From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:55:17 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov13.172931.21504@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov13.025050.25124@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>>Which is _also_ a "dog eat dog" institution, with workers organizing 
>>>themselves so that they could do some of the eating. It seems to have
>>>worked very well for factory workers.
> 
>>Yes it did work for the factory workers (after countless died in the 
>>struggle). But Unions aern't a "dog eat dog" institution. "Dog eat Dog"
>>implies every man for himself. A union is an organization of people
>>banded together for the good of everyone in the organization. Simple.
> 
>I take "dog eat dog" to include every _group_ for itself, as well as
>every man for himself. The key point is the lack of government
>controls and the competition between groups.
> 
Dog-Eat-Dog also implies that to eliminate the competition is
benificial. Unions have no intention of eliminating anyone, including
the employers or jobs.

>>>>  What finally started to process was
>>>>  World War II.  Our industrial capacity increased dramatically.
>>>>  Was this due to investment?  Of course not.
>>>Nor was it due to World War Two.
> 
>>BZZZZZZT! Sorry. World War II was responsible for the increased industrial
>>capacity.
> 
>"Increases"? Probably. But increased by how much? The claim was that 
>American industry didn't grow significantly until World War Two. I
>don't even think industrial growth during the war was exceptionally
>great (relative to growth, say, around the turn of the century.)
> 
If you want me to I can produce numbers to back up my statement.
The growth during WWII in every measure was substantially higher
than this country has seen before, during, or after.

>Actually, they didn't (unless you count China as "South East Asia") they
>did this at the same time, or the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor
>(depending on what part of South East Asia you mean...)
>
The Japanese already had taken posession of Indo-China before 
the attack on Pearl Harbor. Also, the Pearl Harbor strike force
wasn't an invasion force. They didn't try to invade the Hawaiin
islands until June of 42', after they had taken most of South-East
Asia as well as the South Pacific. I'm not saying that the industrial
capabilities of America didn't scare the Japanese, I'm saying that 
our natural resource capacity COMBINED with the industry was what
really scared them.

>>>It was also at this time the begining of _permenant_ poverty in this
>>>country: Large numbers of people being born in poverty, living their
>>>entire lives in poverty, and raising childern who did the same.
> 
>>The cycle of poverty started after WWII? I doubt that. Time to back
>>up your statement.
> 
>That would be difficult (you can't prove a negative): I have never 
>heard or read anything refering to permenant poverty existing before
>the ~1950. This could be due to a number of things: I haven't read
>enough (although I have read a fair amount of American history, my
>knowledge of the subject certainly isn't all encompasing. Rural
>poverty is, for example, something I would probably have missed.);
>People simply weren't writing about poverty until after 1950 (doubtfull,
>since I have seen a great deal about it. Permemant poverty, however,
>I haven't seen.); or there were enough people "escaping" poverty, that
>this wasn't a major issue. Any one (or any combination) might be
>true. In the absence of better information, I can only go with what 
>I know.

At least you admit that you don't know. I have no numbers either,
but I HAVE read both fiction and non-fiction accounts about permanent
poverty in industrial America, (pre-1930) both urban and rural.
> 
>>>But I think most of the homeless (the real extreme of poverty) will
>>>work _only_ as much as they have to in order to survive.
> 
>>You haven't factored in the large percentage of mentally ill homeless.
>>(In San Francisco the percentage is over 1/3. A real tragedy left over
>>from Dukemajian and Feinstein.)
> 
>Actually, I was (at least by Berkeley standards: The mentally ill
>homeless rather stand out, although this might just be the seriously
>mentally ill. If so, the mentally ill I'm including don't seem crazy
>in conversation.)
> 
I must question what you mean by mentally ill. I've tried talking
to what I mean by mentally ill and they are really not capable of
communicating intelligibly.
> 
>>Agreed. But without a certain amount of idealism then we become a 
>>VERY cold society.  
> 
>It might be a novel idea, but it is possible both to care about a
>problem, and to still consider it and try to solve it, without 
>basing one's actions on emotion.

I always considered 'caring' as an emotional response.
> 
>                                                Frank Crary
>                                                CU Boulder