I did, but you have still failed to act on that
solution, instead making excuses why your miserable
life is so much more important than that of all the
people whose deaths you wish to cause.

Clue: it isn't.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-08-12 01:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David James Polewka
Your read on my motives is way off.
Oh?

Then you deny writing these words? Funny how Google
thinks otherwise.

=> The artificial prolongation of life, regardless
=> of disability or suffering, contributes to the
=> growing gap between rich and poor. Stopping the
=> suppression of SARS and influenza would remedy
=> the problem by bringing more lives to a merciful
=> end and keeping a greater percentage of their
=> estate in the family.

=> My Dad suffers from diabetes, arthritis,
=> depression, high blood pressure, a botched
=> hernia operation, compulsive overeating,
=> complications of a hip replacement, and now a
=> fractured, dislocated humerus from inability to
=> walk steadily (with a steady diet of prozac,
=> lithium, etc).

=> There's plenty of justification for unleashing
=> SARS and new flus.

=> "Misanthropic" is your negative spin-doctoring.
=> Keeping more of a family's estate in the family,
=> and limiting the suffering of old age is not
=> misanthropic.

=> More and more of the elderly are saying "we're
=> living too long."

=> Everyone gets killed off. It's just a question
=> of when. Right now we're fighting wars to get
=> resources so geezers can rock and spit, passing
=> their estate to doctors and others instead of
=> their families, thus widening the gap between
=> rich and poor. It's long-term dumb management.

Or maybe I'm conveying your motives _exactly_
correctly, based on _your own arguments_, you
pathetically inept liar.

xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kent Paul Dolan
2004-08-12 17:40:20 UTC
Permalink
you pathetically inept liar.
Gotten really quiet from Chapel Hill since I
published proof in his own words that Polewka
is lying about not wanting to off all the aged
just to get his hands on his dad's estate.

I wonder if he's been busy all this time posting
cancellations of those articles in hopes he can
claim he never wrote them, not realizing that the
holes that would leave in the thread from which
they were removed would be an even bigger proof
of his dishonesty than the words themselves?

Inquiring minds are too lazy to go check.

xanthian, biker bum gonna-be.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
The City of Defensive Illusion
2004-08-12 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Paul Dolan
Post by David James Polewka
Your read on my motives is way off.
Oh?
Then you deny writing these words? Funny how Google
thinks otherwise.
=> Everyone gets killed off. It's just a question
=> of when. Right now we're fighting wars to get
=> resources so geezers can rock and spit, passing
=> their estate to doctors and others instead of
=> their families, thus widening the gap between
=> rich and poor. It's long-term dumb management.
Or maybe I'm conveying your motives _exactly_
correctly, based on _your own arguments_, you
pathetically inept liar.
C'mon, can't we all get along? Am I to believe that the lesson of 65
odd years of life is to unstoppingly attack one's fellow usenet
poster?

A
l***@yahoo.com
2004-12-13 04:24:31 UTC
Permalink
See also:
"The Future of Human Health and Longevity"
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.125.html
and
"Unraveling the Secrets of Human Longevity"
http://longevity-science.org/
i***@mindspring.com
2004-12-13 08:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"The Future of Human Health and Longevity"
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.125.html
and
"Unraveling the Secrets of Human Longevity"
http://longevity-science.org/
Can you tell us how prolonging lives will
defuse global terrorism? Can you tell us how
prolonging lives will enable us to get the
hell outta the Middle East? Didn't think so!
You're not qualified to speak on general topics!
Go back to Bratsk, and take Flounder with you!@!!

Leonid A. Gavrilov
Areas of Specialization:
Biodemography of Human Longevity/ Analysis of Human Mortality and Aging

Mathematical Modeling of Aging and Mortality
Genetics of Aging and Longevity

--

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...