From: steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: alt.california
Subject: Re: relocation
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:53:00 GMT
Organization: Don Steiny Software

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:

>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.

	Hey, you recommended I take an elementry political science class,
now you are saying it it mental masterbation.    

>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.

	BTW, who is "Reagen" anyway?   I thought we were talking about Ronald
Reagan, the former president.   But now I am not sure.   I know of none
of be above.   Everytime some goes on about how Reagan did this
or Reagan did that I am reminded of the Doonesburry cartoon, it was a
picture of the White House.   The first frame was someone saying that he
ran up the dept so congress could not increase spending on social programs.
The final frame was "I am I that smart?"   

>>	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?  

	??? What does this have to do with Reagan's motives?   Do you
have a belief that goverments are somehow infaliable.   Even thought the
coordinated exchange rate are not working the reserve banks are not abandoning
their committment to holding down inflation.  

>>>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.

	This does not compute, because as an extremely high paid software
subcontractor I do not work for anyone, I have an incredibly intersting
and varied job and I would not want to do either.   All of my close friends
are also service providers, software, teaching, law, etc.   In fact as
I have gone from simply writing programs to teaching people how to write
programs, something even less like manufacturing, I have been making more 
money.   In my opinion, providing services is wonderful work.

>>	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.

	Well, EXCUZE ME!   My mind reader broke again.  Since I have have a 
service job I had no idea that I was not supposed to count it for some, as 
yet unmentioned reason.   As for EDS and Perot.   He would buy computers,
install them, buy software, install it, train people how to use it.
What has he manufactured?   What about lawyers?   What about teachers?

	It might seem like picking nits, but if it were true that in the
world of the future there would be adaquate well paying service jobs, then
there would be reason whatsoever to try to avoid such a future.   

>>  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.

	So don't buy them.    You can buy a nice safe solid American car,
like a Ford Pinto.

>>The internationalization of labor is perhaps also causing job losses.  
>>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. 

	Who died and made you god?   How do you know that putting money
into those things would be good for the economy?   I really do not think
that the reasons I question it is due to a "fascist" attitute.   I like
to consider what I read.   I read that the automobile industry is not
going to grow the way it did in the earlier parts of the century.  There
are not enough new markets.  Makes sense to me.   Why invest in a static
industry?  The Japanese dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into
High Definition TV only to have some US firms develop a superior 
technology and moot all of their efforts.   The French government is dumping 
piles of money into Bull, which makes few things people want to buy.  
Governments blow it. What would happen if a US government sponsered 
effort had been aced by the Japanese?

	Besides that.   Who would get the money?   How would it be distributed?
The military has an incredible system for buying stuff.   In their attempts
to be fair, they have a humongous amount of rules and requirements.  These
rules were developed over decades.   You cannot just wish such things
into being.  No one knew the Soviet Union was going to collapse. How can 
you possibly blame Bush for not planning for that?  

>>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.

	But name one single way that knowing that C D Burdorf calls Bush
a fascist is going to explain anything.   Name a single case when 
knowing where someone is on a political spectrum is any more that, as you
so elegently put it "mental masterbation."  

>>	Patronizing?  Elistist?   Huh?   You seem to have a habit of 
>>calling people names using words you do not fully understand how to use.  
>>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.  

	Sorry, the sentence does not compute.   In fact, I would suggest
that it adds further evidence that you do not know how to use the words.

>>
>>	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.

	Reality?   I am trying to make it look like your position is 
absolutist, which is unsupportable.

	And BTW, I think trying to place the Economist on a right to left
spectrum is not too easy, you mentioned it was "right-wing"   Am I to
take it that you consider that legalizing drugs, supporting Bill Clinton, 
and switching from income tax to energy tax, are right wing?    Perhaps
we took different Introduction to Political Science classes.   I always
heard that the democrats were "left."   I have read many articles in
the Economist supporting Bill Clinton.   

>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 tempting to just toss this off by pointing out some instances
where the government's attempts to do things for the "good of all" have 
badly misfired, like the war on drugs.  But I will get into a less obvious
example.   Housing.

	First off, the federal government's attempts to help the poor with
housing have not been too successful.    When they directly intervened the
places they build became incredibly crime ridden and delapated.  They did
this in San Francisco, Chicago, many places.   Often in the US "the projects"
means "the slums."   

	But according to the Economist the US spends an order or two of
magnitude as much subsidising the housing of the better off.   
How?   Home mortgage iterest income tax deductions.   
But just have a casual discussion with any of the home owners at your
place of business what they think about doing away with that.  

	But while you could call this "greed" it is part of the system.  
Most of us factor the tax deduction into the decision as to how much we
can afford to pay for a house.  If that were to go away, far fewer people
could buy houses, and it is already hard for most people.   In many 
areas of the country construction is the biggest industry.  In a sense
the home interest mortage deduction is method of resdistributing wealth.
In California, residents also voted to keep their propertery taxes low
and made it difficult to raise them.   Since property taxes pay for schools,
roads, and other infrastructure, the money for infrastructure started 
coming from the state.   With the recession in California, the state tax
revenues decreased and now they do not have money for infrastructure.
But though there were leaders, it was THE PEOPLE that voted to lower their
taxes (by a large majority).   Given a choice, the beneficiaries of the
home interest tax deduction do NOT want to give it to their communities.

>> 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.

	Maybe, but if the Japanese can use the global labor pool and we 
can't we cannot compete with them globally.    The US is only getting
bigger slowely, new markets in the former Soviet Union, Eastern 
Europe, and Latin America are going to be opening up in the next few
decades.    The economics of the situation have little to do with what
may be "right" or "good."

>>   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.

	But that is not the issue.   If a company does not sell things it
does not make money and therefore it can't hire anyone.   If they cannot
hire anyone it will increase unemployment, not lower it.   

>>  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.

	Oh, I do not know how many scientists and engineers are out in
the streets.   I will ask the street people next time I am in town how
many of them are scientist and engineers.   Besides, if there are jobs
in domestic industry for them to take, they can just take them without
government help, or at least minimual government help.  Why should the
government do anything?

>>	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.

	Attitudes are subjective.   You explain things people do by 
assuming that they have attitudes that cause them to do it.   You can
only guess at their attitudes by seeing what they do.   I do not think
that explaining things is only criteria for usefulness in talking
about mental things like attitudes.   It is important to be able to 
predict too.  You say that Bush is a fascist.  What is that going to
tell me about what he is going to do? 

-don
-- 
Don Steiny
Don Steiny Software
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 425-0382