18-01-2002 08:01									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ted -

quote: Hypzerker, You are oversimplifying the situation.

Only talking down to my audience so you can understand, I guess it'll take extraordinary measures to get it thru your thick skull. Btw, notice how I offer evidence when I accuse you of hypocrisy? Try it for a change...

quote: You analysis of, "just walking away," is incorrect. Back in the day, certain companies controlled EVERYTHING.

"Back in the day"? "Everything"? And you say I'm "oversimplifying" the situation? Your use of generalizations and extreme exaggerations knows no bounds. This is just another unsupported claim like your claim that the world would face ruination if people here don't get their government handouts.

quote: That's why the anti-trust legislation was passed, because mostly railroads were in charge of everything, not just the railroads themselves.

RR's were given a monopoly by government. Did RR's control EVERYTHING? No...

quote: They could gauge prices, pay workers shitty wages, because there was no competition around to hire workers who wanted a choice of another employer.

Gee, and why do you think there was no competition? Because government passed legislation preventing competition.

quote: Basically in your own words, they wanted "freedom" to get another job. The government came in a broke up the trusts to give those workers other options. You couldn't just "walk away" when everything in your town and the surrounding area is owned by the railroad. So therefore they are setting low prices, since nobody else is hiring, they can pay you whatever they wanted to.

Government created the trusts so I have no problem with breaking up government created monopolies. But anti-trust laws were used for more than breaking up the government created RR monopolies, they were used against other large businesses that had acquired significant marketshare even when laws prohibiting competition were not in place, and if you didn't like the wage they were offering, then WALK AWAY! RR's only owned entire towns that were built because of the railway on RR land and as part of the RR's business in much the same way mining companies built "towns" to accomodate miners. And yes, if you don't like the wages being offered in "your" town, you are free to go elsewhere.

quote: Regarding the welfare mothers you are STILL incorrect. You say government programs are the sole contributors to increased out of wedlock. There are several factors that could contribute to this trend. One being a cultural impact.

Can you debate without putting your claims and arguments in my mouth? I never said welfare programs were the "sole" cause of the increase in out of wedlock births. I said welfare has caused a huge increase in out of wedlock births and nothing you and Joe said refutes either my claim or my evidence.

quote: Back in the day, a woman had a child out of wedlock, and she would be scorned by the whole town. You couldn't even say, "pregnant" on tv because it was a dirty word. People are more promiscuous, and it is more acceptable to be a single mother.

Another "success" of liberalism. Have out of wedlock birthrates increased equally across the board? No, they have increased much more among populations on welfare.

quote: Even so, you have absolutely zero proof of a correlation between out of wedlock births and government programs. And in fact, removing those programs would do more harm than good.

quote: Once again proving you a hypocrite for asking for burden of proof from others, yet supplying none of your own. Hypocrite.

I already offered the proof, you just ignored it. Of course, you also ignored the fact I just refuted your arguments you gave when calling my claim linking welfare and out of wedlock births, "BS". You ignore my proof, you ignore my refutations of your arguments, then you accuse me of hypocrisy for not offering proof while expecting proof from you? You're a dishonest person.

quote: Kids living in poverty has more to do with kids having kids.

Then why were out of wedlock birthrates among both whites and blacks so low 50 to 100 years ago? You're ignoring the fact that so many children living in poverty are in single parent households headed by single mothers on welfare. And welfare has created a system of dependency that creates incentives for poor couples to stay unmarried for the benefits with many fathers just up and leaving because government will take their place.

quote: When a teen gets pregnant, dropping out of school, there is no chance of raising that child with an acceptable income. Yeah, guy, the teen really had getting government money in mind when getting pregnant.

They do get "government" money and most already know they will get it, especially when their mom is getting it too because she did the same thing as her kid when she was young. It's called generational welfare. You're ignoring human biology and evolution. Women generally seek males who will be good providers for them and their family. If "government" becomes this provider, many women no longer need or want a husband. But that doesn't mean they stop having sex, only that the guy they have sex with won't be needed to provide for the family.

quote: "Basically, there are policies and programs in other industrial nations that ensure children against poverty better than those in the U.S.," said Neal Bennett, for the National Center for Children in Poverty.

