firstname.lastname@example.org (Alien Jourgensen Mk. II) writes:
>The hawaii branch of Pizza Hut Inc. recently announced that they are
>dropping the prices on all of their products to a level equalling that of
>their Continental brother's. For non-hawaii residents, this is pretty
>unprecedented, since everything in hawaii costs roughly 50x more than it
>does anywhere else in the known Universe (excluding Japan Inc.).
>They are doing this to combat the Little Ceaser's chain, which has
>managed to grab a fairly huge market share in the last two years. The
>reasoning here is that Piiza Hut, being the amazingly wealthy pizza giant
>that it is, can afford to eat some losses for longer than Little Ceaser's
>can survive minus a client base.
>This tactic, typical as it is in the Economic Sector (I remember when
>Tower Record's Hawaii did the same thing to eliminate some local
>competition), beautifully illustrates everything I detest about our
>planet's banal Corporitist system.
Migawd, we should eliminate competition. They arlready did in
the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Wouldn't want any grocer to
sell milk for the actual cost plus a profit, better make him
sell it for a set price so that everything is fair. And
we wouldn't want a consumer electronics seller to under sell
his competitors would we? Better form a committee for the
Fairness in Sales Practices, better get US Gov't funding
and tell your public officials about this blatant disrespect
for fairness. Demand price controls, demand government
intervention in the private sector.
I'm not familiar with HI law, but in CA selling something for
less than it's worth is illegal. Afterall imagine what would
happen if a loaf of bread that costs four cents to manufacture
and transport to the shelf were sold for 10 cents. Why
anarchy. Bread in everybody's cupboards. And gawd forbid
if real competition ever really existed in any other American
market. Imagine Americans actually having to provide service
and products efficiently and economically due to....COMPETITION.
>Why? This approach to financial warfare eliminates the guts n' glory
>ideology that has made heroes of men and women since time imemorial.
Hmmmmm Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, Kennedy,
Leavey, Lucas.......all made theirs through financial warfare.
>Do you think the Roman's could have forged a mighty empire if they'd cut
This is sarcasm right? No euro has ever formed
anything mighty much less an empire.
>tax rates lower than their celtoi neighbors? Do you think the British
No, but if they had killed every single celt alive they would
have set an example and probably would have had an actual
empire and not a mere fiefdom and they would have lasted
>could have wooed North American indians away from the Frogs and Spaniards
>by promising them cheap cotton cloth?
What _are_ you smoking?
>HELL NO. Perhaps the U.S. could have stopped the Japanese takeover of the
>ENTIRE PACIFIC in WWII by selling shoddy trinkets to the Japanese Army
>Regulars. Yeah, right.
Or is it a suppository?
<a lot of deletia abou stuff that isn't related>
Since the REverend saw fit to insert nontopical matter so do I:
This is an old joke from the Soviet era of Russia. It illustrates
the Russian fear of a Mongol invasion (TM of the only true
warriors to ever grace the world--no euro or eurodescendant has
ever come even close to 10% of the awesome power of the Mongol)
that is organic to russian culture even today.
Breshnev and later Carter were frozen in cryogenic capsules and
awakened 100 yrs later. They go out onto the street and look
for a newsstand and Breshnev picks up the first paper and
laughs and shows Carter the headline "US CELEBRATES 50 YRS OF
SOCIALISM", Carter is dismayed but bursts out into laughter
as he reads the headline of another paper "MORE TENSION ON
THE SINO-FINNISH BORDER" Breshnev cries.
>Do they want a bigger piece of the "pie" or do they want to forge a
>MIGHTY PIZZA EMPIRE?! TAKE IT TO THE STREETS, WIMPS! The only way to
>ensure commercial success in the coming era of darkness will be by the
>POINT OF A SWORD... LIKE IT SHOULD BE.
While this would seem to be a good policy, you haven't been
reading your Sun Tzu nor have you studied the chronicles
related to Chengiz Khan.
>Figure at least two DOZEN delivery outlets on Oah'u, each with -what- 20
>delivery drivers? YOU'VE GOT NEARLY TWO DOZEN POTENTIALLY ARMED
>MECHANIZED SHOCK TROOPERS! JEEZUS! Arm 'em with guns and cannons, put
>some armor plating over the chasis (at a fairly minor cost, considering
>the long term benefits) and you can BRING THE OPPOSITION TO IT'S KNEES.
