Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: taxservice@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:55:54 GMT
In article <565e8f$98p@elaine25.Stanford.EDU>, jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>
>>At any time in life we are all subject to join the ranks of the needy.
>>One illness can/does wipe out the wealth of many. You talk about
>>providing some sort of subsistence. Is that bread and water and a
>>cardboard box in a dump somewhere?? You scream about taxes now, what do
>>you think would happen when the middle class and the wealthy had to pay
>>for it all?? As it is they continue to cry all the way to the bank.
They
>>cried at 90%, they cried at 28%, they cry at 39.6%, they cried at 2%,
and
>>when they don't have taxes to cry about, they find another expense to
cry
>>about - like paying fair wages!!
>
>Being taxed at 90% seems like a good reason to cry. :-)
You should cry so hard!!! People like Liberace cried on the outside and
laughed on the inside (with joy) over the wealth he attained. Doesn't do
him much good now though, does it???
>In any case, it seems like you will welcome what will probably be a
>partial solution: means-testing. If the wealthy and the middle class are
>as well off as you say, then cutting the SS benefits of wealthy and
middle
>class seniors should not present much of a problem for you.
Joey, I have no problems and I expect none! I have mine and, though it be
little, only One thing can take it from me!!!
>>>> There have always
>>>>been others of us who have said "when the math of social progams
doesn't
>>>>work out, you make it work out.
>>>
>>>But that ignores the specifics. There are three ways of working it
out:
>>>raising taxes, cutting benefits, or going into debt. Which of these
>>>do you recommend?
>>As I said before, economists work out details of what has to be done.
>
>But it's all in the details. Here's the problem: seniors are living
>longer and there will be increasing number of them every year as the
>Baby Boomers approach retirement age. There isn't any way to cover all
>of them without cutting benefits or raising taxes. You haven't provided
>any solutions other than a suggestion that economists wave their magic
>wands to make it all work out.
The solutions are for your generation to find. The direction of the
conservatives, who want to eliminate these programs, at the same time,
will be eliminating sources that have provided wealth for them due to the
turn around of money. I think their motive (the neo conservative juniors
in congress) is to let you die in the street, when it comes time for them
to let it happen! Maybe they'll resort to euthanasia and implement laws
mandated strict birth control and abortions. House the children of the
poor in group homes and feed them cathup, not as the vegetable of the day
but as the main course. And what the hell will 90% mean if money has no
value in the first place??? Maybe instead of charging $40,000 to $100,000
for operations would could cut the cost down to $2,000 or $3,000. Maybe
instead of charging $600. a month premium for health insurance we can have
a national health plan that call for the payment of $6.00 a month, a
premium that the government would pay entirely for low income people.
>>>>Those seniors who do collect Social Security paid for it.
>>>
>>>This is false. Even ardent defenders of SS admit that today's seniors
>>>get back more than they paid in. The reason is that taxes and benefits
>>>were raised along the way.
Some of the seniors get more back than they paid in. Some of them get
nothing (they don't live that long) others get less back than they put in.
For those who do get more back when the proper interest is factored in,
they should have gotten more!!
>>You paint money, taxes, and benefits all with the same brush without at
>>all equating the value of the money, its purchasing power, the
>>profiteering, and usury that has developed, and become common practice,
>>along the way.
>
>Not true. Even accounting for inflation, today's seniors get a good
deal.
>As for "profiteering and usury," you've got to explain yourself.
Part of that is covered in the paragraph, above. When you look at the
costs of entertainment, medical care, insurance, advertising, vehicles,
utilities, bank interest rates & charges, credit company interest charges,
home repair, and ever other conceivable racket, racketeer, and polititian
preying on the elderly, and everyone else, lurking to relieve everyone of
as much wealth as possible, and forcing others into unrewarding labor so
that high profits can be provided for the unscrupulous and uncaring
monopolistic structures.
>>>>We're on our way out but others will take our place. They're going to
>>>>say, we don't give a damn where you get the money, how it's paid for,
or
>>>>what system of economics will make it work. We tell the politicians,
>>>>and you, make it work!!!
>>>
>>>Even politicians must obey the basic laws of arithmetic. Politicians
>>>don't operate money machines, they get it from the rest of us. Are you
>>>really an accountant?
>>
>>Politicians know how to count the spoils of their victory! Their
>>arithmetic has, many times, more to do with the adding up of power.
Their
>>skills at being able to motivate people has little to do with being able
>>to count. Their power comes from being able to make promises that have
>>economic impact both positive and negative. You don't have to be able to
>>count, read, or write, to be a polititian you need only be able to
>>inspire people that what you say will work. I know very few polititians
>>who know the basic laws of arithmetic. When it comes to other things
like
>>-Rhetoric - MAYBE!! Arithmetic - RARELY!!! Bullshit - POSITIVELY
ALWAYS,
>>and you can count on that!!!
>
>But someone has to pay the bill. If you think that the rhetoric of
>politicians has overcome the laws of arithmetic, you haven't been
>paying attention. Where do you think that they national debt has come
>from?
