Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:38 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9301 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 ... 373  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:35 am
Posts: 457
tiboudre wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
tiboudre wrote:
The Fed is not controlled at all by the U.S. government.


Apparently, that's not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System


Use wikipedia at your own risk, my friend.


I see you haven't read the link.[/quote]
Don't need to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Atlanta
Mij wrote:
A rope leash wrote:
Basically, the bubble burst. Banks printed a lot of money and sold it to governments. This is how it works. They invited everybody into the pool, then drained it.

Capitalism works, but privately held central banks are a problem. In my view, governments should issue their own currency, preferably backed by actual value, such as silver or gold, or even labor. They should not allow private banks to issue money at interest because the debt only gets larger, and the only way to end the debt is to have a nice big war.

As it is in America, we are essentially controlled by the captains of industry. They buy the vast majority of our politicians. Once in a while a humanitarian idea comes along to help the average poor person, but it usually doesn't go anywhere unless big money gets something out of it. To be sure, most of the funds taken from taxes for welfare programs ends up in the hands of large corporations...that is, poor people spend money the same as the better-off do, so Wal-Mart and Shell Oil benefit. Even our new "ObamaCare" health program is a sell out to the insurance companies, who will benefit because everyone by law must now buy insurance. It never would have gotten through Congress without that provision.

As for balls-out capitalism, I don't think it's ever really happened. Capitalism eats the planet, plain and simple, so there has to be some controls...but the controls will always have to benefit big money in some way, because big money rules.

Well said. And with few words !


Indeed. I don't always agree with you rope, but that was a well put synopsis of my general opinion of the topic as well.

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4797
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
polydigm wrote:
Okay, I'll bite, if the Roaring Twenties was such a shining example for capitalism why did we have to have the Great Depression soon after?


From past experience I happen to know DB's answer to this one. According to him, there is no connection between the economic boom in the US in the 20s and the Great Depression.

Disco Boy wrote:
...The Great Depression was primarily caused by Black Tuesday...and as far as I'm concerned, was prolonged by the failure of Hoover and Roosevelt to continue the free market principles adopted by Harding & Coolidge.


Any other view is obviously...
Disco Boy wrote:
horseshit

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3502
Just a side note cause this is kinda music forum; back in 69 at woodstock, second morning if memory serves, a vendors burger stand had burned down the night before and the guy had a huge loss, so.... the next day Wavy (gravy) was letting folks know where to get some food and he said for those in the crowd that didn't think that capitol ism was to weird the burger shack guy still had a little product and maybe we could help him out. just sayin

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
duchamp wrote:
Mij wrote:
A rope leash wrote:
Basically, the bubble burst. Banks printed a lot of money and sold it to governments. This is how it works. They invited everybody into the pool, then drained it.

Capitalism works, but privately held central banks are a problem. In my view, governments should issue their own currency, preferably backed by actual value, such as silver or gold, or even labor. They should not allow private banks to issue money at interest because the debt only gets larger, and the only way to end the debt is to have a nice big war.

As it is in America, we are essentially controlled by the captains of industry. They buy the vast majority of our politicians. Once in a while a humanitarian idea comes along to help the average poor person, but it usually doesn't go anywhere unless big money gets something out of it. To be sure, most of the funds taken from taxes for welfare programs ends up in the hands of large corporations...that is, poor people spend money the same as the better-off do, so Wal-Mart and Shell Oil benefit. Even our new "ObamaCare" health program is a sell out to the insurance companies, who will benefit because everyone by law must now buy insurance. It never would have gotten through Congress without that provision.

As for balls-out capitalism, I don't think it's ever really happened. Capitalism eats the planet, plain and simple, so there has to be some controls...but the controls will always have to benefit big money in some way, because big money rules.

Well said. And with few words !


Indeed. I don't always agree with you rope, but that was a well put synopsis of my general opinion of the topic as well.

I can hitch my horse to that rail too. Well said Rope.

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19829
Location: Somewhere in time
Caputh wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Okay, I'll bite, if the Roaring Twenties was such a shining example for capitalism why did we have to have the Great Depression soon after?


From past experience I happen to know DB's answer to this one. According to him, there is no connection between the economic boom in the US in the 20s and the Great Depression.