>Little Ceaser's DOESN'T DELIVER, neither do most of the other Pizza
>places in the state. They are essentially trapped in pillboxes which will
>be poorly defensible against roving automotive DEATH. This leaves only
>Dominoes Pizza, who will also have a mobile army.
Yes, but then customers would be afraid of reprisals from
employees of rival delivery companies. This would defeat
the purpose of the warfare: to attain the largest market
share of homes eating delivered pizzas.
<stuff about letting civilians use weapons deleted. Yeah
right an armed civilian...in this country? are you kidding?>
>Well, Pizza Hut, are you men or mice?
Somehow I don't think you should hold your breath on that one
or for that matter on finding any warriors in corporate
America in the near future. Not even when your Japanese
masters come. They are such wusses and not only can they
get buttfucked by an a little tremblor, but then a mudslide.
And of course their pride doesn't permit them to accept
superior medical and rescue services so their people hang
out homeless not by choice, but because their disaster
preparedness and Emergency Services suck. You guys in HI
are fucked when they take over.
Voron Bessmertnii Storozh
If it moves, shoot it!
All hail Discordia.
He is brilliant, yes, but evil. So evil I despair comprehending
him. This man doesn't want to murder his father and possess his
mother; he wants to murder God and possess the cosmos.
If it bleeds, kill it!
Man has the right to live by his own law...
Man has the right to kill those who thwart these rights.
Subject: Re: TIME FOR A NEW ERA!!!
From: email@example.com (Charles F. Herbig)
David /Bessmertnii/ Stewart (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: email@example.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
: >firstname.lastname@example.org (David /Bessmertnii/ Stewart) wrote:
: >> Migawd, we should eliminate competition.
: >As sarcastic as you are waxing on the matter, that IS the effect of
: No sarcasm at all was implied. Those were heartfelt real
: beliefs. I'm offended that you so blatantly show disprespect
: for my personal belief system. OPPRESSOR!
Oh, please. We're all oppressed here. It's just that everyone has their own
flavor of oppression, and a wide selection to chose from if they want to
try to become differently opressed.
: >> They arlready did in the People's Republik of Kalifornia.
: >Oooh, are you trying to imply Eastern-bloc mentality, or do you just
: >have trouble spelling?
: I have trouble spelling in English. There is no "C" in
: Russian or _most_ other Cyrillic Languages. It is an "ess"
How many terminals does phakt.usc.edu have with Cyrillic keyboards? Last I
heard, most universities in California were using English as the lingua
franca on their computer systems.
: >Here's what I don't get: everyone talks like big business is SOOOO put
: >upon by regulations. Boo-hoo-hoo, Microsoft has to make DOS compatible
: MS doesn't make DOS compatible with anything. Windoze
: either for that matter. Does Windows 95 mean 1995 or 2095?
That depends on whether or not Bill Gates is serious about releasing a
: >with other programs; now Bill Gates might go hungry. Yeah, GE and
: >RJR are really hurting -- nearly out of business, in fact -- because
: >of that nasty ol' government not letting them do what they want to do.
: Are you being sarcastic? I think rational serious thought
: is appropriate to this subject. It's no laughing matter
: or matter for trivial sarcasm.
HEY! If you're not into trivial sarcasm, what the fuck are you doing on
alt.slack?!?!?! Listen bub. If you want to play with that sarcasm-with-
-serious-undertones-or-artistic-merit, you've come to the wrong place.
Here, even MOCKING get mocked! And if you don't like it, get the hell out
of here. I hear alt.conspiracy is in need of some sarcasm.
: >drugs so they can walk to the slaughterhouse? Shall we talk about breast
: >implants? What about cigarettes doped up with extra nicotine?
: While I personally object to implanting breasts into my
: milk at the grocery store I see no problem with extra
: nicotine. Nicotine is a harmless substance and even if
: it was injurious it would only eliminate the weak and inferior.
: [and those stupid enough to get close to them]
Which scares the hell out of you.
: >> <stuff about letting civilians use weapons deleted. Yeah
: >> right an armed civilian...in this country? are you kidding?>
: >Um ... I think he is speaking more to inspire a comedic reaction
: >that to suggest a behavior to emulate, yeah.
: No comedy.
No sense of humor either.
: Voron Bessmertnii Storozh
: If it moves, shoot it!
: All hail Discordia.
: He is brilliant, yes, but evil. So evil I despair comprehending
: him. This man doesn't want to murder his father and possess his
: mother; he wants to murder God and possess the cosmos.