The national debt came about, mainly, from the big party the republicans
had during the Reagan/Bush era, the bank failures, and the games played by
polititians. It wasn't brought about by government programs. It was
brought about by abuse of those who sought to destroy social programs.
Those who never wanted them in the first place - The Conservative! Those
who are about to continue there destructive ways, given the opportunity,
until all social programs are gone. That is the inevitability of their
philosophy!!
If we can stop the theft, by the ultra conservative capitalist, and fruit
cake religionists who have a vested interest in political control, we will
have come a long way towards solving the problems we face. If we can stop
payoffs of polititians who do the bidding of monopolies, and other power
groups, perhaps we will have made some progress in the area of solving the
more important social issues!!! It appears that other civilized nations
have the ability to deal with these problems. Nations with not quite our
wealth or resources have learned how to manage much better than the
bickering polititians in this country. Much of this has to do with a
successful propaganda machine developed by those with great wealth, the
polititians. and the hate and fear mongers who are bought and sold to
keep the American people divided.
"Jack"
John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!
Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: taxservice@aol.com
Date: 10 Nov 1996 16:51:59 GMT
In article <564b4u$k0r@elaine7.Stanford.EDU>, jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Joseph G. Adams) writes:
> wrote:
>
>>jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>>
>>>>In fact, I want a lot fewer programs. The utter stupidity of running
>>>>Social Security as a simple wealth transfer between young and old
people
>>>>infuriates a lot of people my age. Everyone realizes that the math
>>>>doesn't work out. Protecting Social Security means taxing people like
>>>>me a lot more money. No thanks.
>>
>>Social Security is not a simple transfer of wealth between the young and
>>the old. There are a great many very young beneficiaries.
>
>But the vast majority of the funding does not go to very young
>beneficiaries.
I was merely responding to your statement the universality of which was
applied to seniors. You made a blanket statement condemning seniors and
gave no statistics. It's not a blame game, Joey! It is concept that must
be worked out to produce a workable result.
>> Your contempt
>>for the concept that brought about its existence goes way back to its
very
>>beginning. You are saying nothing today that wasn't said 60 years ago.
>>There have always been those who have held that social programs that
>>benefit anyone but the very wealthy are unacceptatble.
>On the contrary, the primary complaint with SS is that it supports the
>wealthy and the middle class. I have no problem with guaranteeing some
>sort of subsistence income so that people have the basic necessities,
>but SS is not that mechanism. To be fair, social programs should not
>give payments to people that were obtained from less wealthy people.
>In its current form, SS does just that. It's an incredibly regressive
>tax.
That doesn't make much sense. Everyone has paid into the program and who
is to decide who qualifies. Frankly, I wouldn't take a penny of social
security away from any man, nor would I tax it. Progressive tax tables
are a way of having the very wealthy pay their share! Remember, there
have been times when that has been accomplished by taxing at a rate of 90%
after the incomes of the mega wealthy reached a certain point.
At any time in life we are all subject to join the ranks of the needy.
One illness can/does wipe out the wealth of many. You talk about
providing some sort of subsistence. Is that bread and water and a
cardboard box in a dump somewhere?? You scream about taxes now, what do
you think would happen when the middle class and the wealthy had to pay
for it all?? As it is they continue to cry all the way to the bank. They
cried at 90%, they cried at 28%, they cry at 39.6%, they cried at 2%, and
when they don't have taxes to cry about, they find another expense to cry
about - like paying fair wages!!
>> There have always
>>been others of us who have said "when the math of social progams doesn't
>>work out, you make it work out.
>
>But that ignores the specifics. There are three ways of working it out:
>raising taxes, cutting benefits, or going into debt. Which of these
>do you recommend?
As I said before, economists work out details of what has to be done. It
is not an area specific to accountants. Economists are trained
differently and are motivated by political beliefs. Systems are made to
work. They just don't happen!!!
>>Those seniors who do collect Social Security paid for it.
>
>This is false. Even ardent defenders of SS admit that today's seniors
>get back more than they paid in. The reason is that taxes and benefits
>were raised along the way.
You paint money, taxes, and benefits all with the same brush without at
all equating the value of the money, its purchasing power, the
profiteering, and usury that has developed, and become common practice,
along the way.
>>The people aren't going to stand still for the nonsense you put forth
that
>>you are the one paying for that security. They paid for it long before
>>you were born and are still paying for it by having to listen to what
>>amounts to threatening trash coming out of the mouths of babes.
>
>Geez, you really have no clue. Where do you think that the government
>gets its money? Taxpayers. Duh.
You can do better than that, Joey! It's not very becoming of you to to
throw about unreasonable responses that attack the person instead of the
situation. Money has the value we give to it. It is merely a tool.
Don't you see variations in the interest rates that are constantly being
arranged and rearranged?? Why do you think those controls are exercised??
How does that tool affect your life and that of the members in each class
of our society?? The give and take that allows for mans existence is an
evolving process. The tools we have to make systems work are there. We
just have to learn how to make them work to the benefit of society and not
just the few who are insured, in some way, and assured of accomodation.
