Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: usenet_trash on 28 Dec 2006 17:10 Al Klein wrote: > On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: > >You think there are not enough fundies to get the majority in a county > >assembly? > That would depend on the county but, in most counties, probably not. > The "Silent Majority" organizations don't have the money for a get out > the vote push in every county in the country. They would probably move away from the more liberal counties to the more conservative counties. That way both groups would have an advantage from more autonomy. Ever heard of the (libertarian) Free-State-Project which chose New Hampshire? > >> >If peaceful coexistence and noninterference is commonly accepted > >> It may be by some species - it's not by humans, and hasn't been since > >> we became "civilized". > >I don't see that California is attacking Nevada, or Sweden attacking > >Finland, or Chile attacking Argentina. It is possible if the agreements > >are good enough. > It's possible if the matters of contention aren't large enough. > California may not be attempting to militarily invade Nevada, but > Nevada IS trying to get federal money that other states are also > trying to get. A Congressperson who says "that other state should get > the money, not my state" is an ex-Congressperson. No one wants to pay > taxes to support something he'll never benefit from - whether it's the > local school tax, federal income tax or the "tax" we pay on goods > imported from another country. The current centralistic system is wrong, oppressive, inefficient, and contrary to human nature. > And very few human beings are so altruistic that they'll deprive > themselves for the benefit of some unknown and unnamed stranger. What has this to do with the current political system? > >> >For that purpose the autonomous political entities have > >> >to be as small as counties to get more choices. > >> I live in a county with a population of a couple of million. It > >> stretches from a cosmopolitan area to a completely rural area. The > >> various towns are completely different in character, and the county > >> legislature often can't agree on things. > >Before the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century Germany was > >only an umbrella organization of independent political units. > And couldn't agree on a lot of things. Such as? > >> > The central govt should > >> >transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as > >> >representative for foreign representatives. > >> That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war > >> with a lot more than 2 sides. > >Why is this believe so widespread? > Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature > evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species. I fail to see why this should have anything to do with the issue of selfgovernment.
From: brique on 28 Dec 2006 19:56 Constantinople <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167325863.433947.254970(a)s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > brique wrote: > > Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> wrote in message > > news:1sydnXR9FYCH1A7YnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > > James A. Donald wrote: > > > > > > > > The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906, > > > > during which it reduced the price of petrol products to > > > > about a quarter their previous price. > > > > > > Were they falling because of lack of competition? > > > Nah. They were falling because the supply increased due to technology > > > making it easier, and because demand wasn't as great. > > > > > > When it was > > > > broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of > > > > petroleum products, but six years after the breakup, the > > > > government proceeded to regulate the industry, > > > > forbidding competition by means more effective than > > > > merely breaking up the company that had kept cutting > > > > prices, wherupon prices rose a great deal. > > > > > > > > > > 6 years after the breakup would have been 1912. > > > Do you think the increase was due to the breakup or due to the increased > > > demand for the products? > > > > > > The price of a commodity tends to rise and fall based on the supply and > > > demand of the commodity. > > > > It does tend to ignore the cost benefits of scale of production and > > distribution too. In 1870, petroleum was a niche market with a limited range > > of products. As petrochemicals developed and with the introduction of > > petrol-powered engines and vehicles, that changed. > > Speculation is cheap and easy but means little. It is not enough to > speculate that Standard Oil *might have* in some way been a monopoly or > might have soon *become* a monopoly. What post are you replying to Constance? > > > It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst > > decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. > > Mere speculation. Really? Pretty basic stuff, the economic justification for mass production, standardisation of parts, etc. > > > Making, for example, products > > aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area, thus > > feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock' that > > market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol > > power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the > > skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had > > little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now had > > a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise its > > distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold. > > > > That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at creating > > and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today. > > But today is *after* government introduced new regulations. Right, so, the question 'why, if standard had a monopoly did prices fall' is of no interest to you....., can't think why you bother to join the conversation.....
