From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the
              "rivet-heads"
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:15:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>>And, could be reasonably disputed.  O'Andy has claimed that there's a
>>huge benefit, so let's see the argument.
>
>You've seen the argument before so I'll reduce it here.
>
>Putting more money in the hands of the middle class stimulates
>important sectors of the economy like housing, autos and retail
>(among others). Concentrating money in the hands of the top 1%
>does not stimulate the "mass consumption" end of the economy
>except through the extra availability of consumer credit.

That analysis assumes that demand is the problem.  If supply is the
problem, that approach merely leads to inflation.  Even Democrats have
figured out that investment is important, although they haven't yet
figured out that govt spending isn't necessarily investment.

>>And, if there's a
>>significant social benefit, shouldn't society pay for it?
>
>Ok andy, so if corporations provide a benefit to society (jobs) then
>society should subsidize corporations, and if it would benefit
>society for workers to earn more then society should subsidize the
>corporations some extra, right? So you don't mind if your taxes
>go way up for this extra benefit right?

A careful reader will note that O'Andy is now trying to attribute an
absurd-to-him version of his position to me.

O'Andy thinks that workers should be paid more than supply/demand
suggests and wants "someone else" to pay for it.  I don't think that
we should interfere with the supply/demand decision, but if we do,
yes, it should come from everyone, but only because I can't figure out
how to make sure that people, like O'Andy, who favor such lunacy pay
the entire bill.

>At what point do you say that if a corporation benefits from society
>(being allowed to participate in a market, use the workers trained
>by that society, etc.) that it should pay something back?

Being allowed to participate in a market?  That's rich.  "Society"
doesn't own the market; the actual participants do.

>>Then why haven't Chrysler's owners done that?  After all, they like
>>money and savings from management are just as green as savings from
>>labor.
>
>Gee, do you suppose that it might be a (gasp) "class-thing?"

Nope, I don't.  After all, pension funds, owned and run by "workers",
own corporate america.

I do like the assumption that the evil rich would rather give money to
other evil rich than to keep it themselves.

>>The "climate of fear" comes from the fact that US "rivet-heads" cost
>>more than other rivet-heads.  Chrysler would love to shut out that
>>competition, but has failed.
>
>Gee andy, isn't the first step in warfare creating in the mind of the
>public and the military a sense that the "enemy" is not really fully
>human? I seem to remember it involving the use of derogatory
>terminology... krauts, commies, zipper-heads...hmmm, that last one
>sounds a lot like "rivet-heads" doesn't it?

Good one O'Andy.  He can't afford to concede that the "climate of
fear" doesn't have the required characteristics, so he needs a dodge.

-andy
--