And out of wedlock birthrates in those countries have been increasing too, what a surprise.

quote: Also saying people won't take care of themselves and calling them lazy is the exact same thing.

Not only are you putting your words in my mouth, you're putting your generalizations in my mouth. If it's convenient for you to believe this, then that is what you will believe, but don't claim I said this because I didn't. Like I did say, the fact many people take government handouts doesn't mean they are lazy, most of them are working or retired.

quote: The following is from 1996, a time which we had just endured a recession and government benefits were needed most.

quote: In other words, the programs worked.

Pouring trillions of dollars into social programs had better enrich some people, but that isn't proof they worked. It assumes poverty rates would have been higher if all these people had never become dependent on government in the first place and that the money used to create this dependency would not have been used by the rightful owners to create jobs or provide for charity. And when you forcibly take money from people who are already near the poverty line, you push them into poverty.

quote: BUT I GUESS WE CAIN'T TRUSS THIS INFARMASHUN BECUZ IT COMMIN FROM THA GUBMENT, HUH HYPZERKER?!?!

This information wasn't from the government, it came from a liberal think tank's "analysis" of goverment statistics. And most of us know how statistics can be fudged to paint a picture the painter likes. It's funny how many liberals will use different definitions of poverty depending on the picture they want to paint. If they want a picture showing poverty programs work, they use a definition that reduces the number of people in poverty; when they want a picture showing that poverty is rampant (especially under a Republican President), they use a definition that expands the numbers. We've got people here in poverty who are obese, wearing expensive Nikes, with multiple cars, VCR's, or TV's, etc...

	18-01-2002 08:27									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Civilization is highly over-rated.

By any chance, are you a primitivist?

quote: Indeed it is. It has developed into a society not-critical enough which allows for people with idiotic self-destructive ideas such as yours to spring free and criticizing you would be considered "not correct".

That was the case before civilization. You don't see hunter-gatherer societies with political prisons.

quote: We can't conclude that since to conclude that we need to show that those societies that haven't developed elites have evolved. If a society isn't evolving it's very reasonable it won't develop anything new, including elites.

How does societal evolution have anything to do with Dino's point? Dino asserted that organizations inevitably form in societies (not that this is a criticism of anarchism). Joe took it to mean what elitism would logically mean as a criticism of anarchism - rule by an upper caste. The !kung are a refutation of that. Period. End of story.

quote: Developement goes hand in hand with evolevement.

What does that mean?

quote: Therefore they haven't evolved and therefore they can't be counterproof to the natural evolvement of elites.

Why?

quote: And now we can quote many idiots publishing books to prove living in the stone age is so much more advanced, since today it's not politically correct to criticize idiotism.

Are you addressing Joe's point?

quote: I'm willing to bet that most anarchist societies haven't developed these ideas but rather lived that way for lack of knowing any other way to live by.

I might add that the quality of hunter-gatherer life was probably quite a bit better than civilized life until a few centuries ago. I might also add that there are examples of anarchism, in which there were increases in food production, quality of life, education, etc., etc., such as Catalonia during the Civil War.

quote: and then preaching against developement of different forms of societies on the other.

	18-01-2002 08:31									#93
	Remove this text

quote: We've got people here in poverty who are obese, wearing expensive Nikes, with multiple cars, VCR's, or TV's, etc... They do get "government" money and most already know they will get it, especially when their mom is getting it too because she did the same thing as her kid when she was young.

That tells me all I need to know about you Hypzerker. Talk about generalizing. That isn't proof! That's bigotry! Where is your proof for the above? Numbers? Studies?

There are abusers of every system. So because some people abuse the system, that automatically makes everyone who is getting government money lazy, obese, and can't take care of themselves?

quote: Government created the trusts

Tell me exactly how the government did this.

quote: RR's were given a monopoly by government

No they weren't! They government kept their hands off until the late 1880s! Tell me how they "gave" them monopolies.

quote: And yes, if you don't like the wages being offered in "your" town, you are free to go elsewhere.

Oh it's so simple! Just uproot your entire family and relocate! No big deal there!!! There are no economic and social costs and risks associated with uprooting your entire existence! Of course not!

