From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism,alt.anarchism,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Libertarian Capitalism
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:43:31 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Wm James wrote:
> :       Then why not join them?
> I have too much self respect to beg, too much character for
> welfare, and what makes you think I am not poor?  I said "OFTEN
> withot working...", not always.  The working poor still have
> these things in America.  The problem is the bums who want them
> without working, and the government that robbs the working people
> to give these things to the bums.

How about some simple capitalist economics? Without your bums
and their welfare money, you lose consumers for whatever the
hell products you make, and you may well lose your job.
Amazing isn't it?  In order to keep this economy going, you
have to give people stuff just so they have stuff to trade
back to you. So we hire some of the people to digs holes and
the rest of them to fill holes up. A beautiful exchange
isn't it?  Imagine if we kill the entire welfare program.
The result?  Zillions of unemployed welfare workers, who
now also can't buy whatever the hell products you're making.
That's the beauty of capitalism. Everyone happily employed,
being paid to waste their time, or paying to learn new
and skillful ways to get paid to waste their time.
--------
"We've got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it,
what sort of image it has for them." "Stick it up your nose." "Which is
precisely the sort of thing we need to know. Do people want fire that
can be fitted nasally?" - D. Adams (on marketing)

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.socialism,alt.anarchism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Libertarianism, Capitalism & Greenspan
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:48:18 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Giovanni 8 wrote:
> Objectivism is a philosophy.  It includes a specific metaphysics,
> epistemology, ethics, philosophy of law, and political philosophy.
> Libertarianism is not a philosophy.  It is a political party and
> a political, social & economic movement.
> They intersect in that both believe that people have the right
> to be free from initiated force and fraud.
> "The financial policy of the welfare state requires that
>  there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect
>  themselves.  This is the shabby secret of the welfare
>  statists' tirades against gold.  Deficit spending is
>  simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth.
>  Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.  It
>  stands as a protector of property rights." --- Alan Greenspan
>  1966 "Gold & Economic Freedom" in _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_

So are you quoting this as an example of force or as an example
of fraud? About 7000 years ago, the value of an ounce of gold
was based on the value of about 60 pounds of wheat. There was
no real value in gold, anymore than there is real value in a
printed dollar. If you want to base your currency on the value
of some arbitrary rock, then your society will probably waste
its time digging up that rock. Just another example of a fraud
that still hasn't died out yet. "Hey! Let's base the value of
a dollar on the value of a yen! And then, and then we could
base the value of a yen on the value of a dollar!"
----------
People don't learn from each other's mistakes. 
They learn each other's mistakes.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.socialism,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: THE CIRCULAR CHARADE
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:45:19 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

pyotr filipivich wrote:
> You are what is known as a "poor credit risk" - and the only people who
> will loan you money are going to want 20% interest, a week.  Who have
> big nasty "associates" who will be your personal loan manager.
> Yeah - repudidate those US Bond holdings - and watch the collapse of the
> world economy, and the destruction of the credit of the US.  Whould you
> loan money to someone who had refused to pay you back before?

That would be quite a funny joke to pull. The world economy collapsing
because of the mere destruction of numbers in one country only happens
when all the real economists have all been killed off, scared off, or
pissed off. These are the real imaginary numbers.  Economies are only
made more complex than they seem when economists also have to make a
living.

Wealth creation starts in the banks (whether democratically controlled
or not). Banks simply invent money (called "loans") to pay people to
work... given out like water to provide all the essentials of a young
economy. Prices of the essentials remain low because production is
always being funded. But where does the rest of the invented money
go if prices remain low?  That's when maturing economies start to
produce non-essential goods... entertainment, toys, status symbols,
gold, the stock market, etc... so that there are non-essential goods
free for inflation to run amuck on. After the economy has reached
near full maturity (as in this country), those who think they are
"wealthy" with all their investments in gold, status symbols, toys,
etc. fight like mad to keep their "wealth" away from those who can't
afford them.  And the means to make everyone want these non-essential
goods (or at least seem more valuable)?  Commercial television.
------------
Someday we'll look back on all this and not remember any of it.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarianism,talk.politics.theory,alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Democracy - What are the Limits?
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:06:57 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Jeffrey N Woodford wrote:
> OK, I'll take your challenge.  I don't believe any system can prevent
> tyrrany of a powerful-enough majority over a weak-enough minority.
> Whatever governmental system is in place restraining the majority, the
> majority can always resort to revolution to implemeht their agenda.
> But putting revolution aside, I would be most interested to see what
> kind of system you have in mind which would absolutely prevent tyranny
> of the majority.

There's a lot more to democracy than a simple majority. How about
tyranny of the unanimity? 100% vote to take from 0%. The fact is,
the more people that have to be convinced, the harder it is to do
so. True, total agreement is rarely possible. For some issues,
majority will have to do... and for others, apathy is even better.
So the real question is what things cannot be denied, even if 99%
or 80% want to take it away. It's funny that even in this alleged
constitutional democracy, nothing is so precious. Capital punishment,
of course, is the denial of a person's "right to free speech" but
we don't really believe in the First Amendment. That's just part
of the advertising, from we who sell to they who buy.
-------
In a world lost in propaganda and censorship,
the real truth is spoken only by liars and fools.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: CRASH OF '97 ???
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:04:01 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

ScottCram wrote:
> This, in turn, would seem to suggest a depression in about 10 years, when
> boomers start pulling the money out and living on it. Considering the time
> left, and the fact that they've just recently reached their peak earning
> potential (statistically speaking), I'd be willing to bet that even the
> bottom Dow mark of this distant depression will be much higher (say, 1 or
> 2 thousand more) than the current mark.

