Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:22:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

>Jobs can't survive unless they produce more than they cost.  Strike
>rules can't change that.  The choice isn't between a pay-cut and
>paradise, it is between a pay-cut and a layoff.
>
>        when you say this, are you including the extravagent saleries
>        of the CE's and other bigshots into the cost of the job,

Either they pay their way, or they're out on the street too.

It isn't that tough to start a biz in the US.  If you whine about biz
practices that are inefficient, but are unwilling to risk your money
to prove it (to the benefit of all), then we know how much faith you
have in your beliefs.  Why should we have any more?

        money?  you mean the stuff that almost pays my rent and my food
        and my school?

>>        it would be an interesting excercise to replace the word "guns"
>>        with the word "drugs" in the above sentence.
>
>That exercise shows that the Demos are at least as clueless as the
>Repubs.
>
>        yer missing the point.

I'm merely pointing out that the point is more general.  We had a
"proof" that the Repubs were clueless on one issue.  Someone suggested
that it applied to another issue; I showed that the argument applied
to the Demos as well.

        maybe i'm still not getting what you're aiming at.

>>        when was the last time you bought art supplies?
>
>The supplies for my art are much more expensive than those for traditional
>fine arts.  Does that mean I'm owed a subsidy?
>
>        may i ask what your art is?

No.

        ok, i won't.

>       the point of my statement was that often artwork sells at prices lower
>       or equal to the price of the materials that are used to produce it.

So?  That doesn't mean that it is worth subsidizing, just that it costs
more than people think it is worth.

        actually, there is a lot of money in art investment.  but the
        money is passed around between investors buying from other
        investors, and not all that much trickles down to the artist
        (for example, the most expensive paintings are generally the
        ones sold early in the artists career, pre-fame, that is).

>replacing them such a horrible thing?
>
>        replacing them isn't a horrible thing.  stripping away half their
>        students and half their funds and leaving the rest to rot is.

Let me make sure I've got this right.  brni thinks that improving the
lot of half the kids is a bad idea because it doesn't improve the lot
of ALL the kids.  Given a choice between letting them ALL rot and
letting only half of them rot, brni choses ALL.  That's an interesting
value system.

        nope.  you don't have it right.  helping half the students and
        leaving the rest where they are isn't bad.  however, helping
        half the students at the *expense* of the other half IS bad
        (because it is harmful), and does not really address the real
        problems that are going on in the system.  its just another
        bandaid.  just another feelgood thing that ends up just
        screwing the people at the bottom a little harder and a little
        deeper, contributing to the conditions that have created places
        like north philadelphia, to name but one such place.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

        brni