Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

They don't understand that taking what you want *NOW*!!!!! and
not thinking about investing in the future inevitably leads to
failure.

How do you reconcile this with runaway deficit spending?

Deficit spending primarily investing in the future through security,
infrastructure, job creation, etc.

Ask again.

They don't understand the simple adage that "Anything the government
gives to the people it must first take from the people" and they don't
understand the basic principle of economic entropy which shows that
every time the government inserts itself into a transaction there is an
inevitable loss of value.

When the service or product in question is provided by a monopoly, it
is best if that monopoly belongs to the government, mainly because it
removes the profit motive.

First it is rarely good that the monopoly exists. Split up the monopoly
and reinstate the profit motive and everyone benefits.

Public entities tend to place an emphasis on service,

Which public entity would that be? Ever had to renew your DL at
Department of Motor Vehicles? Call that "service"? Ever had to deal
with Veteran's Affairs? Do you think that Pentagon Procurement cares
about "service"? My wife is foreign born so I had several opportunities
to experience public entity "service". Like having an appointment at
the Consulate for the visa interview and waiting 7 hours in the waiting
room after the scheduled time. Like getting a letter in the mail
telling me we had to proceed to the next step and it would cost $175,
so we sent in the $175 and then 2 months later they responded to thank
me and give me the forms that needed to be filled out (as opposed to
saying "fill out these forms and send us $175" in one request"). Like
going through 4 different steps and each did the same thing (as opposed
to paying one time through one fee service and then running the steps,
without the 2-3 month delay between each step). Like going to the
embassy and having them tell you that they will not give you the papers
showing completion of a particular step until 3:00 PM then when they
give you the papers saying that you need to pay the cashier, but the
cashier closes at 3:00 PM so you have to come back again?

Public Service is a complete oxymoron.

or at the very least they do not care about profit;

True, they don't care about profit. But neither do they care about
service. They don't care about much of anything because they have no
competition.

whereas private entities feel their first duty is to make money for
shareholders, and they could not care less about public service.

Except that the best way to make a profit is to provide good service.
Because if you don't provide good service someone else will come along
and provide that good service and take your business away. That's why
the profit motive works.

Gorazd Bozic wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa
Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist.........
...
Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government.
...
Socialism cannot succeed long term.

So, was USSR Communist or Socialist in your oppinion? You'll have to
make up your mind. Hint: see what USSR stands for... :-P

Absolutely both.

Or did you mean to say that Communism = Socialism?

Pretty much, yes. Communism is one form of Socialism. Read Marx.
Communism is not much more than militarily enforced Socialism.

Tchiowa wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/nlsoy.t02.htm

70,1% of Americans aged 33-38 have been on their job for less than 5
years, among them, 54,0% have been less than 2 years, and 38,7% less
than 1 year.

Of course, those % increase with younger ages.

Which was my point and you denied it.

You have a problem not only with interpreting statistics but also with
reading comprehension. I'll put that again for the last time:

BLS statistics show that most Americans don't stay in their jobs enough
to get a 4-week vacation even at mature ages so your earlier statements
about 'most people' are wrong.

You denied people changed jobs without an unemployment spell, which has
also been proved wrong by official statistics.

This is consistent with the rest of your assertions, all based upon
'personal experience' and 50 years behind the times.


J.

Keith W writes:

Case law is used for that

Occasionally, but not usually.

Incorrect. I have had many professional dealings with lawyers
over the years and when giving advice on any but the most
simplistic cases they will advise their client to return after
they have had the opportunity to review current case law.
In many cases they will go for an opinion to a more
senior lawyer who specialises in the field concerned.

Do they give you the citations when they meet with you?

You claimed they work from memory, this is not the same
as advising clients about case law.

I don't recall saying anything about advising them on case law, which
is something clients don't generally care about, anyway.

I didnt claim they did, however they DO refer to it extensively
before rendering opinions to clients.

So now it's _before_, and not _during_?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

You're assuming that the job change frequency stays the same regardless
of age and the stats show otherwise.

WHICH stats?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

Jim Ley posted them. Go read them.

I don't want Jim Ley's stats. I want a third-party reference.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tchiowa writes:

???? Who are you trying to kid. The majority of people never go on
unemployment.

I only mentioned being unemployed, not going on unemployment.

And your calculation of 19 times is roughly double what the posted
statistics said because your assumptions were wrong.

But you said only once, which would therefore be nine times smaller.
So I was closer to the "correct" number.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:22:02 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

What makes you think there's a threshhold?

If there were not, then "the money you can demand" would not be a
distinguishing criterion.

Your logic is broken. Again.

It's a relative thing, not absolute. Professionals can demand more
money, because they are professionals.

Professionals can demand more than non-professionals.

So there must be a dividing line between what non-professionals can
demand and what professionals can demand. What is that dividing line?

Why must there be a dividing line? It's a free economy.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:52:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

With an excellent public health system and welfare. Aren't these the
earmarks of a socialist nation?

No.

What is then?

Flat? So far from failing then.

If it is flat, then _any_ negative change could count as "failing."

Not if it's merely transient.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Tchiowa writes:

Deficit spending primarily investing in the future through security,
infrastructure, job creation, etc.

I don't see that in U.S. deficit spending. In fact, the most
irresponsible spender in the U.S. is the government itself.

First it is rarely good that the monopoly exists. Split up the monopoly
and reinstate the profit motive and everyone benefits.

It's hard to provide electricity, water, telephone, and other services
without a monopoly on at least part of the infrastructure.

Which public entity would that be?

All of them. The government's goal is generally public service, not
private profit for shareholders.

True, they don't care about profit. But neither do they care about
service. They don't care about much of anything because they have no
competition.

It gets worse when the monopoly is a private for-profit entity.

Except that the best way to make a profit is to provide good service.

Not when you're a monopoly. The best way to make a profit when you
are a monopoly is to provide no service at all and raise prices
sky-high, because your customers have no choice but to pay you, and
you cannot lose them.

Because if you don't provide good service someone else will come along
and provide that good service and take your business away.

Not if you have a monopoly.

That's why the profit motive works.

For shareholders, not for society--at least not when there is no
competition.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.