NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:03:00 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:13:14 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:



On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:40:19 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:



If society does not have a good way to spread wealth, we will simply go back to the gilded age.



The gilded age was actually a prosperous time for workers. The railroads, utilities, communications and infrastructure were greatly expanded. The stage was set for even more prosperity, invention, increases in living standards, and life expectancy. The presidents were mostly Republicans..



Ah yes, the wonderful gilded age. Negroes picking cotton in the fields, plantation owners sipping mint juleps - all's right with the world. Each in his proper place. A conservative dream world.



You seem to be ignorant of US history. Slavery ended in 1863. The gilded age came years after that.



Chinese laborors being exploited building rails for bulbous East Coast titans of industry, miners digging coal out of the ground to run the steam locomotives whilst dying of black lung, Irish immigrants digging the Erie canal dying of malaria,



I am sure that any or all of the above could have been avoided had we not decided to build railroads, mine coal or build factories. Perhaps had you been around during the gilded age, you would have preferred pre-industrial living standards?



children working the looms in Manhattan.



You seem to be ignorant of current events as well:



http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-labour-supply

Slavery may have ended, but negroes still toiled in the fields until the 20th century and landowners still took advantage of their cheap labor whilst sipping mint juleps on their porches. The gilded age did not put an end to exploitation of various minorities, including Irish, Japanese, Chinese and others.

On 4/27/2014 7:02 PM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:56 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

So you feel that the ultra-wealthy don't have enough money yet,
that they need more? Thanks for enlightening us.

They don't owe you or anyone else a living, is the main point.


Ethically they do.

And if you don't understand that, I'm not going to argue the point,
because you are either irrational, or equally unethical.

-SP

On 4/27/14 4:02 PM, RichA wrote:

They don't owe you or anyone else a living, is the main point.

Let's ask Robespierre where that attitude leads? We do have historic
examples which thoughtful people might want to avoid.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:56:46 PM UTC-4, sp wrote:
On 4/27/2014 7:02 PM, RichA wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:56 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

So you feel that the ultra-wealthy don't have enough money yet,
that they need more? Thanks for enlightening us.

They don't owe you or anyone else a living, is the main point.

Ethically they do.

And if you don't understand that, I'm not going to argue the point,
because you are either irrational, or equally unethical.

If Walmart's ~ $200 billion in assets were to be divided among its ~ two million employees then each would receive a one-time payout of ~ $100,000. The company would not be able to operate, the employees would spend the money (SUV sales would spike)... then what?

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:14:00 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 4/27/14 4:02 PM, RichA wrote:

They don't owe you or anyone else a living, is the main point.

Let's ask Robespierre where that attitude leads? We do have historic
examples which thoughtful people might want to avoid.

Robespierre wasn't wealthy.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:29:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:56:46 PM UTC-4, sp wrote:

On 4/27/2014 7:02 PM, RichA wrote:



On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:56 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:



So you feel that the ultra-wealthy don't have enough money yet,

that they need more? Thanks for enlightening us.



They don't owe you or anyone else a living, is the main point.



Ethically they do.



And if you don't understand that, I'm not going to argue the point,

because you are either irrational, or equally unethical.



If Walmart's ~ $200 billion in assets were to be divided among its ~ two million employees then each would receive a one-time payout of ~ $100,000. The company would not be able to operate, the employees would spend the money (SUV sales would spike)... then what?

How about if they just paid their employees a decent wage so they would not qualify for foodstamps and put he burden on taxpayers. I'm tired of subsidizing Walmart with my tax money. They and companies like them are basically welfare moochers. The rest of us businesses pay our employees well, and we're doing just fine. Race to the bottom - is that what you think will produce a prosperous society?

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 7:29:35 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Then provide objective evidence of the existence of the Universe.

Doesn't the Universe do that itself all the time?

Everything we call "objective evidence" concerns some property of the Universe or its contents, so if objective evidence exists, it is evidence of the existence of the Universe.

I presume, though, you were challenging him to produce evidence sufficient to refute solipsism. So I feel you misphrased, as evidence can exist without being sufficient for a specific purpose.

