From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)
Newsgroups: alt.california
Subject: Re: relocation
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:47:52 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny) writes:
>mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>
>>but don't want to admit it.  
>
>	Your statement is presented as a statement of fact, but it seems
>very ignorant to me.   People approach the issue of the meaning of words
>who have little interest in politics.  I have a friend that got a scholarship
>to Queens at Oxford because if his exceptional work in Political Science 
>and his main area of inquiry was Wittgenstein.  

Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

> In fact, I have a book
>right here on my shelf called "Wittgenstein and Justice" by Hanna Pitkin.
>It is about applying Wittgenstein's work to political science.  The 
>question of what words refer to concerns most philosophers these days.
>The most widely held theory is that they do not refer to anything.   
>

I guess that explains why the rest of the world has such low regard
for philosophers these days.  It sounds like mental masturbation to me.

>	But why bother?    If you call Reagan a fascist, or you call Reagan
>a socialist, what have you done?   Nothing.   You are just being a trained
>pigeon. 
>

That's your opinion and you can think whatever you want.  Nonetheless,
I have given you evidence to support that Reagen and Bush used
slogans, have used economics to enforce social regimentation, and
have been dictatorial in the way that they have subverted the
system of checks and balances.  Therefore they meet several
of the standards which makes one a fascist.

Newsgroups: alt.california
Subject: Re: relocation
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK
Keywords: 

In the referenced article, steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny) writes:
>mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>
>>In the referenced article, steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny) writes:
>>>mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>>>

>>He had a chance to get rid of Paul Volker, but he reappointed him.
>>It was a rubber stamp approval of high interest rates.  
>
>	That is not what you said in the first place, you can see that
>what you wrote is a factual misstatement.   I cannot read your mind.

I'm sorry, but I think you're nitpicking.  I say that Reagen was
responsible for high interest rates, because he reappointed 
Paul Volker who brought interest rates up in the first place
and kept them there. I therefore hold Regean responsible.

>
>	You might not be aware that international cooperation in exchange rates
>has been growing for some time.   Having an independent Federal Reserve
>system is considered good policy by one and all.   I do not know for sure
>why Reagan did it.   I can think of other plausable reasons.    Besides,
>are arguing that Volker did the wrong thing?

Yeah well have you been following  what's been going on in the European
Exchange Mechanism?  So-called international cooperation of exchange
rates doesn't work.  I think Volker did the wrong thing.  Double-digit
inflation is a problem, but one that could have been delt with in a
more gradual way.  Instead interest rates went to 20% and it drove
a lot of businesses under and threw a lot of people out of work.
I see this as a somewhat economic fascism in that the rich got hurt
very little , maybe they had to postpone buying that new Maserati, but
the people at the lower end ended up on the streets.

>
>>When you're out of work or have to take a low-paying service job instead of 
>> a well-paying >manufacturing or professional job, it doesn't matter that 
>>inflation is low.
>
>	Why is that?--You accuse me of making unsupported statements.   This
>statement makes no sense to me.   Inflation hurts everyone.    A decrease
>in the spending power of people on fixed incomes affects the whole economy,
>for instance.  

Well, lets put it this way would you rather flip burgers at McDonalds
or work on an assembly line at GM.

>
>	Besides, there are many high paying service jobs.   Ross Perot, for
>instance, made millions of dollars by providing system integration services
>to the US Government.  

That's not what I mean by service jobs.  Service jobs tend to be in
the food industry, sales, etc.

>  The
>biggest improvements in a while in the US auto industry have been in the 
>last few years as the companies are learning to compete globally.
>

Personally, I don't like small, wimpy, unsafe japanese cars.

>
>	It is very sad.   But I am saying the the reasons you are giving and
>not the reasons you give.   In California, especially in Southern 
>California, the downsizing of the defense industry is causing job losses.
>The internationalization of labor is perhaps also causing job losses.  But 

>I do not think that this is something a politician can do something about.   