"Depression" as defined by what? High unemployment because consumers
aren't buying? Assuming retirees start pulling their money out of
the stock market and spend it, where does the money go? Right back
to producers. The real question is why bother being a producer if
"everyone" can just earn money off the stock market?  Borrow lots
at low interest rates and pile it into the Dow or S&P500. Nobody
has to work; everyone makes a ton of money as the pyramid rises.
Then when we actually try to spend the money, hey, where did all
the producers go?  They're all busy playing the stock market of
course!  So then the real trick is to see if we can trick foreign
nations to trade us real goods for our "wealth".

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.neo-tech,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxation IS Theft
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:22:16 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Pistol wrote:
> as to whom he associates with and does business with.  Whereas, it
> cannot be said, by any reasoning, that one has a right to something
> merely because one "needs" it.

How much does a society have to force a person to know before he
is allowed to exist in that society? How many law books must he
read?  How many deeds and ownership papers must he be aware of?
Can he pick up that rock, or does he have to go to City Hall first
to make sure no one else already has a claim to that rock?

Laws are obeyed because it's usually more expedient to a person's
survival to do so. A soccer player follows the rules of soccer
so he can play the game. But if he gets injured, he's not going
to give a shit about being "offsides" or using his hands to
protect himself, because when it comes to personal survival, the
rules of the game no longer matter, no matter how many referees
or lawyers have debated the rules. It's not a question of how
stiff a penalty to inflict for robbery, because it will be done
anyway... a tougher penalty justs means the robber will be
that much more desperate when he does the deed. The real question
is whether your society can get him to do busy work, learn
existing knowledge, or discover something new.
-----------
I've spent a lot of money in my life. A lot on women, a lot on drink,
and the rest on foolish things.

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 20:38:05 -0600
From: jon@88net.net
Subject: Re: Crash indicators-
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Organization: Deja News Posting Service

In article 5ssaf3$70f@freenet-news.carleton.ca, db559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charles Trew) wrote:
>  (jon@88net.net) writes:
> >  It is inevitable that the SM will crash. When? Pretty soon.
> > The most intelligent will sell out & give some of the proceeds to one of
> > the many worthy charities, before the crash.
> > It's like children & Santa Claus, some sense the truth of the matter,
> > but go on pretending, because they want to beleive (that it won't crash).
>      Dear Invester (sic),
>      Perhaps I could donate to a spelling school for you.
> > "It is a fact that the market will soon crash. The billionaires that
> > control the US media do not want the ignorant masses to know this. It
> > would be wise for investers to sell everything as soon as possible."
>       Better yet, perhaps you'll put your money where your mouth is and
> bet some money on a specific date. How much are you willing to put up, sport?

Take a peek at:
Time magazine's Aug. 4 article, *Wall Street's Doomsday Scenario*.
The liner just below the headline reads: "Believe it: the market
could crash, and political and financial chiefs are making
contingency plans."

Sorry sport, i'm not the betting type, i don't know the month or
year, and  besides -most my money is pretty well spent before
i get it.  With millions dying of hunger while tons of food rots in
warehouses, we've got a big problem here.  I know, many in this
country especially, mostly trust in money, but many trust even more
in something higher. Have you noticed that more and more
of 'the people' are getting into volunteer work and other benevolent
things like that?  Most of those who send a significant percentage
of their income to worthy charities get a warm & fuzzy feeling.

After the market crashes, look for the gradual emergence of a true
democracy truly 'for the people', which will replace the current
sham of 'for the monied interests'. Also watch for some other
profoundly good & momentous changes.

It's my understanding that the profound changes of the past century
are just the tip of the iceberg compared to the changes in the coming
100 years. Despite the way things might seem, we're following a charted
course, and the stock market crash is part of the Plan.

While many of us have played the game of create a personal paradise
for ourselves, we'll change that and work together to create a
tremendously better world for everyone on the planet. Food, housing,
& education will eventually become universal rights. To make a long
story short, we'll quit acting like dumb asses & start acting like
members of an intelligent civilization. Of course some will cling to the
outmoded ways of the past, but eventually even they will 'come
around'.   Wait & see sport.

jon@88net.antispam.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

15.8.97 Still be in a depression.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: STOCK MARKET CRASH 1997
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:22:21 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Leonard Hutchinson wrote:
> In a crash {not due for at least a week or so more} factories do
> disappear. The close down due to higher interests rates and the expense
> that goes with running a factory.
> The LABOR force dives due to recession pressures. Engineers are often
> the first, since demand drops, due to lack of purchasing power of the
> population!
> Farmers also suffer, since many farmers operate at near break even. And
> many of the population change they eating habits to cheaper {lower
> quality} products.
> And when the municpality get called on their CALLABLE bonds they often
> default. Infrastructure decays rapidly, and the municipalities can't get
> new investments. Interest rate would be prohibitive{sp?}. World
> economies also suffer, as foreign cash is withdrawn throughout the
> world. Further crashes also apply.
> Sure let's. A crash {which can happen for many reasons} hurts everyone,
> everywhere!
> Corrections, only hurt investors. A crash, is not likely for at least
> one month, to go out any further in time is to risk being wrong. I
> called the correction back in JULY, but I won't every predict a crash.
> {Just make money off of it}
> Leonard Hutchinson {Hutch}
> North Star Derivatives

Sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference between blatant
ignorance and willful deceit, but considering your occupation, it's
not hard to guess why alchemists, astrologers, and gold miners
claim the world will end without them. You're vision of depression
happens only under mismanaged capitalism. If every bank account
disappears tomorrow, a government that actually has its head on
straight could simply invent money out of nothingness to keep its
people going back to work, whether they're making candy canes or
marketing plastic hats. When the goal of your economy is to invent
busy work for people to do, it's no wonder that everyone from
economists to stock brokers will make things seem more complicated
than they are. Hey, they too have their own job security to worry
about. No problem if they're purposely complicating entertainment,
but stupidly counterproductive if they're trying to complicate the
survival of a society.
----------
When making a living isn't guaranteed, then you can guarantee that
most livings will be made selling bullshit.

