Brent <digital.brent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 4:50 am, Alexander Kalinowski
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Brent <digital.br...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > On Jun 5, 12:54 am, Alexander Kalinowski
>> > <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Brent <digital.br...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >>That needs to change.
>>
>> >> > Why?
>>
>> >> > Are you arguing against globalised football, or globalisation?
Either
>> >> > way, I stand in favour of globalisation.
>>
>> >> Alex:
>> >> The question isn't one of being for or against globalization. The
question is one of whether
>> >> globalization needs to be managed by politics and it cannot be
questioned that it does.
>>
>> > Yet question I will.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Which is legitimate. :-) I am not against globalized football or
against
>> globalization. I am against underregulated economies.
>
> We should get along great. I am an anarcho-capitalist, endorsing the
> privatisation of the government and all of it's functions altogether.
> I see capitalism as a self-regulating system. Any regulations placed
> upon echo to create more problems than they solve.
Alex:
I'm not so sure I can agree to that. But we might get along nonetheless.
Ordoliberalism is about setting a framework within which the market is
allowed to operate. However that framework is a necessity.
Furthermore, as I have expressed, competition isn't just the solution,
it's
also a problem, if in excess.
>>
>> Check out this one:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
>>
>> >> 1. Countries are currently in competition for mobile global capital.
>>
>> > I disagree. On a couple of points. Countries are in competition for
>> > much much more than mobile global capital.
>>
>> Alex:
>> That is beyond question. They are, for example, competing for
recognition.
>> The Iraq war for example has become an issue of who is being right,
therefore
>> more intelligent - which moves one up on the food chain of coolism. :-)
>
> The Iraq war isn't about coolism or who is right.
Alex:
You err. The question has become between the US and Europe a question of
who
is more right, whose take on the situation is more adequate.
> It is about the
> benefits afforded to those deciding to invade.
Alex.
Classical leftist misinterpretation. :-)
> Whether or not those
> benefits have unfolded as planned is another thing. Nevertheless, Iraq
> was not about justice, WMDs, international altruism, liberation,
> terrorism, Al Qaeda, Osama, Hussein, or any of that ****.
Alex:
You err. It was about maintaining America's (self-)image of the lone
Gary-Cooper-style hero or at least by parts of the American society. The
part of American society that doesn't understand that (because they don't
watch western movies, for example) don't understand the mentality of the
Iraq war sup****ters to begin with - which goes beyond oil or any of that
s**t.
They just are clueless about the mentality of those who are in favor of
the
war. :-)
> It was
> because somebody had a perceived marginal benefit greater than a
> perceived marginal cost.
Alex:
Oh the old cost-benefit-analysis ailment. :-) I take it anything can be
interpreted from that vantage point if one is so inclined. :-)
> Iraq was invaded to fulfill the desires of
> those instigating the invasion.
Alex:
That can be said about any action, including your post here. I'm sure you
didn't post it because doing so would keep you from fulfilling your
desires.
You had a desire to respond, no?
>>
>> > Capital is good, but
>> > compared to demand, it is nothing. A better way of expressing the
>> > situation is "Countries are in competition to meet global market
>> > demands", compared to that, capital is just an afterthought.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Yes and no. To the individual worker both are an afterthought. They
crave to
>> just have a hopefully secure and well-paying job. To politicians a good
gdp
>> and high employment rates will help with reelections. So in turn both
are
>> indirectly interested in investors. Meeting global demand in itself is
then
>> a consideration of investors and ceos. But from the perspective of
governments
>> it wouldn't matter if one was to meet global demand or not - if one
only had
>> enough jobs and income.
>
> However, this and all economics is based upon the balancing of demand
> with supply.
Alex:
How does a free market balance the high demand of the people for a good
job
with decent pay with what it can supply? Technological progress does
eliminate employment op****tunities and the ever-increasing competition
increases the gap between high-talent workers and low-skill workers, for
some
to the point of making it tough for them to sustain a minimum lifestyle, a
life they consider worth living.
> Security in one's job, rate of pay, GDP, employment rates
> all come back to demand vs. supply. Doesn't matter specifically what.
> It is the fundamental equation from which all economics stem.
Alex:
How do you deal with cla****ng demands then? According to economic
efficiency,
you must get along with technological progress and you can't pay unskilled
employees much, especially if people in poor countries are willing to do
the
same job for less. So you have a clash between what is economically
desirable
and what might be socially desirable. How do you plan to resolve
conflicting
desires? That is what *politics* is for.
>>
>> As it stands I can't really disagree with you though. :-)
>>
>> >> That means among other things that countries will dump taxes for the
rich in order to attract that capital.
>>
>> > This is not why countries dump taxes for the rich. The first thing to
>> > understand is that capital is abundant, it can be created, grown, or
>> > taken very easily.
>>
>> Alex:
>> You err. Capital is a trade unit and if there was nothing to trade it
against
>> it would be worthless, no? Bearing that in mind what creates capital in
the
>> end is the creation of demanded goods or services. About taking easily
- that
>> is not so easy on a globalized planet. World capital is highly mobile
and will
>> flow to where it is most profitable. If you take it away and reduce
profits
>> you can gain in the short run but will pay a terrible price in the long
run.
>> If the US doesn't lower taxes for the rich to say 10% and Germany does,
all
>> other things being equal, can you guess where the world's money will
tend to
>> flow?
>
> I see the direction you are trying to head, but there are a couple of
> key misconceptions. First of all, capital by definition is simply the
> 'means to production',
Alex:
It's all based on money in the end and look at how and why money got
invented.
> a very loose and dynamic definition. As such,
> world capital is not a static commodities that flows, but rather a
> chaotic phenomenon which is highly subjective in it's appraisal. That
> being said, money itself is liquid capital, a reliable, static,
> manifestation of capital, of subjective consensus value. However,
> despite this, most of the worlds capital lies in completely
> unrecorded, unrecognised, factors. This is, however, beside the point.
> The deciding factor in international investment will be IRR (internal
> rate of return- or profitablity, if you will). Understandably this
> will be stacked against predicted tax expenses, however an investor
> will choose an investment with a 500% IRR with 49% tax, over an
> investment with an IRR of 120% and a tax of 10%. This IRR will
> ultimately come down to competitiveness, as derived from comparative
> advantage, which again centres upon demand and supply.