Disco Boy wrote:
...The Great Depression was primarily caused by Black Tuesday...and as far as I'm concerned, was prolonged by the failure of Hoover and Roosevelt to continue the free market principles adopted by Harding & Coolidge.


Any other view is obviously...
Disco Boy wrote:
horseshit



LMFAO...that train ain't never late, even the Germans know the schedule of the Bully Boy Express... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
A rope leash wrote:
As it is in America, we are essentially controlled by the captains of industry ... As for balls-out capitalism, I don't think it's ever really happened.
DB cites the Industrial Revolution as an example of the benefits of capitalism, that was pretty much balls out capitalism and the abuse of human rights that was involved in that period is on the record. The Laissez Fairistes are pretty much on a par with Holocaust Deniers when it comes to this subject. It's a little bit like, in principal, what happened with the Microsoft monopoly before the law realised what was going on with the rapidity of development of Computer Science in general and it was too late to catch up.
A rope leash wrote:
Capitalism eats the planet, plain and simple, so there has to be some controls...but the controls will always have to benefit big money in some way, because big money rules.
Whatever applauding DB does of your posts, you and he are so not on the same page. Why do you allow that?

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Teddy Roosevelt's back and he's pissed!

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1821
Bully!

I'm not sure that much has really changed since the Industrial Revolution. The machine needs it's cogs, so the people must be kept relatively appeased. Most of the changes in Western society in the capitalist world have come about because the people got pissed off about not being respected. So long as times are good, and profits are made, the average wage earner has a chance to trade labor and skills for money. When times are bad opportunities fade and money becomes scarce among the people. I'm pretty sure the captains of industry would be paying a dollar a day and a meal if they could get away with it, but the people would eat them. There has to be a balance.

Thankfully, even industry captains have some scrap of genetic sympathy within them. Humans want humans to be relatively well taken care of, if for nothing else but their own sense of security. So, there's a trade-off. Capitalism sucks up resources and provides work so that people can make money and everybody can have the opportunity to own a Thunder Cougar Falconbird. It works if it doesn't kill you. Even with controls, it has brought us to the edge of technological Hell. For the sake of the species, we should return to primitive ways...but it 's too late now, Fukishima has melted.

I appreciate the compliments on my previous post. DiscoBoy and A rope leash demonstrate the wide appeal of Ron Paul. I'm willing to let capitalism go on it's destructive way so long as everyone seems to be provided for on a basic level. I would like to see these interventionist wars stop. I also think that individual freedom is the only way the natural state of humanity can exist. Let me be me, and you can be you, as much as possible. Getting rid of private banks is worth trying. This is what Ron Paul offered...real change in the real world.

It's all about the pursuit of happiness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2270
A rope leash wrote:
It's all about the pursuit of happiness.

At any cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: Vancouver, BC
tiboudre wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
I see you haven't read the link.

Don't need to.


Yes, you do.

Caputh wrote:
From past experience I happen to know DB's answer to this one. According to him, there is no connection between the economic boom in the US in the 20s and the Great Depression.

Disco Boy wrote:
...The Great Depression was primarily caused by Black Tuesday...and as far as I'm concerned, was prolonged by the failure of Hoover and Roosevelt to continue the free market principles adopted by Harding & Coolidge.


I'm not the only one who believes that. :roll:

SPINELESS WEASEL wrote:
LMFAO...that train ain't never late, even the Germans know the schedule of the Bully Boy Express... :smoke:


Did I ever mention before that you're a SPINELESS WEASEL?!

polydigm wrote:
DB cites the Industrial Revolution as an example of the benefits of capitalism, that was pretty much balls out capitalism and the abuse of human rights that was involved in that period is on the record.


Are you joking? If it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution we might still be solely depending on candles for light, horses and carriages for transportation, etc. Also, your knowledge of the child labour situation at the time is skewed beyond belief. Here is an essay you should read:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3879


Child Labor and the British Industrial Revolution


(This essay was written in 1976 but its thesis is as important today as ever, and especially during the holiday season when the conventional view of child labor in early industrial England finds its way into our hearts and homes through Charles Dickens's classic "A Christmas Carol.")

Everyone agrees that in the 100 years between 1750 and 1850 there took place in Great Britain profound economic changes. This was the age of the Industrial Revolution, complete with a cascade of technical innovations, a vast increase in industrial production, a renaissance of world trade, and rapid growth of urban populations.