From: atwoodl@utkux4.cas.utk.edu (Lee Atwood)
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: STOCK MARKET CRASH 1997
Date: 15 Aug 1997 06:59:33 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article 33F364D2.2AEF@primary.net, Brian Connor  listen@primary.net wrote:
:pinkknight@earthlink.net wrote:
:> All parties eventually come to an end.
:> Right now its about 2am --

[interesting 1987 history recounted, clipped ...except items following]

:Customers were trying to sell 100,000
:shares at the market but that was impossible.

How can it not be "possible"?  By definition, the "market" is whatever
the going price is ...surely there would be some buyers at 5 cents for
a formerly $50 stock!  And if the seller WANTS to sell at that, i.e.
the "market" price, so be it.

:The Dow teetered at 1750.00 If the market had not stopped 
:going down at just that moment I know I would have lost everything I 
:owned and so would have the entire economic world and we would still be
:in a depression.

Such hyperbole!
As if the paper value of things actually are the things themselves,
which it is NOT.

Would the factories, the inventories disappear?  No.
The labor force, the engineers, the CAD workstations?  No.
The raw materials, coal, iron, timber, etc.?  No.

How about foodstuffs, farms, farm machinery, farm workers?? No.

All the physical infrastructure would be there just as before;
therefore, the entire economic world would have lost NOTHING
in terms of true productive & sustenance capability.

Let's keep things in proper perspective here!
-- 
//////////////////////////
  atwoodL@utk.edu
////////////////////////

From: gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.anarchism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: How capitalism creates killing fields:
Date: 12 Aug 1997 13:57:26 -0400
Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{

gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > The definition of socialism is "the ownership or control of
| > the means of production by the people, or by the working
| > class."  There is no mention of the State.
jamesd@echeque.com (James A. donald):
| Yet if everyone owns everything, instead of some people owning one
| thing and other people owning another thing, then on every matter one
| decision has to be made for everyone, instead of people pursuing
| competing and conflicitng ends.  ...

That's why, for instance, public libraries can't work,
because everyone in town has to decide on which books to
get, and when you want to take one out, you have to consult
with the entire population as to which one it should be.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf@panix.com  }"{

15.8.97 16:46 Taxes were abolished.

From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,tx.guns,can.talk.guns,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,alt.journalism,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.activism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Where Gun Control Leads.
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:13:41 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

ulysses wrote:
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed.
> What is meant by "a" well-regulated milita?  Is there, like, one per
> state?  Or does the word milita pertain to any gun-holding body of
> citizens?  Does one loony with a shotgun represent a milita?
> What is meant by "well-regulated"--who does the regulating?
> The militia members themselves?  The state government?  What criteria
> are used to assess whether or not a militia is "well-regulated"?
> If you were to point to the "militia" of, say, Michigan, what would
> you be pointing to?  The Michigan Guard?  Tim McVeigh's pals?  Who?

The point being that governments, like everyone else, can and
will be wrong. The letter of the law is only for lawyers with
nothing better to do to quibble over. The point is that the
right to bear arms, take drugs, kill yourself, buy porno,
whatever doesn't mean it has to be encouraged, just allowed.
Even if only a handful of people actually have guns, it's the
fact that everyone CAN have them that keeps a government from
getting carried away. Guns are the price of a democracy. Gun
deaths are the price of a capitalist democracy.
----------
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the
poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread. -- Anatole France

From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,tx.guns,can.talk.guns,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,alt.journalism,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.activism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Where Gun Control Leads.
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:46:05 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Allen Underdown wrote:
> > I would never be so unpatriotic, so irresponsible, as to refuse to pay my taxes.
> > I live in a democracy, and I don't mind paying the dues.  I do not fear my
> > government any more than I fear The People.
> I'm a pessimist, I don't think it will happen without an
> armed revolt of the People against the government.
> That is the key to the Second Amendment. It allows
> the People to rise up in armed revolt against the government.
> It is only second so that any revolt will be publicized and not
> swept under the carpet.  I believe its called checks and
> balances...

Guns are one thing, but taxes are economics. If all taxes
were abolished, it would be like doubling the world's gold
supply: inflation. A government could just as easily print
money, either to buy things it needs or using it to increase
production. If you want to know why things don't cost less
for you, then you should ask your bank (central or local,
democratic or autocratic) where its loans are telling
people to work.  A loan is little more than the creation
of money, with a promise that it will be destroyed at
some future date.  Of course, that new money is never
really destroyed; it's just given out again, and again
called a loan. A bank in a closed system can make as many
loans (invent as much money) as it wants. The fact that
it must be returned is just to convince the loanee to
actually make something that's not free. Then again, if
something is free, it fights inflation.

From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.activism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.law-enforcement,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,rec.org.mensa,alt.journalism,alt.government.abuse
Subject: Re: The Bell Curve (was privatization of prisons)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:45:43 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Fred Adams wrote:
> 2) How are social/environmental factors normed out of the models in
> question?  This is obviously crucial, because there are non-genetic
> factors that impact the results of intelligence testing.  For example;
> Culturally asians (especially 1st generation immigrants) place much
> more time and effort into education.  This will tend to produce better
> scores for asians even if there is NO inherent genetic racial
> difference.
> -- Intelligence certainly has a genetic basis, but the relation of
> race to intelligence is much less clear.  I have yet to see any
> convincing proof of racial genetic differences that still remains
> above the margin of error after correcting for environmental, social,
> and other developmental factors.