Alex:
So far so good. But if you might take care to notice, it is also in the
nature
of competition that the differences between competitors becomes ever more
narrow. You can see that in s****ts quite frequently. When competition is
tight,
it is often subtle differences that are decisive factors. So if you change
the
IRR values to, say, 120% and 125%, taxation becomes a factor. Not the only
factor, that is for sure, but a factor.
> That being
> said, it may seem as though investment flows to areas of low upper-
> bracket tax because (a) the low tax margin does indeed make
> investments more attractive as you said, (b) Countries with lower tax
> tend to have healthier economies, lending itself to a greater market
> and potential of investments.
Alex:
Exactly. I would add a third point which is to some degree included in
(b):
(c) a psychological *** appeal. And psychology/anticipation is a key
factor
in economics. The best football players want to play in the best leagues
and
test their skills against the best teams for greater success and fame.
> Still, if there is profit to be found,
> after taking tax into consideration, investors will come flocking.
Alex:
That depends on the profit left over after taxation in relation to the
same
in other countries. And don't forget: for national economies it comes down
to cumulated effect. Sure, you can attract some capital - but the question
is: how much capital can you attract in relation to rival economies?
>>
>> > The second, the primary motive behind taxation
>> > (apart from corruption) in principle is price elasticity of demand.
>> > The more inelastic the demand is for a good, the higher the tax. Of
>> > course it goes deeper than this, but this is the key point (cut the
>> > rest short, governments being self-serving, self-imposed monopolies
>> > look after their long term interests by leaning toward whatever
>> > guarantees them the most power and security in the short and long
>> > term. Economic understanding has developed to show privatisation and
>> > lean governments serve both ends exceptionally better than
>> > nationalised industries and sprawling bureaucracies).
>>
>> Alex:
>> I have no doubts about the more market-oriented forms of capitalism,
the more
>> laissez-faire-oriented ones eventually beating the hell out of more
moderate
>> forms of capitalism like the social market enterprises of Germany. They
will
>> do the same to them what western capitalism did to eastern socialism in
the
>> long run. It grants an advantage the same that doping does in s****ts.
>
> Yes, except it isn't illegal. It makes one more efficient, and thus
> more competitive.
Alex:
The question is not one of leglity - there is no global law wrt that at
this
point. The question is whether it is harmful or not, whether it is
excessive
competitiveness.
>>
>> The point is however that economic efficiency isn't everything except
to those
>> who can't think outside of all-out competition. The malady of cyberpunk
world
>> is one of capitalism byond what is healthy for societies as a whole,
>> after all. Therefore barrens/uncontrolled zones/combat
zones/slums/whatever-it-
>> is-called-in your-favorite-game, among other things.
>
> Ok, let us try to abstain referencing cyberpunk economies (which are
> the result of corrupt governments and unequal applications of
> competition, anyhow). Economic efficiency is everything.
Alex:
No, it's not. :-)
> Not in terms
> of self-relevance, or competition for its own sake. No it is
> *everything* in maintaining the precarious balance of demand with
> supply.
Alex:
Demand and supply have their ways of finding each other. Look at child
****.
These desires are being met to quite some degree by unscrupulous souls.
You should have understood by now that I am less enthusaistic than you
about
supply meeting demand per se. Supply-and-demand is what going to happen.
Politics is about among other things about governing that, making sure
that
certain demands are *not* met, for example. In the same way politics is
about
more than letting the market have its way. Where the market creates
problems
beyond the mechanisms you seem to adore, again politicians are to
intervene.
> **** with it and you have one of two things, dead-weight-loss,
> or market-failure. Let it fly and you have complete equilibrium of
> aggregate and marginal demand keyed to the concert long and short term
> interests of every economic agent. It is spectacular.
Alex:
This too has a psychological aspect: in this case you and your self-
perception for having seen the allegedly grandness of it, no? :-)
> That is to say,
> the point of efficiency is to better bring competition ever closer to
> market equilibrium, with an effective goal of meeting all demand with
> all supply.
Alex:
If you were to try to ensure that the demand of pedophiles are being met,
you'd be risking life and limb because people like me would be after your
sorry rear-end. That being said, this serves to just demonstrate one
thing:
meeting demand and supply is a good thing - within bounds. Furthermore
where
there are cla****ng demands, there has to be negotiation and politics.
> Perfect allocation of resources, if you will, based upon
> who wants said resources more, and how abundant said resources are.
Alex:
Nothing in life is ever perfect. Life itself is the epitome of
imperfection.
That is real life and not the imaginations of an idealized form of life.
>>
>> What is driving this is an unhealthy competitive mindset. The point is
not to
>> be in service of society. The point is that in society there is a
social
>> hierarchy that measures people's worth by their achievements in life
and their
>> coolness. And when I say measure I mean by that different treatment as
if one
>> was a "Herrenmensch" and the other an "Untermensch". The result?
Virginia Tech
>> shooting.
>>
> Missed you completely.
Alex:
Ask and I'll explain.
> Anyhow, let me take a stab.
Alex:
No problem with that, I'm a pretty tough poster. :-)
> The point of the
> economy, and thus efficiency and competition, is the allocation of
> resources. There are 3 broad ways to do so. A command economy seeks to
> allocate according to it's own priorities as to who gets what. A
> market economy self allocates based upon who wants what the most. A
> lottery economy lands whoever with whatever regardless of what they
> want. The first is unworkable, the second is currently flouri****ng,
> and the third is untested and humourous.
Alex:
:-) But that isn't in dispute. The question is whether there have to be
bounds, especially wrt the way globalization works.
>>
>>
>> > Finally, the
>> > above considered, the reason the governments give tax cuts to the
rich
>> > ironically comes back to your aforementioned demand for capital. Rich
>> > people by definition handle larger amounts of money than poor people
>> > per capita. What this means is that a percentage tax cut, per capita,
>> > equates to a larger lump sum, per capita, for a rich person than it
>> > does a poor person (i.e. if in an imaginary society there are 10 rich
>> > people, and 100 poor people, and each demographic had a net income of
>> > $10000, giving a 10% tax cut to the rich gives 10 individuals $100
>> > each. Giving the 10% tax cut to the poor gives 100 people $1 each.