Where historians and other observers clash is in the interpretation of these great changes. Were they "good" or "bad"? Did they represent improvement to the citizens, or did these events set them back? Perhaps no other issue within this realm has generated more intellectual heat than the one concerning the labor of children. The enemies of freedom—of capitalism—have successfully cast this matter as an irrefutable indictment of the capitalist system as it was emerging in nineteenth-century Britain.

The many reports of poor working conditions and long hours of difficult toil make harrowing reading, to be sure. William Cooke Taylor wrote at the time about contemporary reformers who, witnessing children at work in factories, thought to themselves, "How much more delightful would have been the gambol of the free limbs on the hillside; the sight of the green mead with its spangles of buttercups and daisies; the song of the bird and the humming of the bee." (1)

Of those historians who have interpreted child labor in industrial Britain as a crime of capitalism, none have been more prominent than J. L. and Barbara Hammond. Their many works, including Lord Shaftesbury, The Village Labourer, The Town Labourer, and The Skilled Labourer, have been widely promoted as "authoritative" on the issue.

The Hammonds divided the factory children into two classes: "Parish apprentice children" and "free labour children." It is a distinction of enormous significance, though one the authors themselves failed utterly to appreciate. Once having made the distinction, the Hammonds proceeded to treat the two classes as though no distinction between them existed at all. A deluge of false and misleading conclusions about capitalism and child labor has poured forth for years as a consequence.

Opportunity or Oppression?

"Free labour" children were those who lived at home but worked during the days in factories at the insistence of their parents or guardians. British historian E. P. Thompson, though generally critical of the factory system, nonetheless quite properly conceded that "it is perfectly true that the parents not only needed their children's earnings, but expected them to work." (2) Professor Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian economist, put it well when he noted that the generally deplorable conditions extant for centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and the low levels of productivity which created them, caused families to embrace the new opportunities the factories represented:

It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from death by starvation. (3)

Private factory owners could not forcibly subjugate "free labour" children; they could not compel them to work in conditions their parents found unacceptable. The mass exodus from the socialist Continent to increasingly capitalist, industrial Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century strongly suggests that people did indeed find the industrial order an attractive alternative. And no credible evidence exists which argues that parents in these early capitalist days were any less caring of their offspring than those of pre-capitalist times.

The situation, however, was much different for "parish apprentice" children, and close examination reveals that it was these children on whom the critics were focusing when they spoke of the "evils" of capitalism's Industrial Revolution. These youngsters, it turns out, were under the direct authority and supervision not of their parents in a free labor market, but of government officials. Most were orphans; a few were victims of negligent parents or parents whose health or lack of skills kept them from earning sufficient income to care for a family. All were in the custody of ""parish authorities." As the Hammonds themselves wrote,

. . . the first mills were placed on streams, and the necessary labour was provided by the importation of cartloads of pauper children from the workhouses of the big towns. London was an important source, for since the passing of Hanway's Act in 1767 the child population in the workhouse had enormously increased, and the parish authorities were anxious to find relief from the burden of their maintenance . . . . To the parish authorities, encumbered with great masses of unwanted children, the new cotton mills in Lancashire, Derby, and Notts were a godsend. (4)

The Hammonds proceed to report the horrors of these mills with descriptions like these: "crowded with overworked children," "hotbeds of putrid fever," "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty," and so forth. Page after page of the Hammonds' writings—as well as those of many other anticapitalist historians—deal in this manner with the condition of these parish apprentices. Though consigned to the control of a government authority, these children are routinely held up as victims of the "capitalist order."

Author Robert Hessen is one observer who has taken note of this historiographical mischief and has urged others to acknowledge the error. The parish apprentice children, he writes, "were sent into virtual slavery by a government body; they were deserted or orphaned pauper children who were legally under the custody of the poor-law officials in the parish, and who were bound by these officials into long terms of unpaid apprenticeship in return for bare subsistence." (5) Indeed, Hessen points out, the first Act in Britain which applied to factory children was passed to protect these very parish apprentices, not "free labour" children.

