O B S C U R E
Rant


From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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@reocities.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

|HOME| cyu@oz.net [email/finger/index]

|count| |11/13|