Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

Constantinople wrote:
brique wrote:
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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.

Snip yet more speculation.

On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, wrote:

Al Klein 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.

If the autonomous political areas are small, then each will get a
different character and will attract people who like this or that flavour.

But not in the United States, since "autonomous political areas" is a
totally illegal concept.

Not quite. The states have some autonomy. There should be more of them,
and they should be smaller. West Virginia seceded from Virginia as
well, so it is not that impossible if the will is there.

There have been many secession movements over the past 100 years -
none of them have been more than a joke.

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.

And very few human beings are so altruistic that they'll deprive
themselves for the benefit of some unknown and unnamed stranger.

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.

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.

On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, wrote:

All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war

And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made
them unnecessary.

without Wilson no violent breakup of the
Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no
Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.

Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the
Empire.

Without Roosevelt no WW2

Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with
Roosevelt. Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most
people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have
done the same.

and Cold War. If
there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would
not have happened.

If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were
no people there would have been no wars.

In the contemporary world, there is also the question
of how small entities can deal with great powers,

All great powers should be ended

All that would take is a nuclear holocaust. Do you have any
*practical* suggestions?

including multi-national corporations.

Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not
supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from
governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against
a multitude of smaller competitors.

Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than
government support - favor the larger corporations.

The reasons you gave make it more clear why this belief is so
widespread. Yet the reasons are all flawed.

As are your utopian "solutions".

Luckily we have the internet to debunk those faux reasons

And the faux "solutions" that would cause more problems then they'd
solve. (Nuclear war is never the best solution, unless the problem is
how to commit mass suicide.)

On 28 Dec 2006 05:15:14 -0800, wrote:

Clarification: WW1 started without US involvement, but the intervention
of the US prevented a ceasefire and negotiations.

You forgot to blame the fall of the Roman Empire on the US.

Al Klein wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, wrote:
All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war
And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made
them unnecessary.

Better slavery than war (which is an even bigger slavery).

without Wilson no violent breakup of the
Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no
Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.
Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire.

Without Roosevelt no WW2
Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt.

Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a
regime change in Germany. Originally PL/F/UK valued peace more than
regime change until Roosevelt convinced them otherwise by spreading
mistrust. Roosevelt's goal was to save the Soviet Union from the
Anti-Comintern Pact.

Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most
people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have
done the same.

This does not speak favourably about the US. The foreign policy of the
US is the greatest danger on Earth. They are always looking for
enemies. If there are none they make them, just to have something as
justification for yet another unnecessary military equipment.

and Cold War. If
there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would
not have happened.
If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were
no people there would have been no wars.

I was speaking about the "evil empire" aka USA. No other state is that
aggressive and dangerous. States should be small and neutral, like
Switzerland.

Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not
supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from
governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against
a multitude of smaller competitors.
Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than
government support - favor the larger corporations.

Only until an optimal size is achieved. If they become larger they
become inefficient.

Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, 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.

Constantinople wrote in message
oups.com...

brique wrote:
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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.....

Constantinople wrote in message
ps.com...

Constantinople wrote:
brique wrote:
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Sancho Panza wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
According to a survey of Jewish families of interfaith couples -- which
account for one-third of Jewish families total and over half of Jewish
families formed in the last decade -- about 90% will celebrate
Christmas, though the overwhelming majority of these will be secular
celebrations. (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7123)

That is sure authoritative. Thanks. The methodology was especially
impressive.

More informative than just making **** up.

Sarcasm alert The point was that there wasn't any methodology to speak of.


I have not found a statistical source for the percentage of entirely
Jewish families, though in my personal experience it is not that usual
to see entirely Jewish families participating in some secular
traditions associated with Christmas. Probably someone has done a
survey.

As a matter of fact, that would be an excellent suggestion for those
folks
at PNN, InterfaithFamily.com. Maybe they should also ask about the
reciprocal, except that might be too hard to understand.

PNN is a news source for non-profits that just happened to carry this
story, and interfaithfamily.com is an organization founded for families
in which one partner is Jewish and one is not, with the intention of
encouraging the preservation of Jewish traditions in mixed families.
Not that they would necessarily be uninterested in also having an idea
of secular Christmas practices by Jews, or for that matter secular
adoption of any religious traditions by adherents of other religions or
by the non-religious, it is not really a question in either
organizations' scope.

- Nate

David Harmon wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, (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?'