>> > Whilst the poor people will reinject the money back into the economy,
>> > which is a good thing, it is better to give the tax cut to the rich
>> > people because not only will they reinject the cash into the economy,
>> > they have the capacity and tendency to provide capital with their
much
>> > larger slices of cash). Giving tax cuts to the rich isn't about
>> > attracting other rich people to the country (perhaps on some minor
>> > level it is, but rich people generate themselves domestically quite
>> > easily anyhow), but rather, it is about encouraging investment in the
>> > economy.
>>
>> Alex:
>> That is undubitably true but I think it is becoming less and less
relevant
>> in the globalized world. If you are an investor or company owner in a
>> high price, overregulated market like Germany and you have low
price/low-tax
>> countries with liberal labour market laws next door in Eastern Germany,
then
>> moving assets to that neighboring country becomes a serious
consideration -
>> and now get this - even if only as leverage point to make the German
government
>> cut on social spending, so it can afford lowering taxes for the upper
incomes,
>> which is what has been happening here in Germany.
>
> Only certain Non-Current-Assets can really be outsourced without
> refocussing the business altogether (always a serious consideration).
Alex:
And again: don't underestimate the cumulated effect for national
economies.
> The point is that the company will operate in germany as long as it is
> the most 'economically profitable' (different to 'accounting profit)
> option for them in regards to their operations, and do so in the most
> efficient way possible.
Alex:
That assumes a perfect rational decision. That is far removed from real
life
though. The question is one of anticipation - anticipation of how things
will
evolve if you stay vs how things might evolve if you outsource.
> If Germany makes it a better choice to
> outsource to neighbours, or even leave the german market altogether,
> then that is precisely what they will do.
Alex:
In general, yes, but you make it sound like in an idealized theory. Real
life
decisions take a substantial amount of making educated guesses. :-)
> You can't regulate a
> prevention to this, without also creating more problems.
Alex:
Right, especially for an ex****t-dependent country like Germany.
> You can,
> however, jump on the bandwagon for the good of germany, and land
> everyone better off in doing so (by improving the economy in which
> they participate).
Alex:
What has happened here in Germany is tax cuts and there is a call for
loosening
up regulations further. As you can see: the economy does have grip on
politics. I would say that it does to an unhealthy degree. Businesses have
the
power to threaten to move assets (and therefore employment) to other
countries
if the government of country A does not implement reforms that they'd like
to
see. If country A does comply, then it will make itself more interesting
to
business and in country B the same mechanisms apply.
What we then can observe is a spiral towards businesses demands being met
by
nations for fear of losing ground in competition with other economies. But
meeting the demands of businesses isn't necessarily (in fact it certainly
isn't) best for societies as a whole.
>>
>> Don't understimate the mobility of capital and investors in the
globalized
>> world.
>>
>> >>In order to be afford those tax cuts, they push the philosophy of
lean government, which often comes in the form of >cutting on necessary
spending in order to be able to keep up with other nations.
>>
>> > Firstly, the only reason the government pushes the philosophy of a
>> > 'lean government' is the same reason companies push the philosophy of
>> > a lean company. A government is, after all, simply a company with
>> > enforces a self-imposed monopoly over a market which is obliged to
>> > consume their goods and services.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Lol, you understand surely economics but you do not understand
politics. If
>> being economically efficient was what is best for society as a whole
outside
>> of trying to keep up with other nation's economies, you might be right.
>> However what might be economically efficient might be not what would be
>> otherwise in the best interest of the citizens of a country.
>
> The government's interests =/= what is best for society or the
> citizens thereof.
Alex:
Yes, but in democracies people can decide what they consider best for
their
country to quite some degree. If otoh businesses can dictate economic
conditions to democratic governments that power is stripped away from the
people and turned over to business owners and CEOs.
>> For example, it is nice that I can buy a DVD player for 40 euros. But
if the price for that is
>> that employees that produce that DVD player are subject to constant
competitive
>> pressure and that those who are not willing to subject themselves to
the same
>> competitive pressure because they don't feel that this what human life
should
>> be all about... then what you have is a price that is becoming too much
to pay
>> for some. And the higher the competitive pressures in general become
the more
>> people will decide that this is nuts. Because then what is de facto is
>> happening is that the more competitive people are de facto forcing
their
>> lifestyle on those people who'd be content if they'd just do their job
and
>> then walk home to friends and family. If that makes a DVD player cost
140
>> euros... so what?
>
> Jesus. Where to start? Ok. Capitalism does not force such conditions
> on anyone. Rather, the market does.
Alex:
De facto, the market does not exist without regulations of it. That is the
aforementioned conditions would not apply, if there was a different form
of
capitalism implemented, protecting people from such. Therefore it is a
question of the form of capitalism.
> That is, you demand DVD players as
> cheap as is possible,
Alex:
Depends on how you define "possible".
> and so companies push their bottom line down as
> best they can (see, back to demand and supply again).
Alex:
Yeah see, that is not only not in dispute but it's *obviously so*.
> If the market
> demanded better working conditions for the workers of DVD player
> factories, at the expense of a higher cost margin (and thus price),
> the market would supply exactly that.
Alex:
And if there was conflicting desires of business owners, what would the
market
do then? You see, your trying to squeeze everything into the market
analogy
is beside the point. I'm sure everything can be seen in terms of supply
and
demand. But I am also sure that it is not always helpful to see it that
way.
There are conflicting views about how our economies should operate and how
they shouldn't. And it's a matter of politics to resolve these
differences.
> However, the fact remains,
> nobody cares for the plight of the DVD factory worker (well, nobody
> cares 100 euro for the plight of the factory worker).
Alex:
We'll see about that. :-)
> If you think
> otherwise, you should start a DVD player manufacturer, who sells DVD
> players at 140 Euro, but provides very comfortable working terms for
> staff.
Alex:
No, that is not going to have much effect overall. What is necessary is to
spread awareness of the problem so that many more people are willing to
pay
more for the DVD player. Not only that, it then becomes a question of
whether
someone who has less qualms about payomg 40 euros will stick to that and
thereby trying to get themselves an unfair (from my pov) advantage in
comparison to my position. Therefore the approach is one of raising
awareness
and then implementing the necessary rules to make sure that everyone
sticks
to that. :-)
> If people agree with you, there should be a demand for this
> kind of thing.
Alex:
Right and not only that - if I get enough people to agree with me, there
should be rules preventing those who disagree from circumventing that
legally.