I disagree.  Instead of throwing people out of work, there should
have been a program to move workers in the defense industry into
other areas.  Our best scientists and engineers went to the defense industry,
if there was some attempt to move them into the domestic economy doing
things like designing better cars and hifi's and cameras and robotic
assembly lines, the country would benifit.  Instead they are treated
as expendible dead weight and chucked out.  I see this again as a
fascist attitude. 

>I have been maintaining that calling Bush and Reagan "fascists" and blaiming 
>everything them obscures the bigger picture.   

I don't think it obscures anything.  I think that the root cause of
a lot of the problems in the US, violence in the cities, unemployment, etc.
has a lot to do with the fascist tendencies of the people at the top.
I have presented lots of instances.



>	Patronizing?  Elistist?   Huh?   You seem to have a habit of 
>calling people names using words you do not fully understand how to use.  
>I did not say your views are "wrong."  I am philosophically committed
>to relativism at this point in my life.   You are very defensive.
>As for "elitist"--how many of the downtrodden masses have time to 
>read "alt.california" on USENET, anyway?   Who do you think your audience
>is here anyway?  

I know exactly what I'm saying.  I think you are being patronizing
and elitist, because you think you've got all the semantics worked
out, but nothing is that definite.  

>
>>There's BS in the US media  and just because the Wall Street Journal
>>says something doesn't mean its right.
>
>	[The Economist is not the US media.   It is an English
>publication--but what the heck, what with riots and Iraqgates, no one 
>can tell the difference anymore.]

It's British actually, and quite conservative in tone.  My attack
on mainstream media has to do with the fact that it is all supported
by the corporate empires, so it is therefore unlikely to 
print anything that conflicts very radically with it.

>
>	I think this sentence shows our fundemental difference.   If you
>read what I said, I never said that the Wall Street Journal or The
>Economist were "right."   I simply said that there was an alternate 
>point of view with strong arguments to support it.  

I can respect your view.  I just have a problem when you
nitpick at what I have to say and then try and make it look like
I'm totally out of touch with reality.

>
>	The freer movement of goods and capital, changes in the nature of 
>capital, better telecommunications, computer use, ..., all these things have 
>contributed greater internationalization of the market place.   That
>means that if I need someone to put a frozzle-grommet on my widget, then
>to a greater degree, I can look anywhere in the world for that worker.
>I can make my decisions based who is cheapest.   This means that Joe
>Shmoo in Little Rock is competing with people in the rest of the world,
>and in some places, like Mexico. 

Interesting choice of places.  I just think that the US government 
should be more interested in the  good of all its people instead
of just the consumer.

> It is cheaper to live than here so they
>can pay people less.

It's also easier for them to exploit their workers and
pollute the environment without repercussions.

>   It seems that if we restrict the ability of our
>companies in the US to use this global labor pool their labor costs
>will be higher and thus the cost of US goods will be higher. 

Yeah, but the general population is better off if everyone is
working even if the consumer doesn't get the cheapest goods
especially if it is the result of exploitation.

> If they
>cost more, all other things being equal, people will not buy them.  If the 
>companies do not sell their products, then they will not make any money
>thus, handing the industry to foreign interests.   It is a paradoxical 
>situation.  This is an example of an issue for which I do not see a simple
>solution. 


>was a huge job training program.  In addition, money was allocated for
>research, and such things as ARPA and the Internet, which connects us all
>for this discussion, were significantly funded by defense spending.   And
>people did not mind that much because of the cold war.   Now that that
>channel is being drastically reduced it is having a big impact on the 
>economy. There does not seem to be a simple solution to this
>either.  Should the money be funnelled into R&D the way it was done 
>in Japan?  Which industries are to be the recepients of this munificence?
>Which companies?  I am sure everyone has their favorite.   

Well, I don't think its very humane to throw  scientists
and engineers in the defense industry out on the streets.
They should be moved into domestic industry.

>
>	Calling Bush a fascist and blaming everything on him is addressing
>the problem at too high a level to be useful.   It grossly oversimplifies
>things.  So what if he is?  Maybe he beats Barabra?  So what?  What
>effect does that have on the internationalization of the labor pool?
>

One's attitudes can explain their actions.