The Role of the State

It has not been uncommon for historians, including many who lived and wrote in the nineteenth century, to report the travails of the apprentice children without ever realizing they were effectively indicting government, not the economic arrangement of free exchange we call capitalism. In 1857, Alfred Kydd published a two-volume work entitled The History of the Factory Movement. He speaks of "living bodies caught in the iron grip of machinery in rapid motion, and whirled in the air, bones crushed, and blood cast copiously on the floor, because of physical exhaustion." Then, in a most revealing statement, in which he refers to the children's "owners," Kydd declares that "The factory apprentices have been sold (emphasis mine) by auction as `bankrupt's effects.'" (6)

A surgeon by the name of Philip Gaskell made extensive observations of the physical condition of the manufacturing population in the 1830s. He published his findings in a book in 1836 entitled Artisans and Machinery. The casual reader would miss the fact that, in his revelations of ghastly conditions for children, he was referring to the parish apprentices:

That glaring mismanagement existed in numberless instances there can be no doubt; and that these unprotected creatures, thus thrown entirely into the power of the manufacturer, were overworked, often badly-fed, and worse treated. No wonder can be felt that these glaring mischiefs attracted observation, and finally, led to the passing of the Apprentice Bill, a bill intended to regulate these matters. (7)

The Apprentice Bill that Gaskell mentioned was passed in 1802, the first of the much-heralded factory legislation, the very one Hessen stresses was aimed at the abuse by the parish officials. It remains that capitalism is not a system of compulsion. The lack of physical force, in fact, is what distinguishes it from pre-capitalist, feudal times. When feudalism reigned, men, women, and children were indeed "sold" at auction, forced to work long hours at arduous manual labor, and compelled to toil under whatever conditions and for whatever compensation pleased their masters. This was the system of serfdom, and the deplorable system of parish apprenticeship was a remnant of Britain's feudal past.

The emergence of capitalism was sparked by a desire of Englishmen to rid themselves of coercive economic arrangements. The free laborer increasingly supplanted the serf as capitalism blossomed. It is a gross and most unfortunate distortion of history for anyone to contend that capitalism or its industrialization was to blame for the agony of the apprentice children.

Though it is inaccurate to judge capitalism guilty of the sins of parish apprenticeship, it would also be inaccurate to assume that free labor children worked under ideal conditions in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. By today's standards, their situation was clearly bad. Such capitalist achievements as air conditioning and high levels of productivity would, in time, substantially ameliorate it, however. The evidence in favor of capitalism is thus compellingly suggestive: From 1750 to 1850, when the population of Great Britain nearly tripled, the virtually exclusive choice of those flocking to the country for jobs was to work for private capitalists.

A discussion of child labor in Britain would be incomplete without some reference to the famous Sadler Report. Written by a member of Parliament in 1832 and filled with stories of brutality, degradation, and oppression against factory workers of all ages and status, it became the bible for indignant reformers well into the twentieth century. The Hammonds described it as "one of the main sources of our knowledge of the conditions of factory life at the time. Its pages bring before the reader in vivid form of dialogue the kind of life that was led by the victims of the new system." (8) Two other historians, B. L. Hutchins and A. Harrison, describe it as "one of the most valuable collections of evidence on industrial conditions that we possess." (9)

W. H. Hutt, in his essay, "The Factory System of the Early Nineteenth Century," reveals that bad as things were, they were never nearly as bad as the Sadler Report would have one believe. Sadler, it turns out, had been agitating for passage of the Ten Hours' Bill and in doing so he employed every cheap political trick in the book, including the falsification of evidence. (10) The report was part of those tactics.

Hutt quotes R. H. Greg (author of The Factory Question, 1837), who accused Sadler of giving to the world "such a mass of ex-parte statements, and of gross falsehoods and calumnies.as probably never before found their way into any public document." (11)

This view is shared by no less an anticapitalist than Friedrich Engels, partner of Karl Marx. In his book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels says this of the Sadler Report:

This is a very partisan document, which was drawn up entirely by enemies of the factory system for purely political purposes. Sadler was led astray by his passionate sympathies into making assertions of a most misleading and erroneous kind. He asked witnesses questions in such a way as to elicit answers which, although correct, nevertheless were stated in such a form as to give a wholly false impression. (12)

As already explained, the first of the factory legislation was an act of mercy for the enslaved apprentice children. Successive acts between 1819 and 1846, however, placed greater and greater restrictions on the employment of free labor children. Were they necessary to correct alleged "evils of industrializaton"?