>>We're on our way out but others will take our place. They're going to
>>say, we don't give a damn where you get the money, how it's paid for, or
>>what system of economics will make it work. We tell the politicians,
and
>>you, make it work!!!
>
>Even politicians must obey the basic laws of arithmetic. Politicians
>don't operate money machines, they get it from the rest of us. Are you
>really an accountant?
Politicians know how to count the spoils of their victory! Their
arithmetic has, many times, more to do with the adding up of power. Their
skills at being able to motivate people has little to do with being able
to count. Their power comes from being able to make promises that have
economic impact both positive and negative. You don't have to be able to
count, read, or write, to be a polititian you need only be able to
inspire people that what you say will work. I know very few polititians
who know the basic laws of arithmetic. When it comes to other things like
-Rhetoric - MAYBE!! Arithmetic - RARELY!!! Bullshit - POSITIVELY ALWAYS,
and you can count on that!!!
You can bet your bippy that most of these guys are more interested in
power. They're interested in the people who can pay to afford them that
power. These interests cloud the views of polititians and they become
interested in social progress, only as it relates to those who can afford
to pay to share social power.
Our system makes it very difficult for polititians who are truly
interested in social progress. Under our system, as long as polititians
can be bought and paid for, there will be a constant battle amongst them
and very little progress will be made.
Money, morality, freedom, law and order are all important factors.
Polititians create a juggling act and while the people are thinking about
one thing, the polititians become more creative in other areas of control
over peoples lives. Slight of hand is constantly being used to manipulate
people in directions that have little to do with what their current
interests happen to be. The interests do not necessarily have to be
money.
Go Liberal, Joe - GO!! Go Joe, Joe, Go!!! Find a way to make money,
support your tastes and the basic needs of people! Make sure that the
diet of the masses doesn't consist of bread and water and that they don't
have to live in those cardboard boxes in the dumps or out land!! Who
knows, Joey, maybe you'll turn out to be the benevolent dictator who
controls all of the money and all of the power. Then no one would have to
worry, would they!!
"Jack"
John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 17:00:26 GMT
Scott Susin includes:
Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But
things will have to get _much_ better before the price of
fish falls to, say, its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two
and a half times cheaper than it is today, relative to the
CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish has gone up 40%
faster than overall inflation. "We're running out of fish"
doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
1. "We're running out of fish" suggests that the absolute catch is
declining. It isn't. You can give it a different interpretation if
you like, but you will mislead people unless you include the
interpretation every time you make the statement.
2. The relative increase in the price of fish is related to the fact
that the productivity of fishing hasn't increased as much as the
productivity of other industries. The price of a haircut has
increased even faster relative to the CPI than has the price of fish,
because the productivity of cutting hair has scarcely increased at
all.
3. The demand for fish has increased, partly because of changes in
taste and beliefs about health, but also because improved
transportation has extended the market for fresh ocean fish into the
center of the U.S.
4. We shall see how the supply of farmed fish increases. When I was
in Oklahoma recently (giving a lecture about sustainability), I was
told of a start-up intending to farm lobsters in Oklahoma. American
farmers are very enterprising in looking for new crops that will fetch
a high price.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:59 -0500
(Magnus Redin) wrote:
: That 200 000 reactor figures is meant to demonstrate that it is
: possible to provide our culture with plenty of power indefinately.
: Its not a building program to replace all power production with
: nuclear power immediately even if that would be desirable.
Well, lets see. If we must reduce fossil fuel consumption to 1/6th
its current level, and world energy consumption is projected to grow by
a factor of 2 to 4 by 2100, either we must reduce per capita energy
consumption to a factor of 1/12th to 1/24th its current level - which
McCarthie and other luddites, appears to oppose, or we must rely on some
mixture of renewable/nuclear power.
You would be wise to ask Mr. McCarthy what fraction of the worlds
energy he sees being generated by solar, and what fraction he would like
to see generated by nuclear. McCarthy is on record as rejecting any
large scale plan to capture solar energy.
It is a simple matter to conclude from these facts that McCarthy must
support the manufacture of well over 100,000 reactors at the very least.
Rod Adams has suggested that many times more would be preferable.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Quite simply, the scale of construction proposed is 200 times the
: > scale of construction going on now.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: For the electrical infrastructure, power lines, transformers,
: generators and so on the factor is _one_.
Of course, no one is suggesting otherwise.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: To
: replace current power production with for instance solar power gives a
: factor larger then one since more equipment is needed.
More in what regard? Larger surface area to be sure. But containment
buildings, and entire mountains (waste storage) need not be
constructed/assaulted for solar.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: To get the steam to turn the turbines one needs more constructioning
: when building a nuclear powerplant then a coal or oil powerplant. But
: you need less equipment and energy for handling the fuel.
This is totally unclear. Can you provide any factual information to
back up this claim? On first consideration it would appear very
incorrect.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: It takes
: five years to build a BWR 1100 MW nuclear powerplant like Forsmark 3
: in Sweden, it would have taken slightly less to build a 1100 MW coal
: powerplant.