> Next up, factory workers have the kind of job wherein a
> happy worker is really material to their output. They have few, or
> limited skills, and are paid for simple work. If a factory worker
> wishes better conditions, they should aqcuire the skills for a much
> more creative or responsibility driven career, or for a career in an
> area in which there is a high, unsatiated demand (and thus most likely
> more attractive terms).
Alex:
So where do they go if they don't like constant high pressure of having to
perform well or getting fired? And if that is in high demand from the
employee's side and undesirable from the employer's side - what then?
Your ideas sound good on paper but reality looks different.
> Also, competition isn't always bad for
> employees. As noted, jobs in which there is limited supply, or which
> involve high levels of responsibility or creativity (thus making
> worker satisfaction critical to worker output) often offer spectacular
> working conditions in the name of competition. For example, Lawyers,
> executives, writers, remote miners, actors, specialist doctors,
> stockbrokers, highly specialised technicians all have great working
> conditions due to the limited supply and high demand for their skills.
Alex:
And they in general had to work very hard to get where they are. The
greater
the conditions, the greater the competition for it, in general, no?
> Companies compete to gain there employment by offering better deals.
> This also touches back to the factory workers, wherein their current
> conditions are merely a product of market value. That is, the current
> pay and conditions is what the employers and employees have agreed to
> be a fair trade for the labour the employees provide.
Alex:
But this isn't a deal based on what both sides consider to be objectively
fair
for both sides but a deal what they consider to be a solution given the
*current conditions* including the current balance of power. If employers
can
credible threaten to outsource jobs, the balance of power lies in their
favor.
That isn't necessarily desirable for the employees. :-) Nor for societies
as
a whole. The respond must be to ****ft the power a little bit more back to
the
employees at the hand of politicians.
Thus my arguing for global ordoliberalism.
>>
>> Just one example of why economic efficiency might not be the most
efficient
>> path overall. In fact a litt bit of inefficiency can be very efficient.
:-)
>>
>> And yes of course there are critical business areas where total
efficiency is
>> a must. Where people's lives are at stake, for example.
>>
>> > That is to say, governments push the
>> > philosophy of 'lean governance' to serve their own interests in being
>> > more efficient, and thus more profitable in the long run.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Yeah but why is that all that im****tant? The main driving factor is to
keep
>> up with the Joneses. That's the point. The world could stand a little
more
>> inefficiency in some regards. But noone dares to go for it for fear of
being
>> outcompeted and becoming irrelevant. One wants to be able to look down
on
>> others and one fears being looked down upon which is the conditioning
of
>> the aforementioned social hierarchy and that is plain sickening.
>
> The governments don't compete just for international respect.
Alex:
No but it's a huge factor and it doesn't just involve governments but also
the citizens. That's why olympic medals are being counted by nation - to
see
where your nation is (allegedly) on the ladder of overall efficiency.
> The
> governments compete to better enable their stranglehold on the
> societies they have in their tentacles,
Alex:
Lol! :-)
> and better serve the interests
> of those directing them. It's not about keeping up with the Jones',
> but rather a purely self-contained goal of greater economic benefit
> and enabling to realise their selfish goals, whatever they may be.
Alex:
You should study lies economics and more politics. :-)
>>
>> >> 2. If cor****ations argue that implementing higher ecological
standards will bring them disadvantages against
>> >> their rivals overseas or in China or India, the right response to
that is *not* to forget about implementing
>> >> higher standards wrt protecting the environment. If global
competition is preventing the implementation
>> >> of such in the described manner, then the way global competition
currently works isn't part of the solution,
>> >> it is part ofd the *problem*.
>>
>> > Global competition itself does not conflict with the protection of
the
>> > environment inherently. Though you have cited a popular instance of
>> > market failure, embodied as a global tragedy of the commons (the
>> > environment being the commons). So what is the solution?
>>
>> Alex:
>> Two words: global ordoliberalism. The national ordoliberalism
>> its guts kicked out by economically more efficient systems. But as
people
>> are bound to discover that in mere economic efficiency there is no
lasting
>> happiness and the ills of being blindly driven by competition, there is
going
>> to be a movement that is going to regard the purely economic approach
as
>> legitimate as doping, that is as competitiveness being taken too far.
>>
> But by very definition there is lasting happiness in global
> competition.
Alex:
You can't define where lasting happiness is for anyone but yourself, no?
:-)
And even wrt ourselves that is more often in question than not. :-)
> In a market economy, resources are allocated as per who
> wants them the most,
Alex:
Or who thinks who wants them only to find out that it wasn't all that,
thus
lasting happiness did not follow. :-)
> and what is wanted. Competition only serves to
> better realise this end.
Alex:
I thought competition served for people to keep up with the Joneses and to
best them and serving the above-mentioned end is the way with which that
can
be achieved. Did Bill Gates invent Windows to serve the people? Or his own
ego?
You tell me. :-)
> The end result being a global, decentralised,
> network of allocation wherein the demands of each and every individual
> are met
Alex:
Ahem.
> in consideration and ratio to the supply and long term
> security thereof. It is that simple, global competition means everyone
> one gets what they demand.
Alex:
First of all, as I have mentioned, I don't want everyone to get what they
want.
Secondly, not everyone is going to get what they want if there is greater
demand than can be supplied or if there are otherwise conflicting demands.
Thirdly, there will be plenty people getting barred from having what they
want because there are unequal conditions beyond one's immediate
influence,
no?
So again you are bringing forth an idealized world that has little to do
with
reality. It's a bit like talking about democracy as a form of government
where
there is wisdom everywhere and people only make informed decisions,
everyone
behaves responsibly and so forth. That is not the case. In the same way,
your idea of the glory of the market is an idealization which has little
to
do with real world life, I fear.
> Anything else is what the people of the
> world do not want. Political power is nothing if you are economically
> domesticated. Give the reins of the economy to the *people* and let
> them decide what they want. Anything else implies a disdain for the
> rights of the common man.
Alex:
I disdain some of the demands of some of the common man. Very much so. I
also
consider it a nice rhetorical trick to phrase it the way you do it here.
The marketplace has obviously its place - of making supply and demand
meet.
Where the marketplace needs to be regulated however - there will be
regulations, even if that means that some demands will not be met, as is
inevitable. :-)
>> > The same
>> > solution to the tragedy of the commons; privatise the commons. That
>> > is, sell the environment. Have people who stand, as per level of
>> > destruction, according to the long term preservation of their asset.