When it becomes nearly impossible to determine racial
intelligence differences free of all other factors, the only
explanation is that there is no difference. A child inherits
much more from its parents than just genes. They inherit the
language, their philosophy. They even inherit their parent's
environment, whether there's lead in the groundwater or books
in the living room. Genetic change in a species is incredibly
slow. If the species relies on that to survive, it could
easily die before it can change. But if the species changes
its behavior along with the environment, great differences
can occur within the span of one generation or less. In
species that have learned to communicate or imitate, genes
that change and are passed on are quickly superceded by
the culture / knowledge that change and are passed on...
as many missionaries will tell you (or at least the ones
before Charles Darwin mucked it all up by overlooking the
role of altruism that evolved in higher animals to keep
societies alive). And the development of writing ensured
that humans will never evolve huge memories, because we
already have it: libraries.

13.8.97 Feed ourselves shiny metals. 

From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: X% of the people own Y% of the Wealth!!!
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:35:08 -0700
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow

Carl Edman wrote:
> > Mr. Martian takes a look at Wall Street
> > and wonders why the heck these idiots waste hours everyday
> > inventing nothing out of nothing.
> Only the most unsophisticated alien would come to that conclusion.  Such an
> alien would probably also believe that a steering wheel is a useless luxury as
> it doesn't contribute to the propulsion of the car.  A more informed alien might
> come to understand that markets serve to determine the usage of finite and real
> resources in the most useful manner.
> > It may all come crashing down
> > tomorrow, it may all disappear because the next solar flare
> > demagnetizes our computers. If it happens, logically speaking,
> > no production power has been lost.
> And if all the worlds libraries burned down tomorrow, no production power would
> be lost either.  Still, the end results would be similarily disastrous.

Wrong and wrong again. What you find in libraries is actual
information. What you find in stocks and bank accounts are
mere accounting measures... the only truly useful amount of
financial information would be, say, how many tons of corn
there are in existance. Every bank account and stock portfolio
could EASILY be erased at the end of every year. The only
thing it could possibly affect is the motivation for people
to keep going to work. Why earn money if it will just all
go away at the end of the year? Why kill someone for an
inheritance if it will just go away at the end of the year?
Why jump into a tulip or gold bubble if it will just go
away at the end of the year?  Instant cure for inflation,
but will anyone go to work?  Do people play tennis in order
to accumulate a lifetime account of victories and then
divide those among their offspring or trade them for softball
victories?  It's pure stupidity.

Paper money and hard currency aren't wealth, just a way for
banks to manage labor. Production capability is wealth...
of course, if your economy produces nothing but lame consumer
items, you could easily starve under the next set of trade
sanctions... or the burst of the tulip bubble...
---------
Life is a tennis match - an audience of journalists, a capitalist
referee, philosopher players, and everyone else is the tennis ball.
Great tennis requires no audience, no referee, not even a tennis ball.

From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: X% of the people own Y% of the Wealth!!!
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:42:18 -0700
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow

jim blair wrote:
> I have read some of these "X% of the people own Y% of the wealth"
> statements, and have dicided that X and Y can be just about anything you
> want, by how "wealth" is defined. In one extreme, 1% of the people own
> 90% of the wealth. It is common to hear that the top 1% own 39% (or 22%)
> of the wealth.
> These are all "true" depending on how "wealth" is defined. Usually
> houses, cars, appliances, clothes (and just about everything that many
> people own) is EXCLUDED: only stocks and assets that only a few own are
> counted as "wealth". The claim to future Social Security is also omitted.
> Now a Martian flying over the country in his saucer would look down and
> consider that the houses and cars that he saw were part of the "wealth".
> But if you were to claim that 1% of the people owned 90% (or 39%) of the
> cars or houses, everyone would know you were fudging the figures to make
> some kind of anti-rich political point.
> But if you say "wealth" many will believe you, especially if you don't
> define what you mean.

Very good. From the point of view of an alien, no amount of deeds
or gold or numbers in computers amounts to anything. In fact,
depending on the value system of the Martian, it may even
consider cars to be worth negative value... like a lawn littered
with burger wrappers. Mr. Martian takes a look at Wall Street
and wonders why the heck these idiots waste hours everyday
inventing nothing out of nothing. It may all come crashing down
tomorrow, it may all disappear because the next solar flare
demagnetizes our computers. If it happens, logically speaking,
no production power has been lost. The real question is how we
will deal with it, or if we've already weaned ourselves off all
this stupidity by then. How rich would this planet be if everyone
was a stock broker? We could all feed ourselves shiny metals.
-----------
Don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything
he always wanted. He lived happily ever after.
	-Roald Dahl

13.8.97 Pushing The Center.
15.8.97 Employment was the end.
16.8.97 Once people start to kill eachother.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Econ of Journalists
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:59:31 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Derek Nalecki wrote:
> However once most of journalists became graduates of 'schools of journalism'
> which were often run by *failures* of journalism, failures because they
> attempted to impose their narrow, personal ideas on what they reported,
> that had changed. The journalist now are almost uniformly of a left-wing,
> even extreme left-wing persuasion, but the tradition of "free agency"
> lingers on, despite the fact that it is totally inappropriate for the
> new media paradigm. The owners, yes, as Mr. Mason says who are capitalists,
> wealthy, often Republican, exercise very little or no control over what
> is reported in the media they own.

Very funny. It's like saying the Church can't help the fact that they
have atheist preachers. But do top Church officials actually believe
in God?  Now that's a different question, but irrelevant, because
it's the wannabes, who assume they know what their bosses want, that
spend all day trying to invent the perfect kiss to plant on that
Golden Butt. They don't speak for themselves, and they don't speak
for their superiors. Instead, wannabes speak for an imaginary
position, that nobody would even believe in if it weren't for their
constant preaching.