: If it bleeds, kill it!
: Man has the right to live by his own law...
: Man has the right to kill those who thwart these rights.
: ---the Beast
OOOOooooooooohhhhhhhh. Does this .sig mean you're one of those EVIL people?
Wow, you're like, so evil and bad. You're more terrifying than _Plan 9 From
Outer Space_. Please don't scare me any more. PLEASE!
Charles Herbig email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm sick of doubletalk. Let's call a manually operated soil-excavation
implement a hand-powered terrain-displacement device, OK?
Subject: Re: TIME FOR A NEW ERA!!!
From: email@example.com (Lou Duchez)
firstname.lastname@example.org (Jesse D. Fowler) wrote:
> Steve Lamont (email@example.com) wrote:
> : A well heeled company can drive others out of business by selling
> : products at below cost, since they can absorb the losses necessary to
> : do so for as long as it takes. Then, once competition is driven from
> : the market, they can act as a monopoly and price things as the wish.
> : The consumer and the public lose in the long run.
> : There are excellent examples of this sort of anti-competitive
> : behavior, including a case just recently in the news where WalMart was
> : pricing certain drugs at below the wholesale price and driving other
> : druggists in the market out of business.
> Didn't we go through this shit a month ago? If you don't understand
> economics, then don't post about it!
"Understanding economics" takes many forms. There are those who can
talk till they're blue in the face about how it's GOOD to force people
to lose their jobs for the sake of "The Economy" (whatever the hell that
is). They believe that they understand economics. Then there are those
who can take it a step further, and realize that such policies are
designed to support the rich at the public expense. Those people
understand the economics even better.
In your case, you seem to be ready to trot out a useless MBA and a
few college classes, and you'll cite Friedman and talk about how the
best economy is "pure" capitalism. And I, with my even deeper
understanding of things, will reply that you speak much bullshit,
because the system you back is designed to support very few at
the expense of very many, and those very few get to where they are
not through moral fortitude but by being conniving little bastards.
Further, beyond a certain point, a business starts impacting upon how
the country is governed, in manners beyond the scheme of "one man one
vote". Thus, "pure" capitalism is morally indefensible and inconsistent
with a truly democratic society.
Despite all of our accomplishments,
Man owes his existence to a 6-inch layer of top soil
and the fact that it rains.
- The Arizona Republic, 1982 Nov 24
Subject: Re: TIME FOR A NEW ERA!!!
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Lou Duchez)
"Jeff X. Mink" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ah, yes, the old "There's no way that a person who's studied economics
> for years can have a better understanding of it than I do" argument.
More along the lines of, "a person who has studied economics is capable
of spewing lots of specious bullshit that I can see through" argument.
Happens all the time.
> Tell me, what makes you think that you have a better understanding of
> economics than anyone else?
Here's a little real-world example. Greenspan is going to raise interest
rates again, because too many people are employed. This is (allegedly) in
accordance with an economic theory of a "natural level of unemployment",
where there is a risk of inflation if unemployment drops too low. Now
Greenspan undoubtedly has studied more economics than I. And yet his
actions do not jibe with the observation: inflation is already pretty
damn low, with no signs of going up. In other words, he is trying to
put people out of work to stave off something that's not showing any signs
of occurring anyway. To put it another way, Greenspan is spewing specious
bullshit that I can see through.
Now just think about Greenspan's actions for a moment, and forget the
"economist" point of view: Greenspan is actively trying to put people out
of work, to no good end. When you boil it down to that level of simplicity,
which does not sacrifice accuracy, the picture takes on a shocking
appearance indeed, an appearance that the "economist" point of view
conveniently obscures. Incidentally, one must wonder if Greenspan's
motivation is more directly market-based than he lets on: when potential
employees are common, they can be bought cheap. Ahh yes, we really can
trust our "economic experts", can't we ...
As the saying goes, a fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can
answer. If I am the fool and I ask very simple questions that seven wise
economists can't answer, it tells me that their credentials as "experts"
are pretty useless.
> Do you have any credentials at all?
Yes, I know all about it because that's the way things are.
> By the way, I do not consider "I know all about it because that's the
> way things are" as valid credentials.
Oh well. It doesn't change the fact that I'm right.
Subject: Re: TIME FOR A NEW ERA!!!
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Lou Duchez)
email@example.com (Po Tragna) wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Lou Duchez) writes:
> >More along the lines of, "a person who has studied economics is capable
> >of spewing lots of specious bullshit that I can see through" argument.