Though there was one senator in the ENTIRE Federal government back then that agreed with you.

quote: This information wasn't from the government

It was an analysis of government information, headed by a former cabinet member, based on CENSUS BUREAU statistics.

	18-01-2002 08:33									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Here's a link on out of wed-lock birthrate.

It starts in 1970, in which the rate was 10.7% for ALL RACES, and as of 1998 is 32.8%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pu...00/00hus009.pdf

	18-01-2002 08:34									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Never mind, you edited your post.

Last edited by DinoDoc on 18-01-2002 at 08:44

	18-01-2002 08:39									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

OK, new rule:
No one may use ancient civilizations as proof if said civilizations were a)irrelevant, b)unpronounceable, and c)I've never heard of them.

Seeing as how the !kung, or whatever the hell, fit all three of those categories, I hereby invalidate Ramo's post

	18-01-2002 08:44									#97
	Here's a study that takes neither a "liberal" or "conservative" Remove this text

quote: Around 1970, the United States experienced a reproductive technology shock. The legalization of abortion and dramatic increase in the availability of contraception gave women the tools to control the number and timing of their children. Over the ensuing 25 years, however, there have been huge increases in the number of single-parent families headed by unmarried mothers. The usual economic explanations welfare benefits and the declining availability of good jobs explain only a small fraction of the change. In our view, it was the technology shock itself that, by eroding the age-old custom of shotgun marriage, paradoxically raised out-of-wedlock birth rates instead of lowering them. If so, cuts in welfare benefits will have little effect on out-of-wedlock births, serving mainly to lower the standard of living of the country's poorest children. Better family planning education, birth control advice, and requirements forcing fathers to pay child support are more promising policies to reduce out-of-wedlock births. By George A. Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen

quote: George A. Akerlof is a senior fellow in the Brookings Economic Studies program and professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Janet L. Yellen is on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

1. One argument that appeals to conservatives is that of Charles Murray, who attributes the increase to overly generous federal welfare benefits. But as David Ellwood and Lawrence Summers have shown, welfare benefits could not have played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock births because benefits rose sharply in the 1960s and then fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when out-of-wedlock births rose most. A study by Robert Moffitt in 1992 also found that welfare benefits can account for only a small fraction of the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio.

2. Liberals have tended to favor the explanation offered by William Julius Wilson. In a 1987 study, Wilson attributed the increase in out-of-wedlock births to a decline in the marriageability of black men due to a shortage of jobs for less educated men. But Robert D. Mare and Christopher Winship have estimated that at most 20 percent of the decline in marriage rates of blacks between 1960 and 1980 can be explained by decreasing employment. And Robert G. Wood has estimated that only 3-4 percent of the decline in black marriage rates can be explained by the shrinking of the pool of eligible black men.

3. Yet another popular explanation is that single parenthood has increased since the late 1960s because of the change in attitudes toward sexual behavior. But so far social scientists have been unable to provide a convincing explanation of exactly how that change came about or to estimate in any convincing way its quantitative impact. In recent work we have been able to provide both.

The article goes on further to theorize that reasons for the increase in birthrates is that: shotgun marriages no longer exist, access to birth control and abortion, and cultural attitudes.

http://www.brook.edu/comm/PolicyBriefs/pb005/pb5.htm

	18-01-2002 08:53									#98
	Blame Joe. He brought it up. Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: No one may use ancient civilizations as proof if said civilizations were

The !kung aren't a civilization, and they're still around today.

	18-01-2002 08:59									#99
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The !kung aren't a civilization, and they're still around today.

So what the bleeding hell are they?

	18-01-2002 09:05									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

Hunter-gatherers.

	18-01-2002 09:05									#101
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So what the bleeding hell are they?

Ramo: they're a hunter-gatherer society of the kalahari desert. they've lived in the same lifestyle for thousands and thousands of years. in the 60's primitivists (crazy anarchists) did studies of them showing how affluent they were. while it was true they did very little work, it's now apparant that they lived rather harsh lives, suffering from hunger and disease at times.

	18-01-2002 09:11									#102
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: they're a hunter-gatherer society of the kalahari desert.

