Vito wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Come on... I suppose you'd rather have the heavy industries
back, pumping their filth into the air around *your* home and
killing *your* kids.

Good news: I have no kids at home. Bad news: I've had to quit riding
motorcycles because of all the trucks spraying imported wet garbage up
and down the roads hereabouths.

Wassat???

A nice chrome plating shop dumping a few
poisons would be more welcome but the mob isn't interested in chrome
shops. But that's beside the point, which is that if we want local
employers to be able to compete with foreign companies that don't have
to abide by our expensive laws then we'll have to tax imports to level
the playing field.

Only when it can be shown that the furrin mfgrs actually do so?
Innocent until proved guilty is the basis for all law, or there
is no law, just anarchy.

Give me a break.

OK, arm or leg? (c:

.... Also, your assumption that automation will eliminate jobs was debunked in the 50s.

Yup, by propagandists fighting communism. Yasee capitalism is a great
system but it will inevitably be killed by the same advancing technology
that gave it birth and then what. Some prefer Naziism, others Communism
and still others to stick their heads in the sand in denial. Me? I'm too
old to care.

It's just not true. Automation will eliminate *some* jobs, but others
are created. We need to be knowledge workers not laborers.

The flaw in your theory is that the jobs automation creates require ever
more intellegence and education than an ever growing part of the
population can provide. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist or MD
even if they wanted to. When I graduated from High School half the class
went to work at the Ford plant and the other half at the aircraft plant,
all earning enough to buy homes and raise families. Less than 1 in 10
went to college and most of them flunked out. Those factory jobs are now
done better and cheaper by machines. Ditto ever more "professional"
jobs. There was a big demand for EEs til large scale integration came
along. Then they became computer programmers, until high level languages
came along. Then they became unemployed. I guess they should have got
honest jobs as lawyers or ministers, right?

Of course there are still plenty of jobs for kids getting out of high
school today - at McDonalds and Wendys and Buggerking - but unless you
are in the top half of the population and motivated and financed enough
to get at least a BS don't expect to earn a living. Tomarrow ....

If you had an *average* 15 year old kid what would you encourage him/her
to do today?

Get elected? No, seriously, how about elder care, since most
kids don't want to baby sit any more than their parents did?

Form a housing co-op, squat in the woods, get off the grid, and
grow vegetables and chickens! Make great arts and crafts. The
rich will always appreciate well made local crafts, including
entertainment. Outlaw recorded music broadcasts!

Sow, Reap.

--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Reproduction or conveyance for any unauthorised
purpose is THEFT and PLAGIARISM. Abuse is Invasion of privacy
and harassment. Abusers may be prosecuted. -This notice footer
released to public domain. Spamspoof salad by spamchock -
SofDevCo

Terry Spragg wrote:


The only reason there is any want anywhere in the world is
because some of those (most?) who run industry seem to think that
the way to 'win' is to either get richer than their niegbours, or
to make them all poorer by any way they can.

Ahem... which world would that be? Over here in the real world, there is
'want' because resources are limited.

DSK

If all the money (not material objects) was pooled and then divided by =
the world's population, what would the distribution look like? If =
everything was equalized how much would each individual own?

--=20
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

$2. Of course I'd be dishing out the dosh...

;-P


Cheers MC

katysails wrote:

If all the money (not material objects) was pooled and then divided by the world's population, what would the distribution look like? If everything was equalized how much would each individual own?

Hi katysails: Havn't seen you around for a long time. I'm seahag's brother in-law.

katysails wrote:

If all the money (not material objects) was pooled and then divided by the world's population, what would the distribution look like? If everything was equalized how much would each individual own?

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

--
Marine Worker, Composer, Artist
http://www.toad.net/~crm Check out my Galleries
and http://www.toad.net/~crm/neighborhood/index.htm "Peek into my neighborhood"
Jeeper! [Nelly Belle] [0||||0] YJ 93 Bob's your Uncle.

Hi katysails: Havn't seen you around for a long time. I'm seahag's =
brother in-law.

Hi, vrolaw...if you been here can't say as to why you've missed me...I =
been here....

--=20
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

katysails wrote:

If all the money (not material objects) was pooled and then divided by the world's population, what would the distribution look like? If everything was equalized how much would each individual own?

For the whole world, I doubt there are figures anywhere aproaching reasonable accuracy... might as well take a blind guess. For just the US it's not that hard to figure..

291,100,000 people...
$8,275,000,000 money supply (M3 for those into such technicalities)

for each person in the US... $28.43
Annual income, if divided evenly across the US population, would be $34K per year.

Disappointing to all the neo-Bolsheviks among us, but there it is.

DSK

Bob wrote:

Hi katysails: Havn't seen you around for a long time. I'm seahag's brother in-law.


You have our condolences.

Cheers
Marty (ducking)

DSK wrote:


for each person in the US... $28.43
Annual income, if divided evenly across the US population, would be $34K per year.

Disappointing to all the neo-Bolsheviks among us, but there it is.

DSK

Oh I'm not so sure, take a two parent two child household, most would
be happy with an income of $136K per annum.

Cheers
Marty

Disappointing to all the neo-Bolsheviks among us, but there it is.

Martin Baxter wrote:
Oh I'm not so sure, take a two parent two child household, most would
be happy with an income of $136K per annum.

Yes, but they could only achieve this by either putting the kids to work, or else by
exploiting the workers and stealing bread from the mouth of the laboring proletariat.

Actually, I'm told by some of our neo-yuppie friends that an income of $100K is "not
sufficient to live comfortably." I took this to mean that they are struggling with
payments on their McMansions and their SUVs, and can't afford to update their home
entertainment systems to the latest technology.

My own theory is that you could gather the wisest men of every country to figure out how
to most fairly divide up all the wealth of the world among mankind, and in three years
you'd be pretty much right back where you started.

Some people shouldn't be allowed to have children, some people shouldn't be allowed to
have guns, and some people act like they're not allowed to have money.

One would think that after 3500 years of civilization, people would have a better grasp
of things like the wheel, domestication of animals, and monetary exchange, but no...
they don't...

Regards- Doug King