Construction time is really insignificant. Operational lifetime is
more important to our analysis of how fast reactors would have to be
built in order to reach 200,000. We know that 4,000 new reactors would
have to be constructed each year to maintain the number at 200,000.
This would mean that at any moment - given your 5 year figure - 20,000
reactors would be under construction worldwide.
This is a rate of reactor construction that is about 2,000 times
faster than we have seen before.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: I find it reasonable to assume that a nuclear infrastructure would
: cost about twise as much and definately less then four times as much
: as a corresponding fossil infrastructure for generating electrical
: power.
And what is the cost of improving efficiency so that less energy is
required in the first place?
Magnus Redin wrote:
: Btw, it would take about 500 nuclear reactors to supply all the
: electricity USA currently needs. USA has 1/20 of the world population.
: To supply the same ammount of electricity to everybody with nuclear
: power would mean 10,000 nuclear reactors.
Thank you Magnus, but we have already gone over the numbers. By the
time you finish constructing a fraction of those reactors, the world's
population will have doubled and energy consumption per person (world
average) will have increased by a factor of 2 to 4.
More importantly, non-electrical power generation must also find
substitutes for carbon based fuels over this interval if we are to avoid
significant changes in climate.
McCarthy has stated in his promotion of nuclear power that it can
supply of mans energy needs for billions of years.
What McCarthy likes to avoid is a discussion of the vast extend of his
public works program - many times larger than the world military budget,
not only for reactor construction, but also needed for the processing of
vast areas the earths crust to obtain the nuclear material he requires
for his nuclear paradise.
Excuse me if I hold McCarthy to his word.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: During the building time the
: population would increase but power will be saved with more efficient
: technology and a lot will be produced with hydro power and in sparcely
: populated areas wind power.
You will find Magnus, that virtually all of the worlds hydro
generating capacity is already tapped. Further you blind faith that
some invisible force will magically improve efficiency overnight does
not impress me.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: Assume a 50 year life lenght of the
: reactors, that means that 200 would have to be built each year.
200 * 50 = 10,000 Magnus, not 200,000. You are low by a factor of 20.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: This indicates
: that one needs 40 times Sweden to build reactor vessels and 400 times
: Sweden to build the powerplants. We were roughly eight million then,
: even it out to ten. This means the steelmill industry of 400 million
: people and the general building industry of 4 billion people withouth
: having either part dominating the steel or building industry.
800 times Sweden for vessels, and 8000 times Sweden to build the
powerplants. Giving a steelmill industry of 8,000 million (8 billion)
people.
---
Nuclear energy is not right for every application. Because of the
inherent weight of shielding, it is not good for a light-weight
personal vehicle like a car. However, it can be readily used in
a heavy-weight, fuel intensive vehicle like a large truck, an earth
mover, a tractor, a locomotive, or a ship. Very large aircraft are
a distinct possibility. - Rod Adams - 1996/06/12
--
<---->
Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 12:34:23 -0800
wrote:
>In article <564b4u$k0r@elaine7.Stanford.EDU>, jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU
>(Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>
>Frankly, I wouldn't take a penny of social
>security away from any man, nor would I tax it. Progressive tax tables
>are a way of having the very wealthy pay their share! Remember, there
>have been times when that has been accomplished by taxing at a rate of 90%
>after the incomes of the mega wealthy reached a certain point.
So what? All sorts of inefficient and silly things have been done
throughout history.
>At any time in life we are all subject to join the ranks of the needy.
>One illness can/does wipe out the wealth of many. You talk about
>providing some sort of subsistence. Is that bread and water and a
>cardboard box in a dump somewhere?? You scream about taxes now, what do
>you think would happen when the middle class and the wealthy had to pay
>for it all?? As it is they continue to cry all the way to the bank. They
>cried at 90%, they cried at 28%, they cry at 39.6%, they cried at 2%, and
>when they don't have taxes to cry about, they find another expense to cry
>about - like paying fair wages!!
Being taxed at 90% seems like a good reason to cry. :-)
In any case, it seems like you will welcome what will probably be a
partial solution: means-testing. If the wealthy and the middle class are
as well off as you say, then cutting the SS benefits of wealthy and middle
class seniors should not present much of a problem for you.
>>> There have always
>>>been others of us who have said "when the math of social progams doesn't
>>>work out, you make it work out.
>>
>>But that ignores the specifics. There are three ways of working it out:
>>raising taxes, cutting benefits, or going into debt. Which of these
>>do you recommend?
>
>As I said before, economists work out details of what has to be done.
But it's all in the details. Here's the problem: seniors are living
longer and there will be increasing number of them every year as the
Baby Boomers approach retirement age. There isn't any way to cover all
of them without cutting benefits or raising taxes. You haven't provided
any solutions other than a suggestion that economists wave their magic
wands to make it all work out.
>>>Those seniors who do collect Social Security paid for it.
>>
>>This is false. Even ardent defenders of SS admit that today's seniors
>>get back more than they paid in. The reason is that taxes and benefits
>>were raised along the way.
