Re: POLITICS - climate vs. energy vs. jobs outsourcing

[Guest guest]

>Uh, or we may live like them, if US corporations are allowed to outsource

>like they have been. Cheap labor overseas is a hot topic for many Americans

>for whom jobs are gone to cheaper markets, with no sign of retraining,

>explanation, care, etc

Actually they may have the advantage on us, because in some of

those countries the gov't pays for their education (hence, they

have better-trained workers who aren't paying off college loans!).

Shoot, I wonder if they get paid health insurance?

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> " Like, India has a poor, dense population, and now it is getting

> industrialized. Ditto with China. THAT will have a big impact if they

> start living like us! " -- Heidi Jean

>

> Or like on many farms, importing labor illegally perpetuates the same bad

> archetype. Globalization,WTO, outsourcing. These are issues of power and

> wealth controlling people and other commodities like food and water. So

> wake up.

>

> These issues are very relevant to all. Government is us (still), so any

> head in the sand is an applicable to each of us.

>

> Deanna

This head in the sand, technological abuse was my meaning when I said we

have the technology to avert an onslaught of immigrants from a worse case

scenario projection. WTO, IMF purposes up to now have been to Mc economize

developing countries with U.S. corporations, privitization of life basics,

food and water, deregulating to corporate benefit, workers lose. Result

capitalist dependance, more poverty, unemployment, higher cost of living,

and less than 5% of that country's population controlling 90% of the money.

The choice could be made to create independence or self dependence instead

if some of the funds were put into localized sustainable food production

plus have exports. The technology exists to create healthy, productive food

systems just about anywhere on the planet. Instead of digging wells, putting

in irrigation, corporations set up water that must be paid for. Instead of

using animal manure and compost, nitrogen fertilizer must be bought. Instead

of seeds that grow year to year, ge seeds must be bought. Fund tractors,

wells, irrigation and livestock. There'd still be plenty of other places to

fatten wallets and less immigrants. Imports still needed. Fossil fuel use

will be less. Dependence without dignity will make problems eventually. You

know ladies, lefties or those that don't agree with profit no matter the

price to humans or the planet aren't appreciated by all here.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> The choice could be made to create independence or self dependence

instead

> if some of the funds were put into localized sustainable food

production

> plus have exports. The technology exists to create healthy, productive

food

> systems just about anywhere on the planet. Instead of digging wells,

putting

> in irrigation, corporations set up water that must be paid for.

Instead of

> using animal manure and compost, nitrogen fertilizer must be bought.

Instead

> of seeds that grow year to year, ge seeds must be bought. Fund

tractors,

> wells, irrigation and livestock.

Traditionally, selling things has been regarded as a better business

plan than giving them away. If you disagree with this assessment,

perhaps you should lead by example. Now that the .com bubble has burst,

you may have lost your window of opportunity for getting venture

capitalists to sign on with this, but that just means more profits for

you, right?

[Guest guest]

>This head in the sand, technological abuse was my meaning when I said we

>have the technology to avert an onslaught of immigrants from a worse case

>scenario projection. WTO, IMF purposes up to now have been to Mc economize

>developing countries with U.S. corporations, privitization of life basics,

>food and water, deregulating to corporate benefit, workers lose. Result

>capitalist dependance, more poverty, unemployment, higher cost of living,

>and less than 5% of that country's population controlling 90% of the money.

Oh Wanita, you just worry too much! All the economists are SURE

that if you just let the economy have free rein all the problems

will go away. Us poor folk don't need money anyway, and we sure

have it better than ever (they keep telling us that) and all those unemployed

people are just a myth ... unemployment is lower than ever.

And all those poor underdeveloped countries NEED Mc's,

that is what they really have been hungering for, don'cha know, so their

Moms can have jobs and not sit around watching kids all day ...

-- Heidi JEan

[Guest guest]

> Fund tractors, wells, irrigation and livestock.

Wanita

>

> Traditionally, selling things has been regarded as a better business

> plan than giving them away. If you disagree with this assessment,

> perhaps you should lead by example. Now that the .com bubble has burst,

> you may have lost your window of opportunity for getting venture

> capitalists to sign on with this, but that just means more profits for

> you, right?

>

>

Pretty strong personal judgements here. Do walk my talk to the best of my

abilities more than you'll ever assume it isn't. More free volunteer time,

verbal help, life dignities given than hard to come by compared to most's

$$. You're so far from any intentions I could have of how such could even

happen it's absurd. Go for whatever you could make of it. Selfishly admit

that there's more sense to creating local food community than going halfway

around the planet. People working together for a common purpose can be free

in initial time and work and mutually beneficial if anything comes of it.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Oh Wanita, you just worry too much! All the economists are SURE

> that if you just let the economy have free rein all the problems

> will go away.> -- Heidi JEan

Yup, DH tells me at least once a week I worry too much about others. :-)

Just one of those undesirable human natures.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> Oh Wanita, you just worry too much! All the economists are SURE

> that if you just let the economy have free rein all the problems

> will go away. Us poor folk don't need money anyway, and we sure

> have it better than ever (they keep telling us that) and all those

> unemployed

> people are just a myth ... unemployment is lower than ever.

> And all those poor underdeveloped countries NEED Mc's,

> that is what they really have been hungering for, don'cha know, so their

> Moms can have jobs and not sit around watching kids all day ...