The evidence strongly suggests that whatever benefits the legislation may have produced by preventing children from going to work (or raising the cost of employing them) were marginal, and were outweighed by the harm the laws actually caused. Gaskell admitted a short time after one of them had passed that it "caused multitudes of children to be dismissed, but it has only increased the evils it was intended to remedy, and must of necessity be repealed." (13)

Hutt believes that "in the case of children's labor, the effects (of restrictive laws) went further than the mere loss of their work; they lost their training and, consequently, their skill as adults." (14)

Conditions of employment and sanitation were best, as the Factory Commission of 1833 documented, in the larger and newer factories. The owners of these larger establishments, which were more easily and frequently subject to visitation and scrutiny by inspectors, increasingly chose to dismiss children from employment rather than be subjected to elaborate, arbitrary, and ever-changing rules on how they might run a factory employing youths. The result of legislative intervention was that these dismissed children, most of whom needed to work in order to survive, were forced to seek jobs in smaller, older, and more out-of-the-way places where sanitation, lighting, and safety were markedly inferior. (15) Those who could not find new jobs were reduced to the status of their counterparts a hundred years before, that is, to irregular and grueling agricultural labor or worse—in the words of Mises—"infested the country as vagabonds, beggars, tramps, robbers, and prostitutes." (16)

So it is that child labor was relieved of its worst attributes not by legislative fiat, but by the progressive march of an ever more productive, capitalist system. Child labor was virtually eliminated when, for the first time in history, the productivity of parents in free labor markets rose to the point that it was no longer economically necessary for children to work in order to survive. The emancipators and benefactors of children were not legislators or factory inspectors, but factory owners and financiers. Their efforts and investments in machinery led to a rise in real wages, to a growing abundance of goods at lower prices, and to an incomparable improvement in the general standard of living.

Of all the interpretations of industrial history, it would be difficult to find one more perverse than that which ascribes the suffering of children to capitalism and its Industrial Revolution. The popular critique of child labor in industrial Britain is unwarranted, misdirected propaganda. The Hammonds and others should have focused on the activities of government, not capitalists, as the source of the children's plight. It is a confusion that has unnecessarily taken a heavy toll on the case for freedom and free markets. On this issue, it is long overdue for the friends of capitalism to take the ideological and historical offensive.


polydigm wrote:
The Laissez Fairistes are pretty much on a par with Holocaust Deniers when it comes to this subject. It's a little bit like, in principal, what happened with the Microsoft monopoly before the law realised what was going on with the rapidity of development of Computer Science in general and it was too late to catch up.


:roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5715
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Any info sourced from the Mackinac Center For Public Policy should be ignored, disregarded entirely and laughed at as a joke, as it's an extremist Right Wing nut job organization.

A little background about Lawrence W. Reed, the author of Disco Douche's link...Look up his ties to the Contra affair in Nicaragua...

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/a ... z2MMvKfs6v


...their version of Capitolism is dismantling sovereign Democratically elected governments, starting wars and nation-building. Once again, Disco Douche a/k/a Honey Boo Boo is clueless.

Image

Stick with the Bakshi forum Honey Boo Boo.



polydigm is 100% correct.


Incidently, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy nutjobs reside in my neck of the woods. I've even had to work a couple of their wacko events. Not a non-Caucasion to be seen anywhere in the vicinity, if that tells ya anything. Typical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4797
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
From past experience I happen to know DB's answer to this one. According to him, there is no connection between the economic boom in the US in the 20s and the Great Depression.

Disco Boy wrote:
...The Great Depression was primarily caused by Black Tuesday...and as far as I'm concerned, was prolonged by the failure of Hoover and Roosevelt to continue the free market principles adopted by Harding & Coolidge.


I'm not the only one who believes that. :roll:



I'm quite prepared to believe that you're not the only one who believes that and really did not wish to suggest otherwise. :wink:

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3098
Location: Between the Badges
Disco Boy wrote:
...If it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution we might still be solely depending on candles for light...

HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
aHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1821
I think what DiscoBoy is trying to convey the impact of the Industrial Revolution. Human beings went from living fairly close to the earth for sustenance, to almost literally dependent on a machine to provide for them. The tremendous amount of change in human existence is unprecedented, certainly in the magnitude and speed in which the change took place.

Worldwide change.

It really is hard to imagine where we would be if the machine had not arrived.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 5331
Location: Birthplace of Grand Funk Railroad & Mr Don Preston
A rope leash wrote:

It really is hard to imagine where we would be if the machine had not arrived.


This is what I think whenever I go to the dentist and how fortunate I am to be treated in 2013 instead of 1913 :mrgreen:

_________________
*********************************************************************

You just don't understand, You're from Kalamazoo.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3098
Location: Between the Badges
Disco Boy wrote:
...If it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution we might still be solely depending on candles for light...

The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


A rope leash wrote:
I think whatDiscoBoy is trying to convey the impact of the Industrial Revolution. Human beings went from living fairly close to the earth for sustenance, to almost literally dependent on a machine to provide for them. The tremendous amount of change in human existence is unprecedented, certainly in the magnitude and speed in which the change took place.

Worldwide change.

It really is hard to imagine where we would be if the machine had not arrived.

That might be interesting for you from your personal political perspective.

Image

But, to me, from an Engineering perspective, framed in history, its fucking hilarious.
Image

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1821
It was quite a few decades after Ben Franks captured electricity before the light bulb was invented. Who is to say it would not have taken another five or six decades for a light bulb to be produced if it were not for the fairly rapid build-up of mechanical technology. It might have been quite a while before a Thomas Edison could be produced, as well.

I haven't read those books, Arkay, but it seems to me that the history of science is the history of technological advancement, which has been the impetus for much of the change that has been seen over the course of the past couple of centuries. Without greedy capitalists, the rapid growth in mechanical technology would not have happened, and technological progress would have slowed.

Which would have been fine with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3502
I do not think the greed factor had that large of a factor with inventors of that era and before, lets hope it isn't greed motivating inventors and tinkerers today, cause with the Obama philosophy of economics you gotta be fair & give the government more than half your money, after all they know better how to spend it, besides you didn't make that any way.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4797
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
A rope leash wrote:
I think what DiscoBoy is trying to convey the impact of the Industrial Revolution. Human beings went from living fairly close to the earth for sustenance, to almost literally dependent on a machine to provide for them. The tremendous amount of change in human existence is unprecedented, certainly in the magnitude and speed in which the change took place.

Worldwide change.

It really is hard to imagine where we would be if the machine had not arrived.


I thought he was trying to convey the opinion that child labour in Britain in the 19th century wasn't so bad after all and that we wouldn't be where we were today (wherever that is) if it wasn't for the industrial revolution.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1821
I was just referring to the light bulb statement. In terms of human misery, I don't think the Industrial Revolution can be sugar-coated.

Thomas Edison had a lot to work with, because capitalists demanded new ways of producing profit by making and selling. Demand for the light bulb is what spurred it's development. Demand for all kinds of shit is what keeps a capitalist system gong...scientists and inventors do not work in a void, and I'm pretty sure Edison worked with more than a few wealthy industrialists hoping to get rich by investing in a new product or idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3502
Well,it is a bit more complex than that , the light bulb was big but transmitting electricity to light the bulbs on a mass area was the big accomplishment, and it was the discovery of AC current that allowed it. Tesla is given credit, he worked for edison, and is said that edison stole some of his ideas, In fact Edison tried to put Tesla out of industry, I believe he sited that ac current was dangerous and his dc was the way to go. The history is very interesting.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1821
They invested in Edison's alternating current model because it had a metering device.

Ka-ching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3502
that makes a long story short, it was Teslas ac knowledge that he used as well as some underhanded tactic. Again those guys were not looking for big bucks they were inventors, but yes capitalism works. Check out the controversy between dc and ac it was huge.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2270
It could be a religion. The god of current, bearing light, promising death to the falsely observant, with scripture and commandments and liturgy, all in this priestly Vectorial language.
Water falls, electricity flows- one flow becomes another, and then into light. So is altitude transformed, continuously,to light. The vectorial expressions in the books, surface integrals and potential functions and such, are simply clumsier repetitions of the truth that can be seen-directly without equation- inside the circuits.




Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9301 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 ... 373  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group