Plato, disillusioned with democracy's persecution of his beloved
teacher, imagined a world of a self-perpetuating elite... quite
like how your average autocracy or corporation is run. Of course,
Plato never considered any democracy greater than 51%, and chose
aristocracy instead. In his vision of the ruling elite, the rulers
actually lived in a form of communism, shared spouses and little
material wealth, working only for the good of the people. Most of
that has been tossed of course. Without democracy, nothing was
left to prevent these elite from working *only* for material
wealth and little else. Why? Well, they say selfishness is good,
selfishness moves the world forward. Let's hear it for the system
run by the few, the proud, the selfish! We reap what we sow.
-----------
With earnestness he advocated the case of injustice against justice,
and by specious arguments and illustrations he strove to prove that
injustice was an advantage to the State, while justice served no
useful purpose.         - St. Augustine

From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Econ of Journalists
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 18:53:28 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Carl Edman wrote:
> > Here's a real issue for you: gun control.
> That is an easy one.  Support for gun control highly correlates with
> support for the Left in this country, clearly demonstrating my
> contention that on most political issues the left-right distinction has
> a high predictive value.  Whether you find the underlying philosophical
> argument convincing is neither here nor there.

Only because these are apparently the only choices available.
You can tell a child, "Go to sleep at 9." And he has two
choices: either to obey or not to obey. If he chooses not to
obey, then he may go to sleep at 10. BUT if you say, "Do you
want to go to sleep at 8 or 9?" it immediately limits the
choices, and it becomes too easy to lose track of all other
options. "Do you believe in God?" quite often assumes you must
accept one of the existing religions or be an atheist.

> One internal contradiction at least is between the exalted position you
> afford knowledge and the contempt in which you hold the most powerful
> and efficient means devised for the extraction, distribution and
> application of economic knowledge, to wit a market.

Or the most powerful and efficient means to determine laws:
a dictatorship. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll be good, just
fast and quick. If the purpose of the government is at
least to protect lives, then it is the minimal duty of the
government, once people start to kill eachother over tulips
or gold, to step in and tell them it's just a pyramid scheme.

If by enforcing property laws, a government is preventing
its people from making a living, then it either has to
stop enforcing property laws, or (the easier route if it
controls the printing of currency) invent money. Money is
merely the management of labor. If private farmers don't
want government farmers to lower prices, the government
(democratic or not) easily has the power to create a closed
public economy, with no outflow of goods or information.
But then, only the most backwards of economies wouldn't
want more goods or information. Only in the most backwards
of economies can imports lower the standards of living of
its people.
------------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.

From: "W. Wonka" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Econ of Journalists
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:55:58 -0700
Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ)

Carl Edman wrote:
> > Assuming there are only 2 constituencies: left or right. How about
> > up or down? Green or purple? Libertarian capitalists, authoritarian
> > communists, democratic socialists, or Plato Republicans?
> Not at all.  Clearly there the number of different political viewpoints is
> exponential in the large number of political issues.  Nevertheless the
> left-right spectrum is useful at least in the western world. Positions on
> different issues tend to correlate strongly. That is why given a persons
> position on that spectrum allows you to predict their point of view on most
> issues with a high degree of accuracy, if not certainty.

That's only a symptom of our 2 party system... assuming you're only
one or the other, with all their associated positions, whether
arbitrarily chosen or irrelevant... and then you break it down
to issues: if Democrats eat from the pointy side of the egg, does
that mean Republicans must eat from the fat side? Here's a real
issue for you: gun control. One side believes in military equality
and the other believes that only certain priveleged portions of
society can have access to weaponry. Which sounds left or right to
you? Or take the old Libertarian point that you can't initiate
force on property. But if force can't be initiated, property can
only be defined by agreement.

> This country is about equally Democratic and Republican. Self-described
> conservatives outnumber self-described liberals by a considerable margin with
> the number of moderates falling somewhere in between.  You or I may not like
> these facts, may passionately believe that a minority is right and the majority
> wrong, but every measurement over the past decades has confirmed these
> demographic facts.

Measurements by those whose own livelihoods depend on making
those measurements. Every measurement at one point in time also
said the world was flat. It's only an issue of who must suffer
if you think evolution STILL relies on survival of the fittest
THOUSANDS of years after having developed communication. The
real question is why an economy should create busywork to waste
its people's effort on paperwork or fundraising, just to prove
they are useful to society. Ironic that the less welfare you
give the poor, the less they can spend buying whatever it is
you make. Both the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression
proved a society can easily be kept alive by a fraction of the
population. Keynes got it wrong when he thought employment was
the end. Employment is the MEANS, knowledge is the end.
----------
Competitive evolution explains genes. Cooperative evolution
explains knowledge and philosophy. Which is more efficient?

From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Econ of Journalists
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:15:05 -0700
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow

Carl Edman wrote:
> Mason A. Clark wrote:
> > QUESTION:  Why is it that journalists are predominantly "left"
> > "progressive" "Democratic" -- whatever -- you know what I mean?
> > The newspaper owners are right, capitalist, Republican, businessmen.
> That seems to be the general claim.  I'm not sure it is correct.  Today, for
> example, the owners/CEOs of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and ABC
> are all openly and proudly left Democratic.  The only major right-wing media
> baron which comes to mind is Mr. Murdoch.  Most other major media don't seem to
> have much of a single, identifiable controlling personality with a distinct
> political view.  Historically there have been more strongly political publishers
> but there seems to be a Maxwell for every Colonel.