>> > You will find that companies will quickly modify their business
>> > practices in favour of the environment to avoid the cost of not doing
>> > so.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Are you referring something like the Kyoto protocol? Even so, what you
said
>> does amount to ordoliberalism in some way. Because the privatizaion is
not
>> a natural one coming from the market - it is governments who enforce
certain
>> rules on the market. And there will be the need to do it globally fair,
>> especially since countries like India and China are going to object.
>
> No, I mean actually selling off the resources of this planet to the
> good care of investors (those with more than political face to lose
> should their asset be allowed to be destroyed).
Alex:
So like selling the American air to Bill Gates? So that he makes sure that
it stays clean and fresh? What if he was to use this as clout for
blackmail,
insisting on doing with his property what he wants?
>> The point is: there is no way getting around a global economic
framework
>> which makes sure that certain social and economic standards are being
met.
>> And that allows 3rd world countries to catch up, even if only
farming-wise.
>
> There is.
Alex:
I fear not. :-)
> You put *everything* under private owner****p, and let the
> market decide what the standards are.
Alex:
Oh you can already consider everything under private owner****p. Germany is
the
already the private property of Germans, so-to-speak. :-) Governments are
just the caretakers. :-)
> Remember, the market is driven
> by the demands of the people. What is wrong with letting the people
> set their own standards?
Alex:
Among other things that it is bound to spiral towards the lowest common
denominator which is oftentimes a bad solution.
> Do they not know what is good for themselves?
Alex:
No, they don't. The best companies are those who know what people want
before
they people are actually of it themselves.
> Do they not know what they want?
Alex:
Oftentimes they don't. That's where protagonist's come in.
> Do they need to be herded and
> shackled?
Alex:
No, not herded and shackled. But sometimes *leader****p* is in order. That
is
people who have competent expertize in determining direction, much more
than
the people who are usually busy *living their lives*, which is their
specialty.
> If something is worthwhile (e.g. Saving the whales, the
> atmosphere, the amazon, etc) there will be demand to enable it such.
> If there is no demand to enable it such, then it is not worthwhile.
> Call it global trial by dollar.
Alex:
If the common man had shown a great deal of responsibility, I would agree.
However people can be moody, emotional, often irrational. The system of
representative democracy does put a buffer between that and the actual
decision-making - and that is professionals (politicians), people who
develop
expertise in that area as their *profession*.
>> > It all comes back to simple microeconomics. There must be an
>> > increasing marginal loss per unit of marginal benefit, with the
>> > equilibrium keyed (in this case) towards the preservation of the
>> > environment.
>>
>> Alex:
>> That is what Kyoto tried to implement, as I understand it.
>
> Kyoto tried to do many things, but in very essence it is a state based
> protocol, and thus inherently flawed and prone to malfunction and
> failure. Whatever the government does, it can be better done by a
> competing market of private agents, totally loyal to the people who
> drive the market. Seriously, just sell the atmosphere, preferably in
> small chunks.
Alex:
This too is idealized theory. Don't expect this to ever become reality,
much
less *work* in reality.
>>
>> >> 3. You can see clearly how crappy the very mechanisms in s****ts too,
especially currently in cycling - which has
>> >> a massive doping problem (but probably not more than many other
s****ts). Fearing to be left behind by competitors
>> >> *and* lusting for money, fame and recognition athletes resort to
chemistry to push their bodies limits. And from
>> >> this kind of fraud, it's not an all that big step to Tonya Harding.
>> >
>> > I see no problem. The cyclists face a choice, to dope, or not to
dope.
>> > Of the marginal benefits you have increased performance and likely
>> > hood of greater success in competition. Of the maginal losses you
have
>> > an increased risk of getting caught, banned, and disqualified, as
well
>> > as harming your body- your greatest asset.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Given that those who invent those drugs are always many years ahead of
those who
>> have to find workable tests, you have a massive fraud problem: people
cheating
>> on those who try to do it the honest way. The end result is
predictable:
>> people are going to turn away from s****ts that aren't based
predominantly on
>> skill vs strength and endurance. People in the US don't realize it but
that
>> trend has already begun in Europe.
>
> Good for europe. Here we see the market in action, delivering what
> people want. I don't see the problem here. Athletes often see the
> benefit of drugs to be greater than the cost or risk of getting
> caught. Logically, they take drugs. If the public cares, they can pay
> for stricter policing.
Alex:
So those who who care should have to *pay* their valuable money because of
the *greed* of some athletes? You will have trouble finding enough people
to vote for such a solution, luckily. :-)
> If that doesn't work, then they can either (a)
> get used to the status quo, (b) learn to like drug-enhanced s****ts, or
> (c) learn to like s****ts in which doping is not a practical problem.
> It doesn't matter economic system the s****t is based in, the same
> predicament will arise. It is not due to globalisation,
Alex:
No, but that is not the point. Both the problems of the current
globalization
as well as doping are one of excessive competitiveness. People don't like
having to pay because of some other people's greed. Therefore you have
functions outside of the market rules, namely laws and a penal system.
> but rather the
> benefits and drawbacks facing athletes, and the public demand for
> their performance. Globalisation is immaterial.
>>
>> > Let them make their choice,
>> > according to the benefits an losses of said choice.
>>
>> Alex:
>> You have forgotten the above mentioned factor in your calculation: the
>> destruction of s****ts as an ideal for kids altogether, people turning
away
>> from professional s****ts requiring endurance and strength
predominantly.
>
> How? These are all just subjective value judgements.
Alex:
Just because something appears to be subjective judgement to you, it
doesn't
mean that it cannot be objectively true. :-) In other words, you might not
share these value judgements but if sufficient numbers of people share
these
values or can be convinced of them, then these criteria will get applied -
against your ideas of the marketplace if necessary.
> Maybe the kids
> will like watching doped up athletes. Maybe some people disagree. So
> what?
Alex:
Or maybe doped athletes will face prosecution, as well as their
accomplices,
as con men, people who try to betray other fair s****tsmen in the name of
profit and fame. And maybe some people with disagree with that. That is
then
a question of politics and what the people consider to be right and fair
and
what not. :-)
> Whatever is appropriate for kids (as deemed by their parents)
> will most likely be the direction of their interest. If the public
> interest turns away from athletic s****ts, so what? What does this
> matter?
