About the AGP bus

Ed Light wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote
Then you don't know enough about history or economics to be entitled to
have
anyone give a damn about your opinion.

I guess I can have an opinion if I was a small business?

How would that result in your knowing more about history or economics?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ed Light wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote

OK, decisions are made by elected officials who are recallable by
majority
vote. They get no perks.

Then why do they want to be elected? To have power that they can abuse?

In your world nobody cares enough to bother to serve; and some way, they
will take over and not be removed by majority vote, as above. OK.

Have you ever been in a position of authority? If not then you should try
it before you decide that anybody would volunteer to have the headaches who
wasn't getting something out of it for himself. More of your naivety and
lack of experience showing.

Each profession has local and national reps. Of
course they'd have lots of votes by the members.

How about occupations that are not "professions"? And what happens when
there is a crying need for widgets in Seattle but the only widget factory
is in Miami? Does this go to Washington to be decided?

Yeah. National. Every local has reps regionals, which have reps to
national.

So how long does it take for this decision to get made?

They program the computers so they know who needs what, and set it up
accordingly.

You mean the Five Year Plan is actually going to succeed this time because
computers are involved?

That is basically what computers do, except presently it's
for profit, coincidentally for service, except in public utilities and the
like.

Computers add, subtract, multiply, divide, compare numbers, and go to
another location in memory based on the comparison. That is _all_ that
they do. If you can put those pieces together in a way that makes your
planned economy work better than the US economy does, go for it. But
"letting a computer do it" is not a solution per se.

Right, nobody wants an oligarchy.

Why not?

Now, are you for democracy, or not?

Well, considering what a plebiscite did to Rome I don't think that democracy
has much going for it. Where _has_ that system worked, anyway? Certainly
not in the US--if you think that the US is, even nominally, a democracy you
need to do more research.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

By the way, Ed, Merry Christmas.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"RaceFace" wrote

There's one simple reason this could never work. It requires people.

Anything that requires people will be corrupted, eventually. The more
people, the sooner it will be corrupted.


True, people do corrupt such things and turn them into quite lesser, short
lived things that are eventually defunct.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light wrote:

[snip]
I said, if I recall correctly, equal distribution. Equal to each
living person. None of this you merit more than he stuff. If that's
what people decide, democratically. I hope so.

Then you're a hopeless romantic. Any system not rewarding effort is doomed
before it starts as there is no incentive to produce. Personal output
immediately drops to whatever is the absolute minimum required and the mass
bitching starts because supply can't meet demand. It's inevitable.

dvus

"J. Clarke" wrote
Have you ever been in a position of authority? If not then you should try
it before you decide that anybody would volunteer to have the headaches
who
wasn't getting something out of it for himself. More of your naivety and
lack of experience showing.

I was a regional club secretary and club vice president. I'm now a
webmaster.

There's some truth in what you say, but if you approach someone in a
personal way whom people trust they would likely serve for a while.

I was reading a psychology web site, and some people are born to serve, it
says.



Each profession has local and national reps. Of
course they'd have lots of votes by the members.

How about occupations that are not "professions"? And what happens when
there is a crying need for widgets in Seattle but the only widget
factory
is in Miami? Does this go to Washington to be decided?

Yeah. National. Every local has reps regionals, which have reps to
national.

So how long does it take for this decision to get made?

They program the computers so they know who needs what, and set it up
accordingly.

You mean the Five Year Plan is actually going to succeed this time because
computers are involved?

That is basically what computers do, except presently it's
for profit, coincidentally for service, except in public utilities and
the
like.

Computers add, subtract, multiply, divide, compare numbers, and go to
another location in memory based on the comparison. That is _all_ that
they do.

Bamboozling with your computer spin won't work. I got an A in that course
myself. Intro. to IT.



If you can put those pieces together in a way that makes your
planned economy work better than the US economy does, go for it. But
"letting a computer do it" is not a solution per se.

If you don't think the people could program a computer, then huh????




Right, nobody wants an oligarchy.

Why not?

Now, are you for democracy, or not?

Well, considering what a plebiscite did to Rome I don't think that
democracy
has much going for it. Where _has_ that system worked, anyway? Certainly
not in the US--if you think that the US is, even nominally, a democracy
you
need to do more research.

OK, the US is a democracy that's controlled by the rich, who own the media,
an
--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.
d get what they want through spin.

"J. Clarke" wrote

Equal distribution of what, exactly? And to each living person? Does
that
mean that every time someone has a kid the kid gets a new house and a new
car and so on? How about food? Does the kid get enough adult food to
feed
an adult and do all the adults get a baby food ration? Because that is
what "equal distribution" means.

Yes, now you've got it.

Or do you mean that you are going to give
everyone a fixed dollar income that they can then use to buy stuff? If
not
that, then how exactly will it work?
I don't know what the people would democratically decide, but I'm for the
above plus an amount of script for luxuries.

So, food, housing, transportation, health care, etc., are a given, and
there's an amount of script for toys. This amount of script would be based
on factors such as, how much can be comfortably produced - without
destroying the Earth, etc.



And how about medical treatment? Does somebody with cancer get the same
share of medical treatment as someone who never gets sick? How does that
work if it's all "equal"?

Right. It's equal. Everyone goes in for what they need.

And, the great thing is, there wouldn't be bad drugs for profit. There would
be sharing of research. Resources could be allocated (and created) in the
most efficient and effective way.