Oh, yeah, THAT sounds like an ideal lifestyle

Hey, I know, maybe we can have the next "Survivor" out there

	18-01-2002 09:16									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo That was the case before civilization. You don't see hunter-gatherer societies with political prisons.

Hunter gatherers didn't really imprisoned enemies but rather hit their head with a rock, eat them and wear their bones as a jewel.

quote: How does societal evolution have anything to do with Dino's point? Dino asserted that organizations inevitably form in societies (not that this is a criticism of anarchism). Joe took it to mean what elitism would logically mean as a criticism of anarchism - rule by an upper caste. The !kung are a refutation of that. Period. End of story.

Dino's point was that evolvement has lead civilizations to develop elites.

You can't refute that by bringing an example of a civilization that has not evolved at all.

To refute his point you need to bring an example of a civilization that has evolved and at the same time did not to this day develop an elite. To my knowledge there aren't any such civilizations.

quote: What does that mean?

That developement can't come when there's no evolvement.
If you don't evolve your develpement comes to a halt.

quote: Why?

I just explained why.

They have nothing to do with his claim.

To refute him you need to bring someone who both evolved and not developed elites. You can't bring a stone age hunter gatherer society that managed to stick around as a refute to the claim that elites are a natural part of social evolvement that comes after hunter gatherer stages.

quote: Are you addressing Joe's point?

Yes. And him as well.

quote: I might add that the quality of hunter-gatherer life was probably quite a bit better than civilized life until a few centuries ago.

This due to the dark ages brought by Christianity and several other reasons.

I've no doubt life in the Classical Roman and Greek era was far far better.

quote: I might also add that there are examples of anarchism, in which there were increases in food production, quality of life, education, etc., etc., such as Catalonia during the Civil War.

What was the social system of catalonia before the Civil War?

Anyway, my claim is not that anarchy is the wrost system. Simply that isn't the best.

Sure, Anarchy may be better than say feudalism, but a socially aware capitalist democratic society is way better.

If you don't believe me, look at the govt. stats in Civ, Civ 2 and Civ III

quote:

That's cause you can't understand anything more complex than anarchy?

(I'm just tired right now :love

	18-01-2002 09:20									#104
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Here's another study that shows the general well being of kids without medical insurance is lower than those with private insurance or SCHIP/Medicaid sponsored Coverage:

http://www.openminds.com/IndustryRe...overingkids.htm

	18-01-2002 09:21									#105
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

dp

	18-01-2002 09:21									#106
	Survivor? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that would be considered an act of war (and a war crime) against the !kung.

	18-01-2002 09:26									#107
	Put an end to popups!

I bet they'd see the guys with the cameras and run off screaming witchcraft!

	18-01-2002 09:29									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Every kind of collective society will have elites. Even the Communists had (and have) them.

quote: but a socially aware capitalist democratic society is way better

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

	18-01-2002 09:49									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Hunter gatherers didn't really imprisoned enemies but rather hit their head with a rock, eat them and wear their bones as a jewel.

You were referring to political persection, which the hunter-gatherers do not committ, not war.

And hunter-gatherers warred very rarely relative to civilized peoples, and these wars were far more tame (until they're introduced to civilized methods, of course).

quote: Dino's point was that evolvement has lead civilizations to develop elites.

It was? Perhaps Dino can clear us up on that. That ain't what he told me.

quote: To refute his point you need to bring an example of a civilization that has evolved and at the same time did not to this day develop an elite. To my knowledge there aren't any such civilizations.

Catalonia (and other areas of Spain, such as parts of Aragon) during the war.

quote: That developement can't come when there's no evolvement. If you don't evolve your develpement comes to a halt.

What's the distinction between societal evolution and development?

quote: Yes. And him as well.

By: "And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else. That many scholars defend the status quo is nothing new."

Joe is questioning the validity of social "science." I don't see how your statement refutes his.

quote: This due to the dark ages brought by Christianity and several other reasons.

