Text 3353, 171 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 11:36:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3826.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Dennis \(Icarus\) to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <ac78a$44ab1b65$18d64cf6$30759@KNOLOGY.NET>
@REPLY: <e3346$44a6d214$18d64cf6$1941@KNOLOGY.NET>
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j90ma21e75sblvmcllpk6pssiqmvtd9hqh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:02:15 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:jchja2tpr8o7o5183eci86ndflra8d1p9f@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:25:50 GMT, Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:09:57 -0400, Charlie Edmondson wrote
> >> >(in article <44a96b85$1@news.cadence.com>):
> >> >
> >> >> Josh Hill wrote:
> >> >>>> actually letting keep some of it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Dude, it the government's the moment our fellow citizen gave his
life
> >> >>> for us.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Ok, Josh, now you are scaring me.  I really, really, REALLY hope you
> >are
> >> >> just trolling here, that this is not what you really believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you really, SERIOUSLY believe that OUR GOVERNMENT should be
trusted
> >> >> with EVERYONE'S estate when they die? <<
> >> >
> >> >Charlie, I don't think that's what he means.  I think Josh means that
we
> >are
> >> >paying taxes for the privilege of not having to go over to foreign
soil
> >and
> >> >fight and die, that someone else (usually those of lower
socio-economic
> >> >strata) is doing that for us.
> >>
> >> Sure. And that even when we undertake a greater risk, the contribution
> >> people of lower socioeconomic status make to our welfare when they put
> >> their lives on the line to defend our freedom is far greater than the
> >> economic system recognizes, or, perhaps, could.
> >>
> >> And beyond that -- we seem to take it for granted that the worth of
> >> one's labor is what the market pays for it. But markets are funny that
> >
> >That's pretty much what worth is - whatever you can convince someone to
pay
> >for what you're selling.
>
> I'm arguing that market value and intrinsic worth are not necessarily
> the same thing. Examples of that discrepancy are abundant: just look
> at the cyclical variations in the price of stocks. On average, over
> the years, the price of a stock follows earnings. But over the a
> shorter period of time, it also follows the market. Thus there are two
> valuations here: the anticipated economic worth of the company, and
> the anticipated worth of the company's stock.

Intrinsic worth is soemthing to consider to see if it matches the market
value.
But when it comes down to it, market value is pretty much the final arbiter.

>
> >> way: Give the world a single diamond, and it will be worth a king's
> >> ransom. Give the world a hundred diamonds, and it will be a duke's.
> >> Give the world a diamond for every man, woman, and children, and it
> >> will be worth nothing. Same diamond, same contribution, but it's value
> >> is independent of its intrinsic worth.
> >
> >For a long time, Aluminum was quite valuable due to its difficulty in
> >extraction.
> >Finally, a process was created that could extract the metal efficiently,
> >greatly reducing its cost.
> >The value of a diamond is dependent upon its rarity, and the value added
by
> >the cutter.
>
> As I understand it, it's actually dependent on the artificial scarcity
> created by the diamond cartel.

Ahh...of course. Another conspiracy.

>
> >> That's true of labor, too. Labor is a commodity, and there's economic
> >> value in that. But the laws of supply and demand were made for
> >> minerals and cattle, not people and society. Within reason, they
> >
> >They work so nicely for labor too.
> >Picking up trash is valuable to society, but darned near anyone can do
it.
> >A neurosurgeon who can remove brain tumors, correct aneurysms, without
> >damaging effects, has far greater value since tere are so few folks who
can
> >do it. Also nicely recognizes the greater skill required.
>
> Right. But people aren't commodities: they have to eat, and they have,
> I hope, a value greater than that of shiny rocks. Furthermore, for any

They may indeed.

> number of reasons, the economic system doesn't always reward work at
> its market value. Isaac Asimov, for example, had to stop writing
> science fiction books in his prime because he couldn't make enough
> money at it. James Joyce lived in poverty. And yet I think most of us

That can happen.

> would agree that Asimov and Joyce have given us a lot more than the
> neighborhood garbageman does. Conversely, no one looking at what's
> happened to the compensation of CEO's can suppose that the market is
> in play here, as opposed to the decision of businessmen to pay
> themselves more money than they're worth and the compliance of
> "compensation consultants" -- who ever hired a compensation consultant
> who recommended low compensation? -- and boards which are glad to do
> their friends a favor.

And ideally, answerable to their shareholders. A good CEO can greatly
increase the company's value by making good decisions. A poor one can run
the business into the ground.

>
> Markets are good, markets are important, but no one should assume that
> they're always in play, that they're always right, or that they're the
> only thing that counts.
>
> >> benefit us and provide incentive; taken too far, they create human
> >> hardship and social rot. It is from this observation -- practical,
> >> emotional, and philosophical -- that the capitalist welfare state is
> >> derived. It seeks to preserve incentive and reward the individual
> >> without cruelty and without the sacrifice of social stability or the
> >> denial of the role the group has in educating, nurturing, and
> >> protecting the individual. Insofar as we ignore incentive, we create
> >> economic stasis. But insofar as we ignore the proper role of
> >> government, we create hardship, damage the social fabric, and reduce
> >> the social stability and economic strength of the state as a whole.
> >>
> >> In this case, I'm calling for the protection of a tax that serves both
> >> sides of the equation: the market side by restoring incentive to the
> >> children of the rich, and the social side by transferring assets from
> >> the aristocracy to the working citizenry, or to socially productive
> >> endeavors.
> >>
> >
> >Ok, explain via a flow, how the assets from an estate is transferred to
the
> >"working citizenry".
>
> >I know I've not received a check ;-)
>
> Because when government taxes an estate, it doesn't have to tax you as
> much, or can provide more services.
>

Or wasted.

Dennis


.
                                                                               
          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)