>
>You paint money, taxes, and benefits all with the same brush without at
>all equating the value of the money, its purchasing power, the
>profiteering, and usury that has developed, and become common practice,
>along the way.
Not true. Even accounting for inflation, today's seniors get a good deal.
As for "profiteering and usury," you've got to explain yourself.
>>>We're on our way out but others will take our place. They're going to
>>>say, we don't give a damn where you get the money, how it's paid for, or
>>>what system of economics will make it work. We tell the politicians,
>>>and you, make it work!!!
>>
>>Even politicians must obey the basic laws of arithmetic. Politicians
>>don't operate money machines, they get it from the rest of us. Are you
>>really an accountant?
>
>Politicians know how to count the spoils of their victory! Their
>arithmetic has, many times, more to do with the adding up of power. Their
>skills at being able to motivate people has little to do with being able
>to count. Their power comes from being able to make promises that have
>economic impact both positive and negative. You don't have to be able to
>count, read, or write, to be a polititian you need only be able to
>inspire people that what you say will work. I know very few polititians
>who know the basic laws of arithmetic. When it comes to other things like
>-Rhetoric - MAYBE!! Arithmetic - RARELY!!! Bullshit - POSITIVELY ALWAYS,
>and you can count on that!!!
But someone has to pay the bill. If you think that the rhetoric of
politicians has overcome the laws of arithmetic, you haven't been
paying attention. Where do you think that they national debt has come
from?
--
Joseph G. Adams
Stanford Law School, 3L
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
Subject: IRS - Restructure Under Way - Say What You Have To Say
From: taxservice@aol.com
Date: 10 Nov 1996 21:26:37 GMT
What follows is a response to the many messages that come from tax
protestor groups and others who have an interest in the workings of the
IRS. Now is the time, and the opportunity exists, to make a concrete
contribution that could help everyone in there dealings with the IRS!!
OK, guys get off your butts and go to
http://www.house.gov/natcommirs/main.htm
to express your greivences in a forum that should be able to help you, and
others, in the restructuring of IRS.
Last week both Frank Mc Neil and Alan Kalman made reference to a task
force engaged in making recommendations for change. The findings are
expected ot be published by the end of June 1997. I join them in
recommending all of you who have pet peeves to address the forum, giving
them material to study in coming up with these recommendations.
Put your minds together, in a productive way, and make your offerings.
I'm reposting Alan's post to put emphasis on what I believe to be a
valuable contribution that affords tax protestors, attorneys,
practitioners, and all, and any of you, who would like to make your bids
for restructure and reform of the IRS!!!
"Alan G. Kalman" ON 8 Nov 1996 02:47:29 -0500 - WROTE:
The following URL is the home page of the National
Commision on Restructuring the IRS.
http://www.house.gov/natcommirs/main.htm
The following is their charter:
"Congress created the Commission to make positive
improvements in our nation's tax collection system.
Our job is to recommend policy designed to move the
Internal Revenue Service into the 21st century,
equipped to cope with changes within the government
and throughout the country. It is the Commission's
ultimate goal to restore the American public's
confidence in the U.S. government to collect revenues
in a fair and courteous manner. We are scheduled to
produce a final report on the Commission's findings
before the end of June of 1997. Over the next year,
we will be collecting information about the Internal
Revenue Service and drawing conclusions on how best to
implement positive changes. If you have had
noteworthy experiences with the Internal Revenue
Service (either positive or negative), we would like
to hear about them . Please share these experiences
with us by clicking on the envelope below."
Feel free to drop them a line!
"Jack"
John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 10 Nov 1996 23:07:36 GMT
Scott Susin wrote:
>
> How long has fish farming been around for? Shouldn't we be able
> to look at historical prices and tell if it's making much difference?
>
Large-scale fish farming will become practical if and when demand pushes
prices to appropriate levels. It may never happen if we keep producing
cheaper rice, grain, chicken, and other staples at the rate of the past few
decades.
People who claim we'll empty the oceans of fish, then turn around and cry
doom over exponential models of human growth, are amusing. Even heavily
overfished areas can be restored in a very few years; such areas become
incredibly fertile breeding grounds. Competition and predators decrease,
while food supply increases. Larger, slower-breeding fish will decline in
demand as lower-priced, more efficient species dominate the market.
If and when fish farming predominates, and we abandon the hunter-gatherer
system of ocean use, expect to see the same sort of production increases
land agriculture has shown. As an example, let me quote some statistics on
a food staple for many years, the potato:
Year Yield/Acre (in 1000 lbs)
1500's 2 (estimated)
1920 7.5
1950 16.5
1960 20.8
1970 24.6
1985 27.5
Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
asymptote. Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines. Dozens of
companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
yield explosion here within the next decade.
Agricultural productivity is a major influence in living standards. When
the average farmer could produce only enough food to feed one family, the
entire world must farm (A situation very close to ancient history, where
even politicians and warriors were required to farm, lest they starve.)
The declining number of American farmers-- so bemoaned in certain
segments-- is actually symptomatic of the heath of the nation's
agricultural sector. Food production is increasing faster than population
levels.