Bull. The epidemics assaulting Europe and China (small pox, measles, and the bubonic plague) at the time were far more disastrous to the quality of life than the breakdown of central authority (quality of life began decreasing for Europe by the end of the second century AD). And these epidemics are products of civilized life. Hell, the "Dark Ages" brought various agricultural improvements, and quality of life for Europe began increasing again by the 8th century.

quote: I've no doubt life in the Classical Roman and Greek era was far far better.

That isn't true at all. Quality of life was improving over time, overall, barring the initial step to agriculture.

quote: What was the social system of catalonia before the Civil War?

A lot of the feudalism in Spain ended a century earlier.

But Catalonia was the most industrialized province in Spain, and Barcelona was the industrial capitol of Spain.

Yet the syndicates of Catalonia outperformed their predecessors.

And it would be fair to say that a "capitalist" system was in effect there, if you consider, for example, the US economy capitalistic. Was there free-market capitalism here? No? Has it existed in non-egalitarian societies? No.

quote: Sure, Anarchy may be better than say feudalism, but a socially aware capitalist democratic society is way better.

Why?

quote: If you don't believe me, look at the govt. stats in Civ, Civ 2 and Civ III

I need to make a mod changing that.

	18-01-2002 10:08									#110
	Put an end to popups!

Regarding the disputed point, Dino sez:

"No, the point was that every society for it to truely be called a society has elites."

	18-01-2002 10:27									#111
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka Civilization is highly over-rated.

You must be one of those crazy anarchists Ramo told me about.

quote: Your assertion is a non-sequitor and a bare assertion. Just because you claim something is true doesn't mean it is true.

My assertion is based on historical facts and peer reviewed sociological research. Now if you can provide me even one credible, non-primitivist study regarding the non-inevitability of elities in a society, I will happily consider the possibility of error.

quote: The !kung are a society who have not developed a ruling elite and have been around for thousands of years. Therefore, the development of ruling elites is not inevitable.

*Snicker* I think that this works as a point in my favor if you consider the kind of life this "society" actually leads. But, one statistical anomoly does not a trend make.

quote: And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else.

And this has to do with the validity of my sources (which you haven't said if you wanted or not) in what way?

quote: I'm not sure what your'e asking in this question.

I'm trying to find out why you find this normative statement, "Every people is governed by an elite, by a chosen element of the population," is the result of any special problem in society?

Edit: Sorry, Siro. I should have told you to edit that out when I had the chance.

	18-01-2002 11:19									#112
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I hardly think it's fair to use Catalonia as an example, seeing as how society did not last-long term, in fact it died out quickly enough.

One of the more common compliants heard about anarchy is that without a government, who will protect us from brutal thugs? Lo and behold, they lost their government, and they got subjected to a brutal thug.

	18-01-2002 11:51									#113
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Hurry up Hypzerker I don't have all night.

You might want to try putting it in the right thread this time too.

Attachment: pimp.gif
This has been downloaded 78 time(s).

	18-01-2002 12:00									#114
	Support Apolyton

I just want to get something off of my chest right here and now:

"Ted Striker" is just one of the most badass names I have ever heard. It's like a Top-Gun call sign only I assume it's your real name. If you haven't already, buy your folks some beers for giving you a headstart in life.

--Yin

	18-01-2002 12:05									#115
	Put an end to popups!

Ted -

quote: That tells me all I need to know about you Hypzerker. Talk about generalizing. That isn't proof! That's bigotry! Where is your proof for the above? Numbers? Studies?

You need proof that people on welfare know they are on welfare or that people know it exists? And why does my comment constitute "bigotry"? I didn't mention race, or did you just jump to that convenient conclusion? I've seen plenty of people cashing in food stamps who were obese. I've also known people on welfare so I do know something about the lifestyles of some of them. And I didn't say ALL welfare recipients were obese, etc... Get a grip!

quote: There are abusers of every system.

Is that a bigoted statement? It's no different than what I just said.

quote: So because some people abuse the system, that automatically makes everyone who is getting government money lazy, obese, and can't take care of themselves?

I never said this. Is this why you don't use quotes when attributing your BS to me? You're a dishonest person.

quote: Tell me exactly how the government did this.

quote: No they weren't! They government kept their hands off until the late 1880s! Tell me how they "gave" them monopolies.