Alex:
I'll tell you: s****t has over the past decades played a vital role in
domesticizing men. It has offered an op****tunity to compete with each
other
without having to physically hurt or kill each other by intention. It has
been
a promoter of fairness and mutual respect and of ideals, the ideal of
s****tsmen-like conduct among other things. I reckon that this is of no
im****tance to those who can't think outside of competition but how
relevant
their opinions in the end will be is in question. :-)
> If the public doesn't want to do this, then there will be
> sufficient demand to stop them from doing so.
Alex:
So much for stating the obvious. :-)
> However, if they do,
> then it is because this is what they *want*. This is all the free will
> of the public. Are you suggesting they should not be able to make this
> choice?
Alex:
I am suggesting you should make less a point about what is obviously true.
;-) If your attitude is one of maintaining the basic system of the people
expressing their free will, that is all good and fine, but real-world
politics
takes more than that. Within that basic freedom then comes next the
question
of: what is the right way to go?
And it takes much more guts to dive down into the actual subjects of that
than
to theorize about the free will of people and beauty of free markets.
>>
>> And you know what? It is bound to be just one example for the people
who greed
>> and being overly competitive is opposed to ethics by nature. With that
>> awareness growing, there is bound to be people who'll open hunting
season in
>> various ways on those who are overly competitive in their eyes.
>
> If that is what is demanded, then that is what will happen, and
> capitalism will deliver it on a silver platter for you.
Alex:
Lol, I suppose one can interpret everything through the lenses of that if
one
is such inclined but it's not helpful. If you understand capitalism that
broadly, then capitalism is a meaningless term because then nowhere and at
no
time there has never been capitalism. :-)
>>
>> > If they are
>> > choosing to dope too often, then the marginal losses need to be
>> > increased (namely, by increasing the likelyhood of detection, and
>> > consequences thereof).
>>
>> Alex:
>> As if it was that easy to increase and to keep up with it. :-)
>>
>> > It has nothing to do with globalisation, and
>> > everything to do with the simplest of economics.
>>
>> Alex:
>> You err. It does have something to do with the ills of globalization -
namely
>> both resulting out of an excessive and downright unhealthy form of
>> competitiveness. I am not a communist. I do very much recognize the
benefits
>> of competition. But a rational analysis tells me that the returns of
excessive
>> competitiveness start to shrink to the point where they get outweighed
by the
>> ruins it brings to the world. :-) So much for a cost-benefit analysis.
:-)
>
> It's not the competition that pushes athletes to doping, but rather
> the incredible demand for their high performance.
Alex:
You err. Demand doesn't do anything but to demand. It's athletes *greed*
that
makes them satisfy those demands by all means, even if it is against the
rules.
In the same way, it is not pedophiles demands that creates child **** but
the willingness of some bastards to meet that demand.
> They couldn't care
> less about beating the other guy.
Alex:
You err again.
> Rather, they want the $5,000,000
> contract with FILA.
Alex:
You err. For someone who has already a few millions on the bank, they
don't
really need the money anymore. Jordan didn't return to the Bulls because
of
the money, that was a nice side-benefit but for the publicity. And if you
have
watched Lance Armstrong at the Tour De France, there can be no doubt that
one
of the driving aspects for him has been is *besting* the other guys.
Proving
to himself and to everyone else that he is the stronger one, the one with
the greater willpower, which is what it comes down to up the last
mountain.
> To get this contract, they need results. To get
> these results, they may need drugs. This situation would occur in the
> least competitive of s****ts if there was enough public demand to award
> $5,000,000 endorsement contracts.
Alex:
Certainly. But you assume that money is as im****tant to everyone as it
might
be to you. A faulty assumption. Some just love their s****ts more than
anything
else, including family and kids.
> If current doping drugs existed back
> in the heyday of domestic s****ts, prior to globalisation, then
> athletes would have used them.
Alex:
No dispute there.
> It stems not from globalism,
Alex:
I didn't say that it stems from globalization. I say that it and the wrong
turns that globalization has taken on for now come from the same source
and
that is excessive competitiveness. That's what I am saying.
> but rather
> from the athletes desire to realise the marginal benefit offered by
> the public's demand for his high level performance.
Alex:
*Assuming* the athletes primary desire is to meet public demand. :-)
> The *only* way to
> stop this is to (a) destroy all performance-enhancing-drugs in the
> worlds or (b) Make the public care less about s****t (and thus ending
> the high rewards for undetected drug use), or (c) Legalise doping.
Alex:
(d) turn away from those s****ts *until* they have invented tests for all
performance-enhancing drugs that make a significant difference.
> Killing globalisation would not stop doping in s****t.
Alex:
I've never said or inferred such a thing. I would like to point out that
in
the case of (b) or (d) the s****tsmen who have been violating the rules by
doping have been harming themselves in the end, no? They thought they'd be
clever by getting an unfair advantage and ended up destroying their own
livelihood, no? :-)
>> >> As a summary, all-out competition is f**ked up. It is a way of the
greedy to feel *superior* (as in Herrenmensch
>> >> vs Untermensch) in comparison to those who have no accomplishments
to bring forth, which is just part of the
>> >> global culture of *coolism*, a form of discrimination which is among
other things the driving force in creating
>> >> people who go on a shooting spree.
>> >
>> > All baseless value judgements. If you don't like it, and you expect
>> > this to be true of man others, perhaps there would be sufficient
>> > demand to fund a gated community behind an iron curtain, safe from
the
>> > globalisation the rest of the world demands?
>>
>> Alex:
>> No way. The reverse is true: the wheel of competition must be spun so
fast
>> that sufficiently high numbers of people start to crack under it and
demand
>> some bounds to this insanity. My point isn't one of limiting
competition but
>> taking it to its absurds. That is the all-out capitalism killer.
>
> You missed my question. If you and enough people think that it is
> absurd, then capitalism will use its engine of infinite competition to
> serve whatever it is that you demand.
Alex:
Yeah, but my reply to that is: you have widened the interpretation of
capitalism to the point of near irrelevancy. :-) If I am having lunch with
my mum and I am passing her the potatoes, that too could be interpreted as
making ends meet. :-)
That if there is high enough demand for something, there will be
sufficient
people trying to supply it is a given. That has been so since ancient
times.
My concern is one of excessive competitiveness and the maladies it brings
with
it. If you prefer to stay aloof above such problems and resort to: the
market
will ultimately correct it, then this is quite likely true, but it doesn't
help
dealing with a concrete problem in the now.