...whatever "left Democratic" or "right-wing" is. How would we know
if they didn't just invent the existance of this mystical Mr. Murdoch
just to have something to appear "to the left of"? Freedom of the
press truly does belong to those who own one.

> > No doubt they get mad at their journalists and sometimes interfere
> > with them, but they can't seem to get them under their control.
> One argument is that as the major media function in a highly competitive
> marketplace, so they have to deliver what the public wants which presumably is
> news reporting which reflects the views of the general public.  Ergo there can
> be no left-wing news bias.
> That argument doesn't take into account that publishers have to satisfy two
> constituencies, not just one.  True, without a readership there is no paper, but
> neither is there without experienced reporters and editors.  If the former wants
> balanced reporting and the latter left-wing journalism, publishers will have to
> strike a balance somewhere left-of-center.  This thesis explains both why
> journalists perceive publishers as pulling them to the right and why news
> reporting isn't quite as dramatically biased as the political views of most
> reporters/editors would suggest.

Assuming there are only 2 constituencies: left or right. How about
up or down? Green or purple? Libertarian capitalists, authoritarian
communists, democratic socialists, or Plato Republicans? Let's say
there's a issue about allowing more time off. "Rightists" want 100%
time off for 5% of the population. "Centrists" want 50% more time off
for 10% of the population. "Leftists" want 20% more time off for 100%
of the population. So they compromise at the "left-of-center" 50%
more time off for 20% of the population. As usual, whoever gets to
define the center, has essentially defined left and right. Personally,
I'd define The Center as a person with a median income. Only trouble
is, that just happens to put just about every politician and Crossfire
"radical" deep in right field. So then we just keep pushing The Center
to the right, until we find something comfortable enough to argue
about.
-------------
Government lies, and newspapers lie, but in this country they are
different lies.

From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Cheap Will
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:12:11 -0700
Organization: Sense Networking Seattle (http://www.oz.net)

Bjørn Hope wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 17:07:42 GMT, beck@lightspeed.bc.ca (George
> Beckingham) wrote:
> >The universe is fully deterministic, but it is also incomprehensibly
> >complex.
> Doesn't Heisenberg's (wasn't that his name?) uncertainty principle
> contradict the idea of a fully deterministic universe?

Nope, only incorrect extrapolations of his theory. It goes like
this: imagine if we were all blind, and the only we could see
was by throwing tennis balls (or photons) at things, and feel
how many bounce back. For large objects, say a building, this
is fine, but for a boulder rolling down a hill, throwing tennis
balls at it will just change its movement. So even if everything
obeys strict deterministic laws, it's still impossible to fully
predict what will happen. We can only guess at where that
rolling boulder is after our tennis balls have bounced back.
Thus the notion of probabilities in quantum mechanics. BUT that
only explains the inability to fully predict events, but says
nothing about determinism. Of course, the bigger the ego, the
less likely someone is willing to admit that his accomplishments
aren't his own. (Now THERE's some quantum probabilities for ya.)

> ...For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:21)

Now that's a different question. Who knows, maybe we're all
little video game characters being manipulated by zillions of
Gods with joysticks. Maybe they let go of those joysticks in
1859. Maybe joysticks were never made in the first place,
and they just watch us for fun.
--------
Competitive evolution explains genes. Cooperative evolution
explains knowledge and philosophy. Which is more efficient?

From: gortega369@aol.com (GOrtega369)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: ! PHYSICIST J. BELL AFFIRMS DETERMINISM
Date: 12 Aug 1997 03:03:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

The majority of physicists publishing popular books on quantum
theory today are misrepresenting the principle of determinism and
leading the public astray by wrongly concluding that because
quantum mechanics does not enable predictability of certain
particles, these particles are therefore indeterministic.

Determinism states that all events are determined by prior events.
It makes no claim, and should not be misconstrued as asserting,
that these events must be amenable to predictability.

Following is an except from the book The Ghost in the Atom, by
theoretical physicist P.C.W. Davies and British Broadcasting
Corporation radio producer J.R. Brown, published by Cambridge
University Press, 1986, wherein the late CERN theoretical
physicist and Bell's Theorem creator John Bell clearly states that
quantum mechanics in no way refutes determinism.

(Page 46.)

BBC Interviewer:  " Of course one person who was somewhat
disbelieving was Einstein, and he made the famous remark that God
does not play dice with the universe.  Would you say that after
this experiment, (Alain Aspect's, 1982,) and after your work,
you're convinced that God does indeed play dice with the
universe?" 

John Bell: " No, no, by no means.  But I would also like to
qualify a little bit this 'God does not play dice' business.  This
is something often quoted, and which Einstein did say rather early
in his career, but afterwards he was more concerned with other
aspects of quantum mechanics than with the question of
indeterminism.  And indeed, Aspects' particular experiment tests
rather those other aspects, specifically the question of no action
at a distance."

BBC Interviewer:  " You don't think it tells us anything about the
determinism or indeterminism of the physical world?"

John Bell:  " To say it tells nothing, that would be going to far.
I think that it is very difficult to say that any one experiment
tells you about any isolated concept.  I think that it's a whole
world view which is tested by an experiment, and if the experiment
does not verify that world view, it is not so easy to identify
just which part is suspect and has to be revised.  Certainly the
experiment says that Einstein's world view is not tenable."

BBC Interviewer:  " Yes, I was going to ask whether it is still
possible to maintain, in the light of experimental experience, the
idea of a deterministic universe?"

John Bell:  " You know, one of the ways of understanding this
business is to say that the world is super-deterministic.  That
not only is inanimate nature deterministic, but we, the
experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment
rather than another, are also determined.  If so, the difficulty
which this experimental result creates disappears."

BBC Interviewer:  " Free will is an illusion - that gets us out of
the crisis, does it?"