By giving the RR's lots of land (and other goodies I'm sure) to build the RRs along with exclusive "rights" to operate the lines they built. That shut out competitors who weren't given these assets.

quote: Oh it's so simple! Just uproot your entire family and relocate! No big deal there!!!

They undoubtedly moved there in the first place BECAUSE of the RR and were probably there to work for the RR or provide other services for those who were RR employees. Did you miss my comment about mining "towns"?

quote: There are no economic and social costs and risks associated with uprooting your entire existence! Of course not!

These risks always exist, but these weren't people who went out and settled land on their own.

quote: Though there was one senator in the ENTIRE Federal government back then that agreed with you.

Umm...I know this may be inconvenient for you, but didn't these politicians vote to end the RR monopolies created by prevous governments? I already said they should have ended these government created monopolies, doh.

quote: It was an analysis of government information, headed by a former cabinet member, based on CENSUS BUREAU statistics.

I already know and said they were government statistics, but the "analysis" was from a liberal think tank. Oh, yeah, former cabinet people never fudge statistics. You did not respond to my argument about how the "analysis" may be flawed. It seems you spend more time debating your own strawmen than what I say.

quote: Here's a link on out of wed-lock birthrate. It starts in 1970, in which the rate was 10.7% for ALL RACES, and as of 1998 is 32.8%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pu...00/00hus009.pdf

I know you're one dense liberal, but just how does this link help your argument?
When did LBJ's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" begin? In the ~mid-60's? And what do these statistics show? It shows that out of wedlock birthrates have skyrocketed since welfare programs were created to combat poverty!

Out of wedlock births:

For whites > 5.5 to 26.3

For blacks > 37.5 to 69.1

And Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino rising slightly to moderately with others jumping in similar fashion to whites and blacks. All in all, a MASSIVE increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates!!!

quote: Over the ensuing 25 years, however, there have been huge increases in the number of single-parent families headed by unmarried mothers.

Yup.

quote: The usual economic explanations welfare benefits and the declining availability of good jobs explain only a small fraction of the change.

And their proof?

quote: In our view, it was the technology shock itself that, by eroding the age-old custom of shotgun marriage, paradoxically raised out-of-wedlock birth rates instead of lowering them.

Umm...these people aren't too smart either, no wonder you're quoting them. "Eroding the age-old custom of shotgun marriage paradoxically raised out-of-wedlock birth rates instead of lowering them"?

Read very slowly, Ted. Shotgun marriages helped reduce out-of-wedlock births because many people were required to get married if they conceived a child out-of-wedlock so that they would be married when the child was born. Eliminating a practice that reduced out-of-wedlock birth rates would not "paradoxically" raise out-of-wedlock birth rates! Sheesh!

quote: If so

Wow! THAT'S IT? That's their evidence?That a "technology shock" eroding shotgun weddings caused the rise in out-of-wedlock birthrates? Did you read this before pasting it here?

	18-01-2002 12:15									#116
	Support Apolyton

paranoia?

	18-01-2002 12:42									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Maybe you forgot to read this line, stud:

quote: But as David Ellwood and Lawrence Summers have shown, welfare benefits could not have played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock births because benefits rose sharply in the 1960s and then fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when out-of-wedlock births rose most.

You also need to read up more on sociology. When the pill hit the scene, it coincided with the free spirited culture of the times, and changed the world. Maybe you forgot about that whole 1970s sexual revolution, eh? That's what they are talking about with regards to the technology paradox. The technology to control timing of births was available to everyone, but instead of preventing pregnancies, people just did the Wild Thing more.

Regarding the railroads, yes the government gave them land grants, but they did not "create" the trusts. The government will offer benefits and grants to encourage business, and especially in this case, a vital infrastructure builder that benefited the common person by connecting the country together. Many credit the railroads with modernizing and creating the ecnonomy of the US. No wonder the government offered land grants! The government encouraged the development of railroads, YET the did not encourage the development of the conglomeration and trusts that took place. That was done strictly by the railroads themselves.