That's irrelevant. If a drug were illegal at home, but legal in a country you
were visiting, and you wanted to use the drug while there, would you?

Rather than getting into the relationship of this victimless example to headhunting, I'll note that I mentioned (in another newsgroup) the rationale behind governments outlawing drugs.

Drug and alcohol abuse, among other bad effects, tend to render people *unfit for military service*. Since military service carries with it a risk of death, and countries need to be able to call up armies to survive, the State derives a claim of a legitimate interest in what people do to themselves to institute such bans.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:56:46 PM UTC-6, sp wrote:

Ethically they do.

The rich are not responsible for the poor. It may be meritorious for them to provide for the poor when they can, but it is entirely possible for the rich to be so few that nothing they can do will make a dent in poverty in the present, while having a few people rich enough to be exempt from constant backbreaking toil will allow technology to be advanced so that someday something can be done.

But who is responsible for the fact that so many people find themselves born into poverty with no escape from it?

Yes, the Libertarians and the right-wingers are wrong; somebody does owe you a living. But it's not the government or the rich. It's your parents.

John Savard

On 30/04/2014 04:12, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:29:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:56:46 PM UTC-4, sp wrote:

On 4/27/2014 7:02 PM, RichA wrote:

On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:26:56 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

So you feel that the ultra-wealthy don't have enough money yet,
that they need more? Thanks for enlightening us.

They don't owe you or anyone else a living, is the main point.

Ethically they do.
And if you don't understand that, I'm not going to argue the point,
because you are either irrational, or equally unethical.

It is the hard line free market doctrine that if employers can trick
people into working for less than a living wage then they will do so.
Their position of naked greed is elegantly summed up and parodied by
Brecht/Eisler song "Supply and Demand"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgJZADHsyg

They probably won't much like "What keeps mankind alive?" either

http://www.metrolyrics.com/what-keep...ics-mirah.html

If Walmart's ~ $200 billion in assets were to be divided among its ~ two million employees then each would receive a one-time payout of ~ $100,000. The company would not be able to operate, the employees would spend the money (SUV sales would spike)... then what?

How about if they just paid their employees a decent wage so they would not qualify for foodstamps and put he burden on taxpayers. I'm tired of subsidizing Walmart with my tax money. They and companies like them are basically welfare moochers. The rest of us businesses pay our employees well, and we're doing just fine. Race to the bottom - is that what you think will produce a prosperous society?

Parasites is the word you are looking for. The race to the bottom is
already well underway and your government is now owned by the oligarchs.

"Free market" advocates are entirely happy when the hyper rich thieve
from taxpayers to make a quick buck and hide all their profits in
obscure offshore tax havens by devious sophisticated accounting tricks.

Starbucks has a reputation for this sort of chicanery in the UK.
Entirely bogus "Transfer pricing" has a lot to answer for.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/1...89E0EX20121015

Multinational corporations have opted out of paying their taxes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:12:13 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:29:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:

If Walmart's ~ $200 billion in assets were to be divided among its ~ two million employees then each would receive a one-time payout of ~ $100,000. The company would not be able to operate, the employees would spend the money (SUV sales would spike)... then what?

How about if they just paid their employees a decent wage so they would not qualify for foodstamps and put he burden on taxpayers.

With only ~$16 billion in net income, Walmart would only be able to pay an additional ~$8K per year to each of its ~two million employees, or ~$4 per hour extra.

I'm tired of subsidizing Walmart with my tax money.

I'm tired of subsidizing this:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/gm...-electric-car/

They and companies like them are basically welfare moochers.

If there were less welfare available, there would be less mooching.

The rest of us businesses pay our employees well, and we're doing just fine.

~40+ Americans are on "food stamps" whereas Walmart has only ~two million employees. Unless each employee has twenty children, Walmart isn't the problem.

Rather than brag about how well you pay your (skilled?) employees, why not go over to the Big Box and poach some of its employees?

Race to the bottom - is that what you think will produce a prosperous society?

Strawman. I never said that.