name drop

On 17/01/21 20:13, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Our PM is still bicycling around London...

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-covid-hypocrisy-cycle-exercise-olympic-park-825656

FWIW, my opinion is that question is a distraction from more
important questions and answers.

Dare President Rump cycle around?

On 1/17/2021 3:46 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:


He is a megalomaniac. What do you think?

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 21:46:04 +0000, Tom Gardner



What impresses me is that an approximate trillionaire walks his mutt
of a dog in a public park. He probably eats the same tacos and morning
buns and ice cream that we do. His bed is probably no warmer or more
comfortable than ours, but we have a better view. He probably watches
Netflix like everybody else. Ditto Trump or Macron on most of that.

For most of human history, the quality of life of a few elites was
immensely better than the starving masses. "Capitalism" is blamed for
creating inequality, but the reality is the exact opposite.

On 17/01/2021 23:23, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


These things are partly a matter of choice.  Some people like to live
normal, quiet lives despite having vast amounts of money.  Others like
to have huge houses and staffs, and have their burgers served on silver
platters.  "Quality of life" is in the eye of the beholder.

The only multi-millionaire (in dollar terms) that I know lives an
entirely normal life.  His wife is a hairdresser, I believe.

(It's only partly a matter of choice - some rich people are too famous
to be able to live normal lives without being mobbed by fans, haters,
media, etc.)

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:23:21 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:



Absolutely. It's the only system thus far developed that raises the
impoverished up out of poverty if implemented fairly and
transparently. Give Communism a try and within 5 years I guarantee you
our resident Lefties on this group would be begging to ditch it. Once
they've seen what life is *really* like under Marx's brainchild
they'll become the most avid proponents of Capitalism imaginable.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 10:37:16 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_ (book)

does make the point that the US is much more unequal that other advanced in
dustrial countries. It's got a lot less inequality than it had in 1778, but
 the leveling up process stalled when Reagan came to power. Since then the  
top 1% of the income distribution have continued to do better  and the rema
ining 99% hasn't seen any nett improvement.


erished up out of poverty if implemented fairly and  transparently.  

Sadly. to get fairness and transparency, you need a government that is more
 or less democratic socialist, and prepared to regulate the free market int
o behaving fairly and responsibly. The US rejects that, because people with
 lots of money have enough political power to let them keep on rigging the  
market for their own advantage.


ies on this group would be begging to ditch it.  

This particular resident leftist  feels the need to point out that democrat
ic socialists rejected communism - which is totatlitarian socialism - back  
in 1871.

As Mikhail Bakunin said at the time "?If you took the most ardent r
evolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse
 than the Tsar himself.?  

Nobody sane is going to give communism a try - it has been tried and is kno
wn not to work.


ey'll become the most avid proponents of Capitalism imaginable.

Only if they are silly enough to think that Karl Marx's delusions about the
 "leading role of the party" are a integral part of the socialist program.  
As most northern European governments illustrate, they aren't.

American right-wingers have spent more than a century trying to brainwash t
he rest of America into thinking that because communist regimes call themse
lves socialist,  democratic socialist governments have all the defects of c
ommunism. In reality communist governments have all the defects of National
 Socialist governments because they all share the same crucial defect - one
-party rule.

Two party rule isn't all that much better, and successful democratic social
ist regimes do tend to go in for proportional representation,
 so they have a larger number of political parties, and coalition governmen
ts. Mindless right-wingers like Cursitor Doom find this all much too compli
cated and simplify the proposition down to one that is simple enough for th
em to understand, if one that is rather too simple to actually be useful.

wrote:



What really pulled the masses out of poverty was technology.
Capitalism is merely the best way to bring technology, specifically
the benefits of productivity, to the masses. No political system can
distribute goodies unless someone manufactures the goodies first.

Electricity, and electronics, are key to our productivity.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 12:36:40 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechn
ology.com wrote:

  

  


Regulated free market capitalism works rather better than capitalism left f
ree to maximise profits any way it likes - which leads ot monopolies and ca
rtels.


he goodies first.  

But political systems that spread the goodies more widely benefit more peop
le, and if the goodies include universal education and universal health car
e, you end up with more productive workers and - in the end - better techno
logy.  Unrestrained free market capitalism doesn't see much short term bene
fit in providing these goodies - as can be seem from the sorry state of the
 United States of America - and democratic socialism works rather better in
 the long term. albeit by regulating free market capitalism into delivering
 more of the right goodies.



At the moment. Molecular biology is becoming increasingly important, and we
 don't know what might be the next big thing.

Electronics benefited from the discovery of quantum effects - and Lenin cho
se to electrify the Soviet Union, rather than make it a word leader in stat
istical thermodynamics.

On 18/01/2021 02:36, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


You might like to study some history.  Technology really took off in the
industrial revolution, which greatly /increased/ poverty of the masses.