Here's another link, this time from Stanford, with a history of the railroads. It ends with:

quote: Several more transcontinental railroads were built before the end of the century, all by large corporations. Every decade brought increased standardization. In addition, labor unions were developed to protect the rights of the workers. As companies grew larger, they began to take over other related fields. Soon, large trusts were formed that controlled many aspects of both the economy and society. As more and more areas became controlled by the octopus of the railroad industry, it became apparent that regulation was imperative.

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201...lopment_rr.html



yin,

Hey thanks. That's not my real name but I agree it's bad ass. Ted Striker is the main character from the Airplane movies, and yes, he is a pilot. Someday, I hope to be one also. (Though I can't afford the time or money right now).


Dissident,

I'm thinking more like borderline personality disorder.

	18-01-2002 12:46									#118
	Get a bigger avatar today!

LOL! Thought I remembered that somewhere in the back of my head. Yes, Ted Striker.

"...and quit calling me Shirley."

	18-01-2002 12:50									#119
	Addendum Suffering from ads?

quote: There was no more important decade of rail growth than the period of 1850 to 1860. During this time period, total mileage grew to 30,000 miles forming the beginning of a major national rail network. Most of the growth was due to the expansion of existing lines and U.S. government grants-in-aid of vacant lands to railroads to assist in western expansion. In 1870, approximately 8% of the total railroad mileage was built from these government grants. In exchange for over 131 million acres of public land granted to the railroads, the government received reduced transportation rates.

8%!!! Sounds like the government BUILT THEM to me!!!

quote: In the late 1800s, building railroad fortunes was paramount with little effort paid to the safety of the employees. At that time, the life expectancy of a switchman was only seven years and a brakeman stood only a 20% chance of dying from natural causes. In issues of safety, the law favored railroad companies, not railroad employees. Arising out of efforts underway by several states and at the federal level to enact legislation that would increase employer liability and limit the common-law defenses used against railroad employees, the Federal Employers’ Liability Act or F.E.L.A. was enacted in 1908.

http://www.crowlaw.com/history.htm

	18-01-2002 13:35									#120
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Mr Drinking Problem:

"The middle class did well and yes most of it was on credit, but most of the power was overwhelmingly in the power of the rich."

Apart from that we were talking about the economic situation, not the political standing of the middle class: This is different from today... how ?

"Home ownership, as one example, isn't even close back then as it is today."

Don't know the rates from back then, but it is at a high today. And home equity as a percentage of value is at a record low. Bummer.

"A super stable banking system is also intact that didn't exist back then. (Thanks once again to smart government regulation)."

Which means the speculation is using other means, underwritten by the Fed and operating in regulatory blackholes, see Enron, LTCM. And the banks... we haven't seen the credit crunch yet, so it's a bit premature.

"The US will look like Japan until around 2005..." - "Speculation."

A reasonable forecast based on scepticism about trend growth and econ imbalances. If trend growth is 2.5 %, and we take the 1996-2005 period, you have about 0.5 % left for each of the following years. It's also in line with the hangover seen from say the german reunification bust. Your solid-recovery forecast is new economy based, and that is speculative indeed.

"Uhh, hello, there are entire industries that didn't exist back then."

And entire industries that no longer exist. "Diversification" - identify quality (what is "diverse" ?) and quantity of the sectors you see as "diverse". 75 % of GDP today is services - on that level, the US economy is less diversified than in 1929.

"there are other markets left to buffer the loss."

Typical Greenspan errors:
a) Pure demand side economics.
b) Demand is manageable by government.

Doesn't work that way.

"Where is the run on banks?"

That's so 1929. Why run for dollars when they can be primted at will ? In 1929, cash was still on the gold standard.

"The continual slide of the stock market? It has stabalized."

Odd. I call that a bear market rally.

"And you will also notice credit was tightened in the investment section."

What does this mean ?

"Come on, during the Depression, the Eurocom economies were completely obliterated"

Germany had a contraction similar to that of the US (and it implemented similarly stupid policies, btw). In France and the UK the depression was milder.

"I already said I agreed with you there. Yet the process itself has worked more than it has not."

The process is the Fed trying to deal with their own screw-ups. If you're lucky, it "works". I prefer a central bank that is a) independent, b) committed to free markets, and c) committed to stability. Hardly surprising I despise easy Al so much.