As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Economists quote their GNP predictions to the 1/10 point to show they have
a sense of humor..."
- Unknown.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:07:04 GMT
On 10 Nov 1996 05:57:57 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>We have not nearly run out of fish. Some argue that we have nearly
>run out of the possibility of expanding the catch of wild fish much
>beyond current levels without fertilizing the ocean. The harvest of
>tame fish is expanding rapidly.
>
>The overfished North Atlantic stocks are now recovering. Some resumed
>cod fishing will be allowed next year.
>
>In response to someone's comment, my Web site
>
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
>is aimed at showing that 15 billion are supportable at American
>standards. While it is probably possible to go much higher, I picked
>15 billion, because with present trends in population, world
>population is unlikely to reach 15 billion. The fact that 15 billion
>can be supported at American standards means that the main world
>problem is increasing general progress, not redividing scarce
>resources.
I haven't seen McCarthy's web pages, but if you want an interesting
look at how many people the world can feed see Gerhard Heilig's "How
Many People Can Be Fed on Earth?" in "The Future Population of the
World: What Can We Assume Today" edited by Wolfgang Lutz and published
by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis which has
worked with the United Nations and the FAO on various projects
relating to food and population (the IIASA did much of the work on the
early 1980s UN study on potential crop levels summarized in the "Land,
Food and People" report available from the UN).
Heilig is (sensibly IMO) in the middle of the road. He rejects the
"we're all doomed" message from the likes of Ehrlich/World Watch, but
also explicitly rejects the arguments of individuals like Julian Simon
that ag. resources are limitless (though there might be a way Simon
could wriggle through, but that's beyond the scope of this post).
Heilig's conclusion is worth quoting,
"But could we feed 10 or 15 billion people? Most likely, if we can
prevent (civil) wars with soldiers plundering harvests or devastating
crop fields with lan mines; if we can stop the stupidity of
collectivization and central planning in agriculture; if we can agree
on free (international) trade for agricultural products; if we
redistribute agricultural land to those that actually use it for
production; if we provide credits, training, and high-yield seeds to
poor farmers; if we can adapt the modern high-yield agriculture to
agro-climactic and sociocultural conditions of arid regions and use it
carefully to avoid environmental destruction; if we implement optimal
water management and conservation practices. If we do all this during
the next few decades, we would certainly be able to feed a doubled or
tripled world population" (Heilig 254).
For those who think this is a pipe dream, Heilig points to areas like
Sudan which with high yield farming could easily feed over 1 billion
people (twice the actual population of all of Africa). But of course
today Sudan can't even feed its own people because of the 40-year long
civil war there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell http://www.carnell.com/
brian@carnell.com
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 03:20:19 GMT
cpollard@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: _Limits to Growth_ predicted, in 1972, that the
>: world would run
>: --out of gold by 1981.
>: --out of mercury by 1985.
>: --out of tin by 1987.
>: --out of zinc by 1990.
>: --out of oil by 1992.
>: --out of copper by 1993.
>: --out of lead by 1993.
>: --out of natural gas by 1993.
>Yes and a lot of people read the book and changed the way they did things
>- so it might have happened if they didn't write the book!
Nice try, Chris, but no cigar. Use of all of those materials continued
upward throughout the period. Of course some of the tin we're using
today was dug in Cornwall in pre-Roman times, which you wonder what
was going on at the Club of Rome when they convinced themselves they
were inventing recycling.
A few of the things the Meadowses recommended were tried: regulations
forbidding this, laws forbidding that, and they fortunately had little
effect. The effect they did have was bad: it caused great expense to
the law-abiding, and had no effect on those outside the law.
But while the dogs were barking the caravan moved on. The major
developments of industrial society kept going. As the ever more
efficent use of power, the production of greater value added from less
and less material, mass production on increasing scale, and
international sharing of markets for both production and consumption
all progressed, literacy spread; fertility rates dropped; the
percentage of the human race living in poverty declined steadily.
In 1969-71 the human race turned a corner as the percentage rate of
increase slowed for the first time in ten thousand years. A teen-age
generation later, in 1986-90, the actual numerical of births dropped.
This means that about four years from now the number of new mothers in
the world will start to drop -- year after year after year. A few
years after that the total number of mothers will start to drop. This
is not a guess: it is a count of people already born and now in their
early child-bearing years.
These things are all happening out in India, China, Kenya. They have
nothing to do with people having read the stupid Meadows/Club of Rome
book. They have to do with the spread of radio and television, which
tell people about the better life they can hope for for their
children, and perhaps for themselves.
The major developers of change in the world are not a bunch of silly
academics with their braindead computer programs. What makes change
is Avon Ladies knocking on the doors of huts and telling people that
soap will make their children smell nice, a day's wages can give you a
touch of lipstick like the women on the posters.
The Third World's greatest friend is neither Limits to Growth, nor the
AK-47. The revolution in our lifetime is worldwide Proctor and
Gamble.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:02:39 GMT
In article <55vid3$i1p@osh1.datasync.com>,
Paul Farrar wrote:
>In article <55tici$ivf@valhalla.comshare.com>,
>Mike Pelletier wrote:
>...