> >Happens all the time.
> Just wanted to let you know that ignoring theories behind these policies does
> not constitute "seeing through". But alas, this is all semantics anyways.
OKay, how's this for you:
- No one really knows for sure that 6.2% is the ideal percent of the
workforce to keep unemployed. It's at best a guesstimate the FR has
been using for a while.
- Milton Friedman himself acknowledges that many factors besides straight
unemployment rates influence inflation. Even if the guesstimate was
dead-on at the time it was derived, it very well could be way off now.
- "Inflation" can mean different things. It can mean the price of consumer
goods, or it can mean the price of employees. To big business, they're
the same thing.
Which is why I talk about "spewing bullshit" with economic theories.
For all the talk about "natural unemployment levels", no one knows what
the levels are, there are a lot of variables in play, and everyone seems
to forget about the "other" kind of inflation.
> The most shocking thing about your little "real world" example is that you
> continue to pretend that you understand a theory that you obviously don't
> the slightest thing about.
And you will proceed not to explain it to me. Hmmmm. Again, this fool
will ask seven wise economists and not get a straight answer. It tells
me that my question is just too damn *good*. The emperor is NEKKID!
> There are very strong arguments for what you are
> trying to say. They are convincing and they are not filled with
> You would even understand them (if you were open minded enough to listen to
> someone else...).
Oooh, that hurts, Po. I notice that you don't try to explain it to me.
Gee, maybe you can't get past the simple question: why is the FR trying
to keep people out of work "to curb inflation" when inflation is pretty
damn low as is? Reminds me of the old: "Why do you have a banana in your
ear?" / "To keep the face-raping bats away." / "But there are no face-
raping bats around here!" / "See how well it's working?" The difference
is, the FR is making sure that people can't work.
> It's amazing, then that no one else can see things as clearly
> as you. What I am saying is that there is a very convincing economic theory
> behind what is being done and the theory of Capitalism.
Like I say:
- Friedman himself admits that much more goes into inflation than the
- The theory obviously doesn't work in its current implementation.
Unemployment has gone under 6.2% and there's no inflation crisis.
That is, assuming they're talking about the price of consumer goods ...
Even then, wages haven't undergone any massive inflation either.
> There are also very
> serious and very convincing criticisms. I am merely telling you that your
> theory is ridiculous and unconvincing.
What makes it so "ridiculous and unconvincing"? That it assumes that the
concerns of business rank higher than the common good in the eyes of the
Federal Reserve? Oh my, it's positively incomprehensible that the gov't
backs the rich! Jeepers, perhaps all those seatbelt laws were designed to
move the onus of crash-survivable cars from the manufacturer to the consumer!
Get real, Po. Provide me with something besides "I took economics classes
and you don't know what you're talking about", and then we'll be in
business. It got old last month, and it's still pretty old.
> What is your basis for saying there is
> no sign of inflation? (just out of curiosity...)
Latest figure: 2 or 3 percent. I never said that there was *no* inflation,
only that there was no inflation *crisis*. 2 or 3 percent is a pretty
acceptable level all-around.
> Until you give me a clear explanation why your theory is absolutely right and
> it is actually the way things are, I find your credentials just as useless.
And you are welcome to. I've explained it many times, and you still don't
seem to get it. My credentials are:
- I have an idea that not one "economist" or "economist wannabe" can
successfully assail. All I get are, well, your style "arguments".
Go ahead, prove me wrong! Show me the error of my ways! But don't expect
me to be impressed with your economics classes. I wasn't before and I'm
still not. Just show me up with *ideas*. After all, if I'm so obviously
wrong, it should be *easy*, shouldn't it?
> Once again, my own personal theory of the world has not been discussed here,
> nor will it be unless asked for.
Fine, it's asked for. E-Mail or public, your choice. Mostly, I'd like
to hear how I'm so wrong.
> Finally, Mr. Duchez, while I enjoy the back
> and forth we occasionally have here, I would like to remind you that I am not
> doing this out of antagonism towards you. I just like clear ideas, and yours
> are incredibly muddled. You put forth a clear and understandable theory and
> I'll get off your case.
Put forth *any* ideas, and you will have earned the right to criticize my
ideas. As is, all you are saying is, "obviously you don't know how wrong
you are". I get the same arguments from Rush fans when I point out Rush's
inconsistencies and they don't have an intelligent response.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost;
you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
Back to document index
Original file name: ERA.TXT
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.