John Bell:  " That's correct.  In the analysis it is assumed that
free will is genuine, and as a result of that one finds that the
intervention of the experimenter at one point has to have
consequences at a remote point, in a way that influences
restricted by the finite velocity of light would not permit.  If
the experimenter is not free to make this intervention, if that
also is determined in advance, the difficulty disappears."

Misleading readers of popular works on quantum physics to conclude
that inability to accurately predict particle activity
demonstrates that this activity is indeterministic, and not
subject to the rule of cause and effect, is a great disservice to
both the public and the physics community.

I urge that professional physicists take appropriate measures to
inform popular works authors within their ranks, and the general
public, that quantum mechanics has not invalidated the principle
of determinism.

From: gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Communism - Capitalism vs. Imperialism -- they are not the same!
Date: 10 Aug 1997 10:11:35 -0400
Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{

Libertarius wrote: 
| > ===>You still don't get it! "Capitalism" is the operation in and
| >     of a FREE MARKET, without interference by any government,
| >     "God", "Angels", or any other extra-market entity.
| >     No "imperialism" is possible without a government.
| >     Therefore no imperialism is possible in a free market.
| >     The fact that certain governments who gained their
| >     funds from taxing capitalists in turn went and occupied
| >     other countries does not mean that capitalism CAUSED that
| >     imperialism. Imperialistic is an act of GOVERNMENTS, like
| >     Rome, China, Russia, etc., as well as Great Britain, etc.
| >     Actually Socialism, which has been historically DEPENDENT ON
| >     Governmental functioning, is MORE likely to be connected with
| >     Imperialism.
| >     You need to clarify your concepts or else you'll be just
| >     repeating the old Marxist-Leninist nonsense.
Ron Allen rallen2@mail.atl.bellsouth.net:
| It seems that your teflon capitalism can exist with imperialism and yet 
| never need to wash its dirty hands.

The term "capitalism" was invented around 1870 to describe
a category of societies in which feudal power had been
supplanted by bourgeois power -- that is, by people who
have, control, and manage industrial capital.  The inventor
was probably not a capitalism fan, although this is
irrelevant.  In any case, the term was somewhat derogatory;
people don't like being pushed around by anybody, whether
they're feudal lords or the rich.

Sometime well into the 20th century, some capitalism fans
decided that the requirements of the propaganda war
required them to deal with the problematic term
_capitalism_ and the ideas it represents.  There was a
division of opinion: some wanted to substitute terms like
"democracy" (even though capitalism is not particularly
democratic), "freedom", "free enterprise", and so on.
There was also the "free world" which included all sorts of
tyrannies -- Saudi Arabia, South Africa, overt and covert
colonial arrangements, and numerous military
dictatorships, on top of thorough bourgeois domination of 
the home turf.

However, some propagandists decided it would be better to
appropriate the term "capitalism" and change its meaning
through their skills and resources.  (Ayn Rand may have
been one of the pioneers in this, although it's possible
she just picked up on something that was already
happening.)  In this project, the meaning of "capitalism"
is changed to denote anarchy or idealized classical
liberalism in which everyone is free and all social
relations are the free association of free persons.  Of
course nothing like this has ever existed in actual
capitalist states, so when the contradiction is pointed
out, the propagandists or their victims reply "Oh, they not
_real_ capitalists."  See above, or look in any of the
political groups on the Net, or in almost anywhere in the
mass media.

This change leaves us without a word to describe the
meaning originally covered by _capitalism_, unable to speak
about societies dominated by bourgeois power -- but that's
the idea.  As George Orwell pointed out in _1984_, if you
can control language you can make it impossible for people
to think or speak critically about their situation.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf@panix.com  }"{
NOTE: All junkmail received by this id is automatically
forwarded to the administrators of the originating and 
intermediate systems, as determined from the headers.

10.8.97 Smarter, but enough smarter?

From: wfhummel@pacbell.net (William F. Hummel)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: How to deal with bubbles? (WAS: Comments, please)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:53:13 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services

On 11 Aug 1997 03:21:26 GMT, "Richard M. Geis" rmgeis@erols.com wrote:
> Deflation
>happened during the Depression of the 1930's, and in response the Fed
>lowered interest rates into the negative numbers. If deflation happened in
>the next decade, couldn't the Fed, with all of it's debt, simple print some
>more money to pay off some debt: not like Germany of the 1920's, or Mexico
>of the 1970(?)'s just enough to stave off deflation?
------------
A good question without an easy answer.  During the Great Depression the
problem was not lack of supply so much hoarding of funds.  People held a
lot more cash than normal out of fear of what lay ahead.  Effective demand
withered as a result.  At the same time banks were reluctant to lend for
fear that the loans would go sour.  They held far more reserves than they
would normally do.  The Fed had very little leverage in terms of
"printing" more money, as evidenced by the unusually low interest rates
that prevailed.

In today's global economy, the deflationary threat arises not so much from
a deficiency of the money supply as from the overcapacity to produce,
resulting to stiff global price competition.  Among the industrialized
nations of the world, supply threatens to exceed demand.  In a closed
economy, perhaps the Fed could help correct that imbalance by printing
more money.  But the Fed cannot push on a string.  Ultimately it is up to
the banking sector to convert the reserves created by the Fed into
additional credit money.  How that would play out in today's environment
where money flows freely around the world is not at all clear.

William F. Hummel

From: "Richard M. Geis" rmgeis@erols.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Comments, please
Date: 10 Aug 1997 02:26:27 GMT
Organization: erols.com

The American Stock Market
A Bubble Ready to Blow?