> The point is, your enemy isn't
> insane competion, as it only serves the demands of the market. Rather,
> your enemy is what the market demands.
Alex:
Yeah but you're talking of the nature of the market itself here in terms
of
demand and supply. It's like saying: your enemy isn't child **** but that
some people demand it. You can't seperate one from the other. So the
problem
*is* child **** and the problem *is* the way the market operates right
now.
Furthermore my talking to you about this here *is* part of the correction
of the situatution, part of spreading awareness and part of changing the
demand (to put it into your perspective).
> That, my friend is determined
> by you and me, the people. So, if you don't like it, you need to start
> convincing the public, the drivers of demand, to modify what they
> demand.
Alex:
I'm obviously in the process of doing that. :-)
> If nobody listens to you, maybe they know what they want
> better than you.
Alex:
Yeah, we Germans wanted for some time Hitler too. Just because many people
want something, it doesn't mean it is right and it took great effort and
suffering by many to bring forth correction to that one.
> You get my drift.
Alex:
It's not hard to get. You're stating the obvious as if you were prone to
some special insight though. :-)
> If the market widely demanded social benefit, cushy
> work conditions, sun****ne, and kitten farts, then competition in the
> market capitalist economy would do the best job of bringing it to you.
Alex:
*Unless* market capitalist economy indeed was an influence on the demands
of
people, no? If we were to suppose that market capitalist economy was to
foster by its very nature the belief that one must compete for making ends
meet by all means, then it would manipulate people away from what they'd
really want. In that case, people would have to speak up against it and
offer
a second opinion. :-)
> Find enough demand for whatever it is that you want, and competition
> will be your friend. Try to override what the public demands, and
> hijack the government to enforce and regulate the special interests of
> you and a chose few, and competition will be your enemy.
Alex:
I am not concerned about competition in that regard. The question is not
so
much who will or will not my enemy, that is an afterthought, but what is
right
and what is wrong. And if something was right, then opposition to that
would
have to be defeated, no? :-)
>>
>> As to what you said: you have been avoiding the issue, referring to
>> unsubstantiated judgements itself. What I am saying is that people like
the
>> Virginia Tech killer are the result of the social pressures of their
peers,
>> who have been treating him like a 3rd or 4th class person. There can be
no
>> talk anymore of judging people by their character as MLK once put it.
People's
>> worth is de facto judged by their coolness and their achievements. And
system,
>> my dear, is starting to crumble. Including the American way of life as
we know
>> it. Oh I know the usual initial reaction to that is usually something
like
>> "Yeah right, I believe it when I see it".
>
> Social pressures are a result of globalisation now?
Alex:
No, my point was one of excessive competition to begin with. In this
segment,
I have been pointing out what other harmful effects excessive competition
does have and what the root source for this excessive competition is. I
choose
to call it coolism but I am not married to the term. :-)
> Jesus, people have
> been bullied since human communication enabled harassment.
Alex:
Yeah, but the sheer amount of it is very dependent on the prevelance of
coolism in that area/time. What can be further observed is increased
competitive pressures over the last decades. I'll give you one hint: study
the
evolution of Hollywood movies throughout the decades and you can see a
history
of the evolution of contem****ary coolism.
> This is
> nothing new. This hierarchy of coolness and **** has a very long
> history predating both capitalism and globalisation.
Alex:
Check out Hollywood.
>>
>> I know and understand the American mindset and the American way of life
more
>> than any communist ever did. Communism/socialism isn't the answer.
>>
>> But all-out competition isn't either. Except in the eyes of those who
don't
>> understand ethics, only the game of competition itself. Well, the game
is
>> on. :-)
>
> I'm not American,
Alex:
Which would explain your lack of making sense of what I had said about the
Iraq
war. To understand that, one needs to understand the American soul.
> and the Americans have got is all wrong, for
> different reasons. They have a social problem with competition, the
> myth of the self-made man, blaming the poor, money-virtue, and a nuber
> of other social maladies. However, all of their ****ed-uppedness is
> completely separate from capitalism, competitive market models and
> globalisation altogether (though they were born of them, this is
> immaterial in the assessment of their merit).
Alex:
Where their society is f**ked-up is where there is a prevalence of coolism
which brings forth just so many maladies in so many different ways - from
lack of gun control and school shootings, to social inequalities.
>
>> >
>> >> And then you have the conspricacy theorists that think that Bush or
the megacorps are driving this game when they
>> >> are being driven themselves. The one who is in the driving seat is
the mechanism of all-out competition itself and
>> >> even presidents and CEOs cannot but dance to its tune.
>> >
>> > Correct. Bush and the megacorps are but slaves to global demand.
Where
>> > there is demand, there will be supply. They are just the lucky (or
>> > unlucky) bastards who do the supplying. If you are looking for
someone
>> > to blame for it all, you need look no further than the mirror.
>>
>> Alex:
>> What do you know about my demands and supplies? Beyond that it can make
sense
>> to operate within the system to act against the system, no? Why
shouldn't
>> it be possible to take doping yourself win the tour de france 9 times
in a
>> row and then turn around and say to the other riders: "See, I told you
that
>> it is pointless - can we skip on this doping thing now altogether?"
>>
>> Would probably not work right away because some people would continue
to rely
>> on drugs but the point should be clear: it's easier to stimulate change
from
>> on top of the game. :-)
>>
> What? I was just saying that the force behind the mega-corps and
> corrupt governments is public demand.
Alex:
You have a contrieved idea of public demand. :-) If you would take care to
notice, many Governments have sent their troops to Iraq against public
opinion. The people have been tolerating that only because they didn't
want
to turn over their political system because of it.
Also in 90s the German conservatives have been pu****ng through
introduction
of the Euro currency against public opinion. The professional politicians
saw
in time that it would be necessary to organize and band together against
upcoming powerhouses like China and India but they have been incapable of
arguing against national resentment - so they had to *push it* through.
Nowadays, the stronger China and India economically get, the happier
Germans
are going to be about the Euro.
Just one example of people not really knowing what is best for them. One
of
the strong sides of representative democracies.
> As for s****t doping, we have
> covered this already(in all it's irrelevance).
>>
>> >> That's not to say that I am against competition: I do recognize its
value. But I am against all-out competition,
>> >> competition having gone beyond healthy bounds.