>>The supply of food -- 50 years ago, 3,000,000 Americans were farming
>>and producing enough food to feed the country. Now 30,000 Americans
>>are farming *less* land and producing enough food to feed America,
>US Farm employment:
> 1940 8,995,000
> 1992 2,936,000
>Dept. of Agric. & Bureau of the Census, via 1995 World Almanac
This does not, in itself, contradict his statement. 50 years ago, if
one takes the most productive 3,000,000 farmers, were they producing
enough food to feed the country? Are the most productive 30,000 doing
so now?
If I recall correctly, the U.S. produces a fair amount of food for
export and for fodder.
>Paul Farrar
snark
Subject: part 37: vince foster, the NSA, and bank spying
From: "J. Orlin Grabbe"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:11:47 -0800
Part 37: Allegations Regarding Vince
Foster, the NSA, and Banking
Transaction Spying
by J. Orlin Grabbe
Shortly after finishing The End of Ordinary
Money, Part II, I received phone calls from Jim Norman
of Forbes Magazine, Bill Hamilton of Inslaw, and Gregory
Wierzynski, Assistant Staff Director of the House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. They were
all interested in my references to money-laundering
activities in Arkansas financial institutions, as well as to
the use of the stolen PROMIS software in tracking
financial transactions.
Jim Norman was a Senior Editor at Forbes
Magazine whose article entitled Fostergate had been killed
by Malcolm S. ("Steve") Forbes. Forbes had done so at
the urging of Caspar Weinberger, the former Reagan
Secretary of Defense who was Chairman of the Board of
Forbes, Inc. Norman was interested in my references to an
NSA project to spy on banking transfers, because he had
information that Vince Foster, a Rose Law Firm partner,
oversaw such a project at Jackson Stephens' software firm
Systematics. He also wanted to get Fostergate published
elsewhere, and I promised to bring it to public attention
through the Internet. Not all of the material in the article
was familiar to me, but those parts that were had merit--
and in any case I didn't believe in military censorship of
information presented in civilian financial publications. (I
discovered soon enough, however, that most of the senior
staff of Forbes Magazine had ties to the intelligence
community, so perhaps Norman's experience was not all
that uncommon.)
Bill Hamilton of Inslaw had been pursuing a case
for years to collect from the U.S. government the value of
Inslaw's PROMIS software that had been stolen by the
U.S. Department of Justice. In its original form, the
PROMIS system was used for federal case management.
Another version had been converted for intelligence use in
tracking agents, operations, and movements. A CIA agent
named Michael Riconosciuto had worked on this version,
and--in connection with Bobby Inman of the National
Security Agency--had created code that would cause the
computer hardware to give off signals, disguised as noise,
when the program was running. (The standing waves
emitted can be modeled by mathematical functions called
"Walsh functions".) The program was then marketed
around the world by another CIA agent named Earl Brian,
who set up a company for that purpose. One of Earl
Brian's sales, made to the government of Brazil, was
observed by another CIA agent named Chuck Hayes.
Hayes had testified to this sale before a Chicago grand
jury, but his testimony had been redacted under the
National Security Act. These software sales were not
only profitable to Brian's company, but they also allowed
U.S. intelligence agencies to access the intelligence data of
the foreign country running the software. The signals
given off by the computer hardware could picked up by
nearby vans or, often, by satellite.
Another modification of the software had shown
up at the World Bank in 1983, where it was being used to
track wire transfers, apparently in connection with a
money-laundering operation that went from BCCI London
through the World Bank and into Caribbean institutions.
This was of considerable interest to me, because I had
learned in banking circles that the NSA was spying on
banking transactions, and that this apparently included
domestic financial transactions in certain instances.
Gradually I had learned that the NSA seemed to be
working through a Little Rock-based company called
Systematics, which was controlled by Jackson Stephens, a
principal financial backer of Bill Clinton, and a person
connected with the BCCI purchase of First American Bank
in Washington, D.C. In early 1995 I published on the
Internet a bibliography of Systematics' banking deals, and
in that context mentioned the name of Web Hubbell as
being associated with the NSA project--but I did not yet
know of Vince Foster's greater involvement. This
bibliography had apparently been used by Norman and
also by others pursuing the same story.
Gregory Wierzynski was interested in money
laundering. When I met with him and Stephen Ganis,
Counsel to the House Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, they were interested in any information
I knew of that connected Vince Foster to money-
laundering in Arkansas. I told them I had no non-public
information, and gave them a copy of Fostergate, which
Jim Norman had sent to me only a few days before. "Why
would Steve Forbes kill it?" Wierzynski wanted to know.
He knew Steve Forbes because Forbes, like Wierzynski,
had once served as head of Radio Free Europe. As time
passed, I became increasingly convinced that Wierzynski
was more involved in covering up than in actual
investigation. (Wierzynski's boss, Jim Leach, was
overheard saying to Newt Gingrich about the investigation,
"If we don't do something, this thing is going to get out of
hand." This gave me little confidence Leach was going to
conduct an aggressive search for the truth.) As best I
could tell, Wierzynski had been booted out of the
Pentagon after his son was caught hacking into Defense
Department computers.