The American Stock Market has had quite a run lately. Many people say
"unprecedented". The fact is it not unprecedented. While values of 
price/earnings ratios and other numbers are way above the historical
normal, and not many would argue with me about the numbers, people are
still buying stock. I would like to explain this human element of the stock
market. In this essay, I will examine three periods of history that I
believe have some bearing on today's incredible bull run on Wall Street,
and then compare and contrast with contemporary circumstance. 

The Dutch Tulip Bubble (also known as Tulipmania) started in 1634 and
lasted until 1637, during this time the Dutch were consumed by the greatest
mania of recorded history. In 1623 it took about 68 minutes at the average
wage to earn enough money to buy a tulip bulb. In early 1637, it took one
year. Why were people paying today's equivalent of thirty thousand dollars
to buy something that cost only ten dollars fifteen years earlier? The
answer was greed. "A golden bait was hung temptingly out before the people,
and one after the other, they rushed to the tulip-marts, like flies around
a honey-pot. Everyone imagined that the passion for tulips would last
forever, and that the wealthy form every part of the world would send to
Holland, and pay whatever prices were asked for them."(Mackay p.97) The
second week of February of 1637, the tulip bubble burst, in less than two
years the value of a tulip bulb was back to the ten dollars range.

  There were other speculative bubbles in the next three hundred years,
they grew in length of time and number of victims, and lessened in slope of
the parabolic upspike. The next bubble I would like to address is the Stock
Market Collapse of 1929. The 1920's were a boom for the United States,
World War I had ended, and the economy was booming. Prohibition was the law
of the land, and the most widely ignored law ever conceived. This
criminality of the populace provided a euphoric atmosphere that gave
investors the feeling of omnipotence.  As this potency increased the power
snowballed into the most widespread mania of recorded history. While all
previous recorded bubble manias may have affected two hundred thousand
people, the American stock market mania of the 1920's had investors
numbering into the tens of millions. The subsequent depression of the
1930's was the direct result of the disillusionment of these millions of
investors. "At the end of 1929, the New York Times looked back on the year
to identify its biggest story. It was Admiral Byrd's trip to the South
Pole. There is a hint in this that is worth noting. Like the dog that did
not bark, the failure to recognize the evidence of impending depression
tells you again that expectations are linear. The smartest reporters in the
world could not see the importance of the stock market crash in 1929. Their
grandsons and granddaughters are unlikely to do better in the 1990's."
(Davidson p. 375) 

The most recent stock market bubble to burst was the Japanese stock market.
In January 1989, the Nikkei Dow, (the Japanese stock market index of
choice) reached it's high of 38915. By August of 1992 the index stood at
14194, barely 33% of it's former high. This mania was different from all
previous mania's in that this bubble, while reflected in the stock market
averages, was mostly a real estate bubble. "By 1988, it was said that a
single prefecture of Tokyo was worth more that all of Canada. Yet this was
not the peak". (Davidson p. 145) People of Japan were entering into 100
year mortgages to buy a residence because, even though the value of land
was overpriced, exports of Japanese products would continue to skyrocket,
and prices for real estate would continue to the sky. 

What parallels can draw between today and the speculative bubbles in the
past? The common theme to all mania's is: "Through identification, people
become suggestible to propositions that would ordinarily appear to be
highly irrational". (Dines p. 229) If everybody thinks the market will go
up, which is true today, why does it stop it's accent? What is the vehicle
that drives the market down? The main vehicle for the decline is if the
entire populace believes that it will continue on it's merry way to the
moon, EVERYONE has already sold everything they own to buy stock and are
now waiting for the profits to come in. There is nobody left to buy. The
bubble bursts, and stocks sell off.

How do we know when the top is here? How do we know that it is finally time
to sell stocks? What does the current time have in common with past
bubbles? What are the differences? Is the human race becoming smarter about
these mania's? Picking a top is very risky business. Wall Street Analyst's
metaphor for picking tops is "Standing in front of a freight train"(Dines
p.320), (they also have a metaphor for picking bottoms "Trying to catch a
falling knife"). Selling stock can risk future profits, and is dangerous,
put finding the top can be a very lucrative endeavor.  Today's investor has
many similarity's and differences with past investors. The similarities
include: no fear of severe downturns, feeling of omnipotence, and
complacency in the knowledge that it is different this time. The
differences is we have a novel reason for investing - for retirement, they
are not in this for the fast buck, they "are in this for the long haul".

The big question remains: is the human race smarter about these mania's? I
think that it is true that the human race is smarter, but enough smarter? 
As a race we have learned from our past mistakes. As I said earlier in this
treatise, these mania's are growing in time and lessening in upspike.
Investors of this era are expecting their investments to grow at 30% per
year into the foreseeable future, which would but the Dow Jones Industrial
Average in the 100,000 range in ten years. (It is odd that investors expect
this return for the next 10 years, however when you tell them this number,
they say "can't happen".)

So what is the future for investors of the late 20th century? One thing is
for certain: nobody knows, and everyone has a prediction. My prediction
follows: I cannot predict a top, be it a number on an average or a date, I
cannot say if it will be days, weeks, or months, I will say: it will not be
years. After the top, I will predict that the foreseeable future (fifty
years) will see a trading range with three to four thousand as a bottom,
and whatever (8300 to 10000) as the top. In the short run, I will not risk
my investments for another ten to twenty percent gain. 
                        
Bibliography

Mackay, Charles. Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the 
     Madness of Crowds. London. Office of the National
     Illustrated Library, 1852.

Davidson, James Dale., and Lord William Rees-Mogg. The Great
     Reckoning. New York. Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Dines, James. Mass Psychology. Belevedere, California. James 
     Dines & Company, 1996.
-- 
I wrote this for a english cource I am taking.
Thanks in advance for comments.
Richard M. Geis
rmgeis@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/rmgeis/stocks.htm