From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:dKCdnb-H4sVoAG_WnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>

>> If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you
>> are
>> sadly mistaken.
>
> Fine. Now go explain that to Obama, carefully pointing out to him that his
> central goal of "spreading the wealth around" (i.e., taking it away from
> those who have worked, saved and invested to gain it and distributing it
> to those who prefer to sit on their asses, watch TV and wait for the
> welfare check) really is not going to bring "success" to the recipients
> after all.
>
Learn from the banana republics. Learn from the communist revolution.
When society has two classes, haves and have nots, those of us who have
money tend to get more and more. Eventually the poor will rebel and we will
have chaos. Henry Ford has the right ides. He paid his workers sufficient
wages so they could afford to buy his cars.
Likewise, for industry to be successful in the long term, people have to
have enough money to afford the products, both essential and non=essential.
--
Peter

From: Mark L on
On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:41:17 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark L" <markl071616(a)yaspamhoo.com> wrote in message news:hev3v51vsvc10af50aa1hqphu702b355pb(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
>>>(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
>>>intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
>>>just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....
>
>> If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you are
>> sadly mistaken. For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way equated
>> with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
>> The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than another
>> human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's only
>> goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole. The
>> greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only their
>> financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason beyond
>> that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
>> threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of other
>> humans. They're not concerned with anyone's survival past their own
>> life-span. The person who disburses their material gains amongst all
>> equally are interested in survival of humanity, not survival of just
>> themselves. Nor will they make decisions to harm the survival of others nor
>> their environment just to gain financially. If you use financial gain as a
>> yardstick for evolutionary success there will eventually be only one person
>> left on the planet, whoever is the most greedy. Even your own comments
>> proving that your desire for financial gain doesn't equal evolutionary
>> success.
>
>Great post! (I respond not only to thank you for it, but so that
>I will include it among all the posts preserved on my web site...;-)
>--David Ruether
> www.donferrario.com/ruether
> d_ruether(a)hotmail.com
>

You will find an excellent micro-example of this playing out in the popular
TV show called "Survivor". If there was no monetary reward you would see a
very very different game being played. The most intelligent, wise, and
strongest would be the most valued members. I've lived in just such a
community for three years during the 70's. Living off the land on a remote
South Pacific island with approximately 50 to 100 others. Money had
absolutely no value to any of us there. I could play the TV game-show of
"Survivor" for a year while standing on my head, it would be an enjoyable
way to live, but I would not win their game. Instead (in the capitalists'
game of "Survivor") the most intelligent, wise, and strongest are very
often voted off first because they are a threat to the less intelligent,
less wise, but greedy. Eventually only the most self-serving, manipulative,
and deceitful ones are left. (Does this remind you of any faction of your
own present society? Most call it "the government".) In a capitalist
promoting society you are getting a clear and frightening glimpse of the
evolutionary future of humanity being played out. "As is the fractal part,
so goes the fractal whole."



From: Peter on
"Mark L" <markl071616(a)yaspamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:6596v5ln8fnmjathc1a9i0d75d0a19m8c5(a)4ax.com...

> You will find an excellent micro-example of this playing out in the
> popular
> TV show called "Survivor". If there was no monetary reward you would see a
> very very different game being played. The most intelligent, wise, and
> strongest would be the most valued members. I've lived in just such a
> community for three years during the 70's. Living off the land on a remote
> South Pacific island with approximately 50 to 100 others. Money had
> absolutely no value to any of us there. I could play the TV game-show of
> "Survivor" for a year while standing on my head, it would be an enjoyable
> way to live, but I would not win their game. Instead (in the capitalists'
> game of "Survivor") the most intelligent, wise, and strongest are very
> often voted off first because they are a threat to the less intelligent,
> less wise, but greedy. Eventually only the most self-serving,
> manipulative,
> and deceitful ones are left. (Does this remind you of any faction of your
> own present society? Most call it "the government".) In a capitalist
> promoting society you are getting a clear and frightening glimpse of the
> evolutionary future of humanity being played out. "As is the fractal part,
> so goes the fractal whole."
>

Was that the place they used bananas as currency?
I can just hear the parents yelling at their kids. "YOU MUST THINK MONEY
GROWS ON TREES."


--
Peter

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsu8ue$8ur$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Mark L" <markl071616(a)yaspamhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hev3v51vsvc10af50aa1hqphu702b355pb(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
>>>(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
>>>intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
>>>just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....
>
>> If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you
>> are
>> sadly mistaken. For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way
>> equated
>> with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
>> The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than
>> another
>> human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's
>> only
>> goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole.
>> The
>> greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only
>> their
>> financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason
>> beyond
>> that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
>> threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of
>> other
>> humans. They're not concerned with anyone's survival past their own
>> life-span. The person who disburses their material gains amongst all
>> equally are interested in survival of humanity, not survival of just
>> themselves. Nor will they make decisions to harm the survival of others
>> nor
>> their environment just to gain financially. If you use financial gain as
>> a
>> yardstick for evolutionary success there will eventually be only one
>> person
>> left on the planet, whoever is the most greedy. Even your own comments
>> proving that your desire for financial gain doesn't equal evolutionary
>> success.
>
> Great post! (I respond not only to thank you for it, but so that
> I will include it among all the posts preserved on my web site...;-)
> --David Ruether
> www.donferrario.com/ruether
> d_ruether(a)hotmail.com
>
If you believe putting all the wealthy people into the "greedy and
worthless" bag is a "great post", then you are sadly mistaken. The wealthy
people I know worked very hard for their money, and they invested a portion
of everything they earned, usually in American businesses, instead of just
spending it all. Many of these people own their own businesses, and give
jobs to others in those businesses....They are, in fact, what has made this
country great. To put them all down as being just a bunch of greedy bastards
is the height of stupidity.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bf31eb3$0$27703$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:dKCdnb-H4sVoAG_WnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>>> If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you
>>> are
>>> sadly mistaken.
>>
>> Fine. Now go explain that to Obama, carefully pointing out to him that
>> his central goal of "spreading the wealth around" (i.e., taking it away
>> from those who have worked, saved and invested to gain it and
>> distributing it to those who prefer to sit on their asses, watch TV and
>> wait for the welfare check) really is not going to bring "success" to the
>> recipients after all.
>>
> Learn from the banana republics. Learn from the communist revolution.
> When society has two classes, haves and have nots, those of us who have
> money tend to get more and more. Eventually the poor will rebel and we
> will have chaos. Henry Ford has the right ides. He paid his workers
> sufficient wages so they could afford to buy his cars.

And they went on strike anyway.

> Likewise, for industry to be successful in the long term, people have to
> have enough money to afford the products, both essential and
> non=essential.

Yes. The idea, though, is for people to be productive enough to earn that
money -- not just have it handed to them. The principle of the Little Red
Hen applies here.