Shortly after this meeting in June 1995, however, I
began my series of Vince Foster posts ("Allegations
Regarding Vince Foster, the National Security Agency,
and Banking Transactions Spying") on the Internet, and
sent copies along to the House Comittee on Banking and
Financial Services. A few days later Jim Leach wrote to
the Director of the National Security Agency asking about
the allegations:
"July 11, 1995
"Vice Admiral John McConnell, USN
"Director, National Security Agency
"Ft. George Mead, MD 20755
"Dear Admiral McConnell:
"I am writing to seek your agency's help in verifying or
laying to rest various allegations of money laundering in
Arkansas in the late 1980s. For that purpose, I would
request a briefing from NSA's Inspector General on
Friday, July 14 before 1:00 p.m.; if that is not possible,
sometime on Monday, July 17, would also be convenient.
"The reports I have in mind have appeared in the general
press and, sometimes in sensational form, in more narrow-
gauged outlets, including the Internet. They speak of
secret foreign bank accounts held by prominent people in
Arkansas, special software to monitor bank transfers, and
similar tales. I would like to determine whether there is
any substance at all to these stories.
"Specifically, I would like your Inspector General to tell
me whether the Agency:
"(1) knows of any secret bank accounts held by U.S.
citizens domiciled in Arkansas at any time between 1988
and now;
"(2) is aware, directly or indirectly, of any efforts by
computer hackers, U.S.-government related or otherwise,
to penetrate banks for the purpose of monitoring accounts
and transactions;
"(3) knows of or has participated, directly or indirectly, in
efforts to sell software--notably versions of a program in
use at the Justice Department called PROMIS--or
clandestinely produced devices to foreign banks for the
purpose of collecting economic intelligence and
information about illicit money transfers;
"(4) is cognizant of any attempts by Systematics Inc, an
Arkansas-based electronic data processor that is now a
division of Alltell [Alltel], to monitor or engage in the
laundering of drug money or proceeds of other illegal
activities, notably those conducted through Mena,
Arkansas;
"(5) can produce information about Charles Hayes, a
businessman in Nancy, Kentucky, who claims to have
been a CIA operative in Latin and Central America, among
other places;
"(6) knew of or was involved in, directly or indirectly, any
covert activities by the U.S. government or any private
parties (the so-called "private benefactors") in or around
Mena in the late 1980s;
"(7) had any contractual or other relationship with the late
Adler Barriman "Barry" Seal in the 1980s or knew about
his activities in connection with Mena.
"I would appreciate your help in shedding light on these
matters.
"Sincerely,
"James A. Leach
"Chairman"
(to be continued)
November 11, 1996
Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/
Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: taxservice@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 17:24:05 GMT
In article <32874389.1C41@atl.mindspring.com>, "David G. Hughey"
writes:
>taxservice@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <565lto$7c@paperboy.ids.net>, zarlenga@conan.ids.net
(Michael
>> Zarlenga) writes:
>>
>> >When *I* retire, all the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were
>> >taken from my paychecks over the years will have been spent on OTHER
>> >PEOPLE. There will be NOTHING left when MY TURN comes. Either that
>> >or someone ELSE will have to be screwed (Gen X) to pay for *MY*
>> >retirement.
>>
>> You must be doing damned well if hundreds of thousands of dollars are
>> taken from your paychecks. Very few people make that kind of money in
a
>> lifetime let alone having it withheld from their paychecks. Little
kids
>> almost always cry when they think other little kids are getting a
bigger
>> piece of the pie than they themselves got. The pie can be cut evenly
to
>> the nth degree. The children will continue to swear that the other
little
>> kid got a little more than he/she did! Greed, envy, jealousy, hatred
and
>> other emotions are are all motivators. These are the tools of the
>> propagandists on the right. Your only fear, Z, is fear itself!!
>
>They are the tools of the propagandists on the left as well. These
>GOPers, why, they aren't even human. All they want to do is keep the
>money they earned, even if it means that little children and old people
>and sick people and people of color and criminals and women and everyone
>except rich white males starve to death. Repeat, ad nauseum, until the
>"teeming masses" are whipped into a snarling frenzy.
>
>And you accuse the GOP of propagandizing the issues? Take a look at
>your own rhetoric.
You've made my case. Methinks you add to the *frenzy*!! Your obvious
contempt is apparent!! You sound like one of those down home republican
racists as well as one of those rich white males (your words) who find no
room for the children, old people, sick people and people of color and
criminals and women and everyone else from whom you suck resources and
their very life's blood to provide for your thirst for more and more of
what, in the end, will mean zilch to you. You sound like the kind who
would like to chew up and spit out anything that has naught to do with
anything but your self serving needs. That's not what life in a civilized
society is all about. Why don't you take a sabatical and come out of your
jungle for awhile??
"Jack"
John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!