>> >
>> > I do not believe there to be bounds to healthy competition.
>>
>> Alex:
>> That's the problem: believing means not-knowing and that describes your
>> current depth of insight. Take a deeper look, my friend, discard what
you
>> think you new and rebuilding from ground up. Competitive people are
motivated
>> to engage in that first and foremostly because they don't know anything
else.
>> All they have usually learnt is that people are being judged by their
>> achievement and/or their coolness.
>
> I'd thank you not to condescend.
Alex:
Can't take the heat? :-)
> I have systematically reasoned and
> rationalised my position quite well.
Alex:
For what it is worth. That is the question, friend. :-)
> To equivocate as grossly on the
> word 'believe' to imply some kind of lack of insight upon my behalf is
> nothing other than a thinly veiled ad hominem and you know it. Attack
> my arguements, not me.
Alex:
I have been attacking the assertion you have brought forward - that there
is
no bounds to healthy competition. That is not an argument but doctrine.
Where you bring forth doctrine, you enter the realm of politics and the
means
of politics (that is rhetoric) shall apply. Where you want reasonable
debate,
stay away from doctrine. :-)
>>
>> What the inventors of the Cyberpunk did not foresee in their otherwise
>> marvelous predictions was the power of plain old pure awareness beyond
all
>> science and fancy technology.
>>
>> > When
>> > implemented across the board, it forms an unusual equilibrium with
>> > itself.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Yeah, only that society doesn't care about any unusual equilibrium with
>> itself beyond what is healthy. :-)
>
> And who defines what is 'healthy'? You? The government? Jesus?
Alex:
And why should there be one fixed definition for all times also? People
are
going to debate until the end of time. I'm telling you: if you bring forth
the idea that all competition is healthy, prepare to be questioned. :-)
> Any
> option other than 'the people themselves' is a flagrant insult to
> human rights and the value of the individual.
Alex:
Again, you have an inclination towards stating the obvious - as if it was
a
profund insight and not a given.
> If you truly believe
> people should have the freedom to decide what is good for themselves,
> and to set their own standards, then you will quickly understand that
> any equilibrium formed around this is vastly preferable to a
> government enfoced edict based upon the misguided and poorly conceived
> interests of a select few.
Alex:
Oh sometimes a few can be indeed more informed than the many - in that
case,
they should resort to competent leader****p. At other times they might just
consider themselves more informed when they are not. Who can tell? :-)
>>
>> > A benign equilibrium, which provides everything demanded, and
>> > protects everything demanded. Curious, fascinating, and spectacular.
>>
>> Alex:
>> I suppose you have never heard of governments having to prevent m&as in
order
>> to prevent monopolies? :-) That too could be considered ordoliberalist.
:-)
>
> The only monopolies that exist in the market are (a) Governments
> themselves, and (b) those sup****ted, enforced, or enable by the
> government (either directly or indirectly). Monopolies do not prop up
> themselves, they must be held up by another.
Alex:
Look at European football leagues. All major ones are dominated by only a
few
clubs. It's the same clubs that are vying for the top slots. In Germany it
is
Munich, in Italy it is the Milans and Torino, in Spain it is Real and
Barca,
in England it is ManU, maybe Arsenal and Liverpool, and recently Chelsky
;-).
These top clubs have ways of virtually ensuring their top status by
various
means. If they had it completely their way, they could even further
bolster
their position. Regulations and agreements have to be made to ensure some
form
of competition is still taking place. There has even been talk of a salary
cap
recently, thanks to massive investors from overseas and Russia.
The basic point is that once you have reached a certain status, you are
capable of cru****ng any opposition that might try to form before it can
become
effective. You can set up the market entrance barriers way too high,
so-to-speak. This is to be prevented. And if the market cannot do that in
a
timely fa****on, then there will have to be interference from outside.
>>
>> > Capitalism is by far the most uniformly benevolent creation of the
>> > human race, and by far the most influential.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Funnily enough, I recently read a poll where people in Nigeria where
the
>> happiest people on the planet and their society isn't really the main
>> benefitor of the fruits of capitalism. Competition is good for
momentarily
>> pacifying the disquieted minds of those who know nothing but
competition.
>>
>> Those who are in a life-long race away from life and who they really
are. They
>> can't stop for fear of having to think of life. But true inner peace
they do
>> not find.
>>
>> Take a look at me. I have nothing, I am nothing, I haven't accomplished
>> anything in life and never will - yet I have never met a person in life
who
>> I'd rather be.
>>
>> No money in the world can buy you that. :-)
>
> Complete red Herring.
Alex:
Not at all.
> Capitalism isn't about buying you contentedness,
> spiritual enlightenment, or self-esteem. Capitalism is about the
> allocation of resources.
Alex:
However if the latter doesn't bring forth lasting happiness, then it is in
the
end semi-relevant or even irrelevant, no? :-) I reckon that freedom
includes
the freedom to be foolish but that doesn't mean that I have to advocate
foolishness, no?
> My praise of capitalism is limited to its
> spectacular function in this regard.
Alex:
Which is all good and fine but if it doesn't create lasting happiness, the
relevance of the function is limited and therefore the relevance of
anyone's
praises of it, no? :-)
> Do not take my comments out of
> context to imply that I espouse a shallow system of 'money virtue', or
> 'material enlightenment'. My self-worth is completely separate from my
> material worth.
Alex:
Yet your praising capitalism in this fa****on does say something about you
-
in the end. We can't escape our words. :-)
>>
>> > Thousands of years from
>> > now, I expect future civilisations to look back, and measure the
years
>> > in terms of 'pre-capitalist globalisation' and 'post-capitalist
>> > globalistation' (as the single greatest defining factor of our
>> > civilisation as it stands).
>>
>> Alex:
>> Thousands of years from now I expect civilization to look back and
think "Damn,
>> they had plenty of cheap energy available back then". :-)
>
> By then I'd expect they'd have thought of the idea of getting
> practically endless energy from space (where no environments and
> ecologies are at risk).
Alex:
Well, how are they going to harvest energy from space if they don't manage
to do that in the next decades - for as long as we have plenty of cheap
energy left. The less energy we have available, the more difficult it is
going to get to find new sources, especially in *space*.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Waiting for you to return.
>> --
>> To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
>
--
Waiting for you to return.
--
To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
|
