Re: Jeff come home; Ticket terrorists

[Alan McKendree <amck@thenetdr.com>]

>Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:54:21 EST
>From: Deliphus01@aol.com
>
>>the temptation to make money...after all, this is the lowest of motivations.
>
>By what standard of measurement?

>"Money is the root of all evil."

A very widespread misquote.  It's "The LOVE of money is the root of all
evils..."  I Timothy 6:10.  Not only that, but if you read on -- "...it is
through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and
pierced their hearts with many pangs." -- it seems that the primary evil to
which love of money will lead one is abandoning Christianity, rather than
harming one's fellow man, dealing in fraudulent exchanges, etc.  If that's
your rationale, so be it, but what do you have to offer the Jews,
Buddhists, and atheists on why not to sell bread (or tickets) for market
value?

I didn't write it, but self interest has got
>to be the lowest motivation and that I believe.

First you say the temptation to make money is the lowest motivation, then
you say self-interest is. Either way, I disagree.

There was a time, you may not
>recall, but I remember President Kennedy saying "Ask not what your country
>can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

I do remember it, and I reject it from top to bottom.  Countries should
exist to serve individuals (by protecting them), not the other way around.
That famous quote of Kennedy's would have been right at home in the mouth
of Hitler or Goebbels.

Now we're stuck with
>the politics of "I didn't have anything to do with Enron!" Sad. Bush is such
>a loser compared to Kennedy.

Your incessant Bush-bashing would ring a lot truer if you had pointed out
Clinton's faults every day of HIS tenure.  For now, you might as well be
standing outside Democratic National Headquarters waving pom-poms.

>> ??? I can't imagine what part of my position is at all like Kevin's.
>
>Both have to do with charging more than usual for an item.

Um, yeah, but he's against it and I'm for it.  That would make our
positions UNlike.

>> It's good that you feel you don't need to make any more money.
>
>I didn't say THAT!

You said, "The focus in my store is low prices." I fail to see the difference.

But money is not my main focus in life. I don't see
>anything wrong with that. I'm not going to make myself miserable trying to
>grub a few more bucks. When did being selfless become a crime? Oh yeah,
>during Reagan.

I never said mone should be one's main focus, nor do I think it should be.
That's NOT inconsistent with selling your product at market value.  As for
selflessness, it's been considered a virtue for a couple millennia now
(wrongly, IMO). I really have no idea what you're talking about it being
criminalized in the '80s.

>  I'm just>  glad Henry Bessemer, Thomas Edison, John Rockefeller, Andrew
>> Carnegie and
>> many more inventors and industrialists felt differently so we could be
>> having this conversation by computer instead of by tin cans and string.
>
>You can thank Kennedy and NASA for our computers.

Which were built with...say it with me now...steel (thanks, Sir Henry!).  I
was referring to the people who laid the industrial foundation for our
modern conveniences.

But good for them, I'm not
>inventing anything. Just selling CDs. If I can enlighten someone to music
>that moves them for a low price, I'm happier than if I made more money.

Are you really saying you're happier if you sell a CD to an appreciative
customer for $6 than $7?  Because that's what that sentence says, and I
don't believe it.

This
>is just how I pay the bills while I write novels.

That's fine.  You're not doing any harm.  All I'm saying is that people who
do want to make more money can do so by developing a product or service
people want, and the more useful the product is the more they'll make for
it. If they find such a thing, we are all the better for it.

>> behave as though there were a 100% income tax on your store gross above a
>> certain level.
>
>How's that? Just because I'm not drooling to fleece my customers?

I'd phrase it as "trying to maximize your income", but if that's the way
you insist putting it, then yes.  (Keeping in mind you CAN'T fleece a
customer who can walk out the door.)  If you're not trying to maximize the
income from your store, to that extent you're running it as a hobby rather
than as a business...and your behavior is exactly as it would be if you had
to send the IRS 100% of the money you made beyond what you're making now.
Now you could say the world would be better if everyone were wealthy enough
to spend their time on hobbies, and I'd agree, but it's not and just
because you can afford to do so isn't a basis for claiming a higher moral
ground than those who can't or choose not to.

>> Pooh.  Had you followed up on the reading recommendation in my recent post,
>
>With a title like that book I'm not looking at anything but a biased account.

I find it more than a little discouraging that you assume that a conclusion
contrary to your own beliefs is based on bias.  Left-wing as he is, I'm
sure Hitchins was ecstatic when Clinton was elected, but he obviously
became thoroughly disillusioned BEFORE he wrote and titled his book.  Is no
one but yourself competent to judge facts?

>You
>don't find me recommending reading material that's biased the other way, so
>don't expect me to join the stupid "blame Clinton for everything" book club.

You, not I, brought up the the 2004 election (i.e., the Democrats) as the
hope for responsible capitalistic healthcare, and I said (and supported)
that they weren't.  What are the dues for your "CREDIT Clinton for
everything" book club?

>Those people have serious brain damage. Really. They need extensive therapy.

I'm sure you've heard of the psychological phenomenon of "projection".
You're giving a pretty good example with your seeing George Bush lurking
behind every negative aspect of your life.

>> - -- those large fish that were preparing to swallow the minnows. This
>> strategy, invisible to the media
>
>Oh, THAT'S accurate. The media finds out anything EXCEPT that. HA! See, he's
>already lost any credibility he might have had.

First, the media WAS quite happy to laud Hillary (I still have a
particularly brown-nosed article somewhere which includes a painting of her
in a saint's white robe) and bash insurance companies.  Second, I don't see
it as so unbelievable that parties to political dealmaking might be capable
of not phoning up reporters and spilling the beans.  And third, it's
Patrick Woodall you quoted, not Hitchins.  As I've said, Hitchins is
left-wing enough to satisy even you -- I'm sure he's writing an anti-Bush
article as we speak -- but he's open-minded enough to call Democrats on
their flaws as well.

>I don't need to be told what to think.

If presenting you with information refuting your claims is telling you what
to think, you've set some sort of new standard in classification.
Hopefully at least some others reading this will learn from it.

Cheers,

Alan

"Never never hesitate, communicate, communicate..." --Pete Townshend