Technology certainly has the potential to improve the general well-being
of the masses - but it can also work to increase differences.  The USA
has access to just as much technology as Norway, yet you have a great
deal more poverty in your masses.  It is not some kind of magic wand
solution, merely /part/ of a solution.

Pure capitalism is as bad for society and the masses as pure socialism
or any other extreme social economic system.  Pure socialism aims to
have everyone give all they can to society as a whole.  Pure capitalism
says that everyone should keep all they can.  Neither is good - a
/balance/ is what gives the best results.

The reason Norway has low poverty and a generally happy, safe and
successful society is that it has found a better balance than the USA has.

(If you make the mistake of thinking that Norway is only successful due
to its oil, substitute Denmark, Iceland or Sweden.)

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:04:25 +0100, David Brown



No. Most people lived in dirt-floor, dark, unheated leaky huts, if
they were lucky. They scrounged bits of wood and animal droppings to
make fires to cook, when they had something to cook.

Good books: A Distant Mirror   by Tuchman
            A World Lit Only by Fire  by Manchster

Cloth was so rare that people had one set of clothes and worried where
they might get a bit of cloth to repair a tear. Bandits would kill
people for their clothes. Automated mills made clothes cheap.

If people moved from farms to cities to work in mills, it was because
it was an improvement to them.

Maybe we should go back to the wonderful world of 1800, with life span
at birth about 30?



That's silly. People can't eat more food or drive more cars than they
can produce or steal.

The US has very different demographics than Norway, including massive
migration from poor countries. The moral dilemma is: shall we keep our
population relatively small and rich, and build walls to keep out poor
people, or welcome them?

Immigration from poor countries drives down the price of local labor.
From gardeners to programmers.

Part of our income inequality derives from having many people who
start companies and hold a lot of stock shares. Shares have a low
caloric value.

Ooooooo. In the UK, forced land enclosures for agricultural improvement  
(to the benefit of large landowners) removed the option of working on  
the land for many - so it was move to the new towns and the industrial  
mills etc, or starve. Whether, at the time, it was an improvement over  
the same peoples previous rural life is questionable - even if for  
subsequent generations improvements _eventually_ came.

On 18/01/21 18:22, Jim Jackson wrote:


Yup.

There was significant upheaval associated with those movements.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:49:32 +0000, Tom Gardner



And a doubling of life spans.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 1:22:27 PM UTC-5, Jim Jackson wrote:

  

  

  

  

  


While the industrial life may not have been idyllic, it is an essential ing
redient that an industrial revolution provide for the masses.  That is the  
nature of "mass" production, production of large quantities of goods.  If t
he masses don't consume them, who then would?  By necessity, such mass prod
uction must provide for the masses or it can't be sustained.  

On 1/18/2021 2:04 PM, Rick C wrote:


In 1950 Rhode Island was the most industrialized state in America,  
producing more industrial goods per capita than any other state. Large  
portion of it was textiles and clothing.

Almost all gone now aside from some niche industries, though the seaport  
is still pretty busy most days shipping out scrap metal to China. Lots  
of industrial and mill space still left though at very reasonable  
prices, it hasn't all been converted into luxury condos, yet...

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:22:21 -0000 (UTC), Jim Jackson



All progress is disruptive to someone. No progress is bad for
everyone.

On 1/18/2021 2:55 PM, John Larkin wrote:


Engineering related:

"The modern idea that form follows function, that the design of a spoon  
automatically indicates its function, is not self-evident.":

<https://youtu.be/omzc43K8EfU?t84%

On 1/18/2021 12:45 PM, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


I read "A World Lit Only by Fire" when I was about 15 so it's been a  
while, but I remember liking the book, first introduction to European  
history outside of mostly dry and dull school textbooks. I should  
probably give it another read.

The average lifespan in 1800 was low, I don't know if it was as low as  
30. Phrased the way above it makes it sound like everyone was dropping  
dead at 30 which wasn't the case. Infant mortality was pretty high, but  
if you could avoid that and death from accidents or the plague or  
cholera people living into their 70s or 80s wasn't that uncommon,  
particularly the middle class. Isaac Newton was born in 1643 and lived  
to 84.

Anyway, Europe wasn't the whole world. Europeans may have lived in dark  
and leaky huts in overcrowded slums along the Thames where disease  
regularly ran rampant but it wasn't that way everywhere.

The industrial revolution eventually reached this tribe in New Guinea in  
the 1970s:

<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX2ylWuRRWQ


A fascinating watch. But the video also sums up the simultaneous tragedy  
of it: "They went in an instant from being masters of their own destiny  
to being some of the poorest people on Earth." They gained modern  
medicine, sugar, and Levis jeans but in another sense simultaneously  
became poorer for it.

Right. If you could avoid dying, you might live a long time.

It's interesting to read novels from the early 1800s. Death was so
common then.

My mother was one of 10 kids. Two of them died young. That was
probably better than average.



Interested in facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Life_expectancy_by_world_region,_from_1770_to_2018.svg