A bum on the
street corner generally has quite a lot of need, but until you get him
dried out he doesn't have much in the way of ability. So in your system
he
gets what he "needs" without contributing anything.

He couldn't possibly be a bum since everyone gets an equal share of
production.

Of course he could. A bum with a high standard of living is still a bum.

Well, no. You may be assuming he can just get a job if he wants. He needs
clothes, shower, phone, sleeping quarters, training, etc.



So there no reason why he wouldn't contribute an equal
workday.

Well, you could put him in a cubicle and let him get drunk there instead
of
on the street corner. But what would that gain?

Imagine you lose all your assets and income tomorrow, and your training, and
no family.



There would be no possibility of becoming a bum.

Of course there would. The guy remains an unproductive alcoholic or drug
addict or whatever and doesn't produce anything.

A bit of money and shelter can be greatly rehabilitating.


Unless you
headed for the hills to be a hermit.

But that would be prevented because that would mean that one was not
working
according to his ability, would it not?

I never said that. You did. You'd vote that way. But maybe not after tasting
security and cooperation.

A person who has
ability and thus contributes, also gets according to his need in your
system. So why would he get more than the bum? Does he _need_ more
than
the bum?

Like I said, you or someone put their mind into me, for some reason.

So the guy who works hard still gets exactly the same as the guy who never
does a lick of work in his life.

The retired, young, and disabled wouldn't be working.

I think assuming lots of people would stay away from being productive is a
bit cynical. People who do that now are left out.


Have some faith. Americans can democratically put together a good
thing.

Like the IRS or the BATF? Regardless, America _has_ "democratically put
together a good thing" and your idea is not it. You're proposing to
replace that good thing that works with something that nobody in history
has managed to make work.

It works not well. Check out the statistics. How many kids are hungry?
That's reason enough to change it.

Perhaps to "change it" in some small way, but not to ditch the entire
system
and replace it with yours. And how do you know that in your system things
are going to be better?

Imagine you start everyone over with equal education and opportunities and
assets. In this system, they must compete, and you will have the same thing
all over again. Some will fail, and some will become world powers, and some
will be in between.


Do you really think that "the government" is going to make life perfect
for
everybody just as long as everybody dutifully turns over _all_ their
income
to the government and trust the government to provide for them? Because
that _is_ what you are proposing whether you want to admit it to yourself
or not.

You are totally missing what I said. Or maybe I didn't make it clear, it
just runs without money. Stuff is made, and distributed.

I don't think you realize the corporations are running things.

Well, now, since anybody with 200 bucks can be a corporation, I don't see
where that per se is a problem. However if the "corporations are running
things" then why so many laws that make life difficult for "the
corporations"? Why all this inconvenient OSHA and EPA stuff? How did
that
get by "the corporations"? And how is it that they let the government tax
them? I'm sorry, but you seem to be buying some idealists view of the way
the world works.

You *are* tiring me out.

Haven't you heard of Nafta?



They aren't so dumb.

Which is why we had the choice between an idiot and a moron for
President
at
the last go around?

Um ... those weren't the American people. Those were the representatives
of the corporations and the super-rich.

So which "corporations and super-rich", specifically, was each
representing?
And if the people want someone who is not, in your opinion, a
representative of "the corporations and super rich", then why did Nader
get
his butt handed to him again like he always does when he runs? Or is he a
representative of "the corporations and super-rich" too?

Corporate media is all most people see.


The expression "rebel without a clue" comes to mind.

Like I said, I was a small business. So, I do know how capitalism works at
that end. Like I said, 80% of small businesses go out of business. Don't
tell me this helps the consumer. As if small businessmen weren't consumers.
"The consumer" can only be hurt -- he has stick to being a wage slave, or
else risk everything to try a business. Contrast that to learning a
profession, and being automatically supplied with the materials, and not
having to sweat profits. You can just do great work, all the time. Now if an
oligarchy were telling you to, you might not feel like it any more. But
since you go to local meetings and elect local and national officials, and
the other pros are helping, not competing with you, doing great work comes
naturally.

I really have been humoring your lofty arrogance. I suppose you have a great
place in the present system. But not everybody does. And that doesn't make
them inferior.

Time to return to train sims. Have a great one.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light wrote:
None of this you merit more than he stuff.
I must have made a typo.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

"dvus" wrote in message
...
Ed Light wrote:

[snip]
I said, if I recall correctly, equal distribution. Equal to each
living person. None of this you merit more than he stuff. If that's
what people decide, democratically. I hope so.

Then you're a hopeless romantic. Any system not rewarding effort is doomed
before it starts as there is no incentive to produce.

You're stuck there. In any club you can see people working for the
"collective good." They just do it. They do it and receive the output. Not
hard to see the connection. Now if you went from a horrible system to a
utopia, you might want it to work.



Personal output immediately drops to whatever is the absolute minimum
required and the mass bitching starts because supply can't meet demand.
It's inevitable.

Even in a profit-sharing capitalist company? :-)


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

RaceFace wrote:


"Ed Light" wrote in message
news:938zd.3924$yW5.2632@fed1read02...

"Rich Webb" wrote
However, I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion,
as you've demonstrated a rather shallow knowledge (and less
understanding) of the centuries of serious thought on this subject.

Buh-bye!

With your great knowledge, you couldn't even envision how such a simple
thing could work.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

There's one simple reason this could never work. It requires people.

Anything that requires people will be corrupted, eventually. The more
people, the sooner it will be corrupted.

And that's a problem with any form of government. Eventually somebody
figures out a way to subvert the system.




--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)