From: brique on 28 Dec 2006 20:04 Constantinople <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167326839.263398.67540(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > Constantinople wrote: > > brique wrote: > > > Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> wrote in message > > > news:1sydnXR9FYCH1A7YnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > > > James A. Donald wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906, > > > > > during which it reduced the price of petrol products to > > > > > about a quarter their previous price. > > > > > > > > Were they falling because of lack of competition? > > > > Nah. They were falling because the supply increased due to technology > > > > making it easier, and because demand wasn't as great. > > > > > > > > When it was > > > > > broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of > > > > > petroleum products, but six years after the breakup, the > > > > > government proceeded to regulate the industry, > > > > > forbidding competition by means more effective than > > > > > merely breaking up the company that had kept cutting > > > > > prices, wherupon prices rose a great deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6 years after the breakup would have been 1912. > > > > Do you think the increase was due to the breakup or due to the increased > > > > demand for the products? > > > > > > > > The price of a commodity tends to rise and fall based on the supply and > > > > demand of the commodity. > > > > > > It does tend to ignore the cost benefits of scale of production and > > > distribution too. In 1870, petroleum was a niche market with a limited range > > > of products. As petrochemicals developed and with the introduction of > > > petrol-powered engines and vehicles, that changed. > > > > Speculation is cheap and easy but means little. It is not enough to > > speculate that Standard Oil *might have* in some way been a monopoly or > > might have soon *become* a monopoly. > > > > > It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst > > > decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. > > > > Mere speculation. > > > > > Making, for example, products > > > aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area, thus > > > feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock' that > > > market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol > > > power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the > > > skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had > > > little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now had > > > a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise its > > > distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold. > > > > > > That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at creating > > > and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today. > > > > But today is *after* government introduced new regulations. > > Oh, wait a second, when you (brique) said "lock in" I took you to mean > somehow prevent their customers from buying oil from competitors. But > that's not what you meant at all. What you meant was prevent their > customers from going back to horse power! That is too funny. So the > reason farmers aren't all farming the Amish way is that Big Oil tricked > them into abandoning their horse skills. You are simple-minded, aren't you? 'Locking in' your market is probably the most basic business move you can make. Once you have a customer, you endevaour to make sure that them leaving is more expensive than them staying. Study IBM's business model, or Microsofts.
From: Sancho Panza on 28 Dec 2006 20:16 "Banty" <Banty_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote in message news:emvcqa01e1o(a)drn.newsguy.com... > In article <1167266227.114471.35300(a)i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > nfolkert(a)gmail.com says... >> >>PTravel wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>> My wife is Chinese, so we do something special for lunar New >>> Year. Does that mean that lunar New Year is a "universal >>> holiday observed by all cultures"? Evidently so, in your book. >> >>Rather, it means that lunar New Year may be a secular holiday. And so >>we do see, for example in San Francisco, a large, secular celebration >>at Chinese New Year, in which people of all faiths and non-faiths, both >>Chinese and not, participate, using city resources and city money as >>part of a celebration that is regarded as entirely secular in spite of >>the fact that the vast majority of residents of San Francisco do not >>have a "Chinese background". Likewise with St. Patrick's Day >>celebrations, etc. >> >>Could someone use the same argument you are using to relegate such >>celebrations to private homes and businesses? Why, yes, of course they >>could. "Why should I have to contribute taxes and permit the use of >>public streets to encourage the celebration of this eastern religious >>holiday?" The non-Chinese celebrants of Chinese new year might protest >>"But I am not Chinese, and I celebrate this holiday in a secular >>fashion", or the Christian Chinese celebrants of Chinese new year might >>protest "But I am Christian, and I only celebrate Chinese new year in a >>secular fashion, with revelry and fireworks, while keeping eastern >>philosophies and religious beliefs out of my celebration". Whereupon >>our hypothetical Lunar New Year grinch would argue "It does not matter >>if you celebrate in a secular fashion. Historically, this holiday is >>only celebrated by those whose backgrounds are rooted in eastern >>religions, and the vast majority of those whose backgrounds are >>non-eastern do not celebrate it. Public funds and public spaces should >>not be set aside for this festival, because *I* think it is religious, >>whether or not *you* do". > > I guess those New Orleans Catholics should kindly keep their "Mardi Gras" > festival quietly in their homes. For shame - using public streets. Is that implying that the church approves of wild public drunkeness and nudity?
From: brique on 28 Dec 2006 20:11
David Harmon <source(a)netcom.com> wrote in message news:45caec9b.206972843(a)news.west.earthlink.net... > On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray > Fischer) wrote, > >>> > And which religion, race, and nation would I belong to? > > >The point of his remark was to evade the fact of his bigotry by > >dragging in a red herring. > > If James was actually a bigot, and you knew enough to say so, > you would have known the answer to his question. > I did answer it, in my response, the question is irrelevant.... being a bigot is not defined by what race, creed, colour, height, weight, residence, career or education one might be ascribed. It can be defined as fearing and despising those who can be ascribed a different race, creed, colour, height, weight, residence, career, educational attainment or whatever feature one holds an irrational hatred of. James's question would hold as much relevance to that matter if he had asked : 'And what are the colour of my eyes and hair?' |