Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 6:13 pm, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:12 pm, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 10:18 am, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 8:22 am, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, let me say a couple of things: i) I appreciate that you
_care_=

> > > > enough to make more people aware of some of these topics and
problem=
s,
> > > > and ii) that you have thought about them in more detail than most
> > > > people. I think we have overlap in many of our thoughts but
> > > > disagreement in others and --what the hell--you ask most people in
t=
he
> > > > world and you'll get their own favorite theory on how the world
work=
s
> > > > if they care enough to think about it. The oldest and biggest
proble=
m
> > > > (going back to the beginnings of history) is the rich getting
richer=

> > > > and the poor, poorer. Getting politicians (presidents, senators,
> > > > whatever) focused on that problem in a) some way that most people
ca=
n
> > > > agree to, and b) avoids the "best- laid- plans- of- mice- and-
men-
> > > > oft- go- awry" problem seems to me to be more im****tant than our
> > > > endless discussion, here.
>
> > > > Or, maybe I'm asking too much, expecting too much of human society
> > > > (and the powers-that-be, who usually look out for themselves and
no
> > > > one else, anyway)?
>
> > > > =3D=3D no change to below, included for reference and context, but
I=
 did
> > > > read it all =3D=3D
>
> > Deleted this old material (see farther down)
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Ok, you posed a question earlier now let me pose a question to you
and=

> > > the rest of the participants.
>
> > > Lets deal with just the United States and discuss a hypothetical
> > > situation and what the results would be.  Take all of the wealth in
> > > all forms from all the people of this country and divided it equally
> > > among all of the population so that each person starts on an equal
> > > position.
>
> > The factual, historical situation for this is: the hunter-gatherer
> > days. At most there were tribal chiefs and what wealth there would be
> > would be infinitesimal compared to the scale we have today.
>
> >   What would be the result of such a distribution 10 years,
>
> > > 20 years, 40 years later and why?
>
> > Yeah, this was debated at least in some of the economist media not too
> > long ago and the prediction was that, yes, we'd end up, automatically,
> > with a small number of rich/powerful people and everyone else would be
> > groveling peasants.
>
> That is not the situation today and there would be no reason to expect
> that I would be different.
>
> > Now, I will answer this in terms of _why_ by citing the fact that from
> > the beginning of recorded history the prevalent phenomenon really was
> > the "robber-baron" mindset and the imperative was "grab, grab more,
> > grab anything you can" and forget ethics, morals, justice, fairness.
>
> So anyone who gets off their ass and does better than their neighbor
> is of the "robber-baron" mindset.  Everyone else is what?
>
> > Now I will _ask_ YOU: Is this what you want? Is this good? Should
> > ANYone, if he wants to or is capable of it, just go out and "grab,
> > grab more, ..etc" regardless of ethics, morals, justice, and fairness?
>
> Hey, this is your picture of yourself and those around you, not mine.
>
> > And, while you are thinking about this, please think about the history
> > of law, the meaning of the Magna Carta (I've read at least three books
> > recently dealing with this), and whether you want an egalitarian
> > society.
>
> > And, nowhere in what I'm saying is there any requirement that everyone
> > be absolutely paid the same wages no matter what they do. However, I
> > think the induction of widespread poverty by advertising, too much
> > freedom (I really am against, for example, lotteries because they
> > _induce_ people to spend their money by taking away from food budgets
> > and this is unhealthy). I really am, on the other hand, against
robber-
> > barons.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey, we are at least in total agreement on one thing...lotteries.  On
> the other hand, if you are stupid enough to waste your money on a
> lottery who am I or anyone else to say you can't.  It goes back to the
> basic freedom to pursue happiness.
>
> We might also agree on robber-barons if you can name a real life
> example of one in our current US population.

Bill Gates made at least half his money by the creation of  a monopoly
in which he also destroyed most of his competition.

Back some 10 years ago, Archer-Daniels-Midland was caught by the FTC
in price fixing. Also, Ucars was also caught by the FTC in price
fixing. Various guys in the Enron-Andersen fiascos were playing robber-
baron.

I could list the Ivan Boesky's, Michael Milkins, and many others, and
give you many book titles if you want to read how we've had many
robber-barons, going right back to Standard Oil times with Rockefeller
and the others who did a lot of damage along, simultaneously, with all
of their development of modern society.

Recently, I've done a lot of reading about the kings, kingdoms,
barons, and serfs in medieval England, back 500-1000-1500 years ago,
and even in Mesopotamia 3000 years ago. Same basic deal: how a small
number of guys parasitize a large number of underling serfs/peasants
for monetary gain, power gain, and also get the underlings to bleed
and die in wars.