When you ridicule that which you obviously do not understand, you just end

up looking foolish.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>When you ridicule that which you obviously do not understand, you just end

>up looking foolish.

Right back atcha buddy.

-

[Guest guest]

>Yup, DH tells me at least once a week I worry too much about others. :-)

>Just one of those undesirable human natures.

>

>Wanita

This is true. There is no profit in worrying about others, or having

empathy with them. Dogooder organizations are basically pathalogical,

so is mothering. Babies should be put in a centers and raised by folks

who are no good for anything else. I guess there were forward

thinking people who did this on the Kibbutzes ... we had a lady working

for us who told me how her mother was not allowed to treat her differently

than any other baby, lest she develop selfish attachments. And hey, the lady

grew up (OK, she was neurotic as all get out, but that was probably because

her mother wasn't sufficiently disinterested).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> >When you ridicule that which you obviously do not understand, you

just end

> >up looking foolish.

>

> Right back atcha buddy.

The only thing I can think of to which you might be referring is your

belief that efficiently growing plants for fuel oil would violate the

laws of thermodynamics. I am absolutely certain that this is incorrect,

the simplest proof being that the fuel oil we have now was derived from

plants with no inputs other than sunlight. I politely (although I admit

that " This is...very, very confused " is probably not the most tactful

way to begin a rebuttal) explained why I disagreed with your thesis, and

you failed to address my objections other than by asserting that they

were " silly " and " dogmatic. " I requested a clarification or explanation

a few times, but to the best of my knowledge, you have not seen fit to

elaborate. If you change your mind, you know where to find me. I remain

very curious about this.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> BB:

> > WS:

> > > Fund tractors, wells, irrigation and livestock.

>

> > Traditionally, selling things has been regarded as a better business

> > plan than giving them away. If you disagree with this assessment,

> > perhaps you should lead by example. Now that the .com bubble has

burst,

> > you may have lost your window of opportunity for getting venture

> > capitalists to sign on with this, but that just means more profits

for

> > you, right?

>

> Pretty strong personal judgements here, stop.

None whatsoever. I am not interested in judging you personally (not that

there's anything wrong with that)--only your ideas about how society

works and how it should work, or at least, what parts of them I can

tease out of those tangled webs of ill-formed sentence fragments which

you weave so deftly. I'm just saying that if you think that corporations

can make money by giving everything away, you should show them how to

make this novel business model work. For whatever reason, they're having

some trouble figuring it out on their own, and they need a visionary

like you to lead the way.

> Do walk my talk to the best of my

> abilities more than you'll ever assume it isn't, stop.

1. Huh?

2. I never said you didn't.

> More free volunteer time,

> verbal help, life dignities given than hard to come by compared to

most's

> $$, stop.

1. Huh?

2. I don't know what you think " dignity " and " dignities " are, but I must

admit that this notion of " dignities " being given is entirely foreign to

me. Dignity is a quality that comes from within and from how one lives

one's life, not something that can be given or taken away. Less

abstractly, it may refer to a title of nobility, which I believe is the

only sense in which it can meaningfully be used as a plural. Have you

knighted many people lately?

> You're so far from any intentions I could have of how such could even

> happen it's absurd, stop. Go for whatever you could make of it, stop.

> Selfishly admit that there's more sense to creating local food

community

> than going halfway around the planet, stop. People working together

> for a common purpose can be free in initial time and work and mutually

> beneficial if anything comes of it, stop.

1. Huh?

2. Look--I'm pretty good at puzzles and whatnot, so if I don't

understand what you're talking about more than half the time, I don't

think many other people here do, either. You could be talking about

16th-century Swahili literature in that paragraph above, and I'd be none

the wiser. This is e-mail, not telegraphy, and if your ISP is anything

like mine, you're paying by the month, not by the word. Tell you

what--I'll meet you halfway. If you can manage linguistic coherence, I

won't insist on logical coherence.

[Guest guest]

> > > WS:

> > > > Fund tractors, wells, irrigation and livestock.

> > BB:

> > > Traditionally, selling things has been regarded as a better business

> > > plan than giving them away. If you disagree with this assessment,

> > > perhaps you should lead by example. Now that the .com bubble has

> burst,

> > > you may have lost your window of opportunity for getting venture

> > > capitalists to sign on with this, but that just means more profits

> for

> > > you, right?

> >WS:

> > Pretty strong personal judgements here, stop.

> BB:

> None whatsoever. I am not interested in judging you personally (not that

> there's anything wrong with that)--only your ideas about how society

> works and how it should work, or at least, what parts of them I can

> tease out of those tangled webs of ill-formed sentence fragments which

> you weave so deftly. I'm just saying that if you think that corporations

> can make money by giving everything away, you should show them how to

> make this novel business model work. For whatever reason, they're having

> some trouble figuring it out on their own, and they need a visionary

> like you to lead the way.

,

As you and not you alone have trouble interpretting my writing I'll try to

explain in processes you can understand. Never said or meant give away. Fund

can mean loan farmers rather than put in place corporate start up capital to

create water bills, export marketers and consultants when the farmers know

the tools needed for better production. You and I both seem to agree that

the Social Security administration for example is filled with costs that

could jeopardize future receipt of funds. The farmer and retiree are both

implied benefactor. What's the difference between the farmer and the

retiree?

Wanita