My goodness to Murgatroid! I didn’t know that I was promoting fascism and communism, as though there is any difference. Lordy, lordy I also didn’t know that NO work by humans produces anything. I didn’t know that HUMAN BEINGS were NOT behind the inventions of all the technology, devices and gadgets people play with today and have been for decades. Gosh, if I ever knew that someone OTHER than humans were behind all of this I would extoll the virtue of comfort, relaxation, non-production, idleness and simply rely on all those wonderful, productive taxpayers to supply me with all the amenities WITHOUT IT COSTING ME A CENT!
But, Wallace, YOU FAILED MISERABLY IN NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION and you perambulated on and on and lectured us about economics, cost-accountancy, state-mandated projects and a plethora of other matters of which you are much more intelligent than me. I tend to be, and have been for the better part of my life, rather simplistic in these matters. I look at the bottom line; do my expenses exceed my income, do I have to get a loan from the bank to make up for the deficiency and thus become even more indebted? How can I possibly take home any kind of wage or salary when I have no income? I’m in a conundrum!
I have no quarrel with your dissertation and you may be right for all I know. But it is all pigeon-English to me and although I have PLEADED with you for years to address these matters using UNDERSTANDABLE ENGLISH, you continue to provide your analyses in language which is almost alien. Oh, on the question of my atheism let me put it to you this way: I have been an atheist all my life except for being married twice in the United Church and because of the Christianity surrounding them, my marriages failed miserably. I don’t need an awakening nor have I asked for one from anyone. My friends and colleagues take me for what I am; nothing more and nothing less. But enough of this religious hogwash!
So, if I might tap your brain, would you kindly answer my question. If you don’t I can only presume that the question has very little relevance to you and should be dismissed out of hand! BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES.
I can assure you, Al, that whether they realize it or not anyone who is practising, accepting or approving the application of Keynesian economics is assisting in the centralization of government power which is Statism by whatever name you may wish to call it. And that means virtually all of us because practically every nation on earth adheres to the power-centralizing financial debt policy of the late Fabian Socialist, John Maynard Keynes. Your suggestion that I claimed that no human beings have been involved in inventions from the past is both false and ludicrous—if not mischievous.
The Cultural Heritage does not go back decades but rather over millennia to the inventions of the lever and the wheel and involves a vast facilitating body of knowledge and technique aggregated and accumulated from antiquity. Do you really think that someone today holds a patent on such accumulated general knowledge and technique?
If you are not aware that today the major contribution to industrial production is from non-human sources of energy and association, then you certainly are not abreast of modern technology and its rapid replacement of human input to the production of goods and services. Talk about being “alien”!
You seem in this respect to be quite detached, if not dissociated—certainly mired in a distant past or age of scarcity when production efficiency was minimal.
As to your inference that modern civilization is not “productive” consequent to “laziness” then perhaps you can explain why the modern problem is not to produce but to sell, both in the domestic and foreign markets—and the so-called "greatest nation on earth", the United States of America, can yet manage to devote, directly and indirectly, nearly half of its “economic” activity to war production, i.e., the non-consumer sector? The hard fact is that modern production has reached unheard of and unimagined levels of production efficiency. That much of it is increasingly misdirected is also a glaring reality. Were this not so there would be far fewer contrived and available “jobs”. So do you think, like one mindless economist, that we must schedule regular wars to maintain employment?
Over a period of years I have provided you with a wealth of documentation regarding these matters which demonstrates beyond any doubt that incomes distributed via human work are increasingly insufficient to provide adequate consumer income required to purchase the end products of industry.
The progressive and continuous accumulation of financial debt on personal and various state levels should be obvious proof, itself, of this phenomenon—as should be the recurring economic recessions and economic ruin which occur when attempts are made to restrict the expansion of debt.
You must, at this stage, be well aware that the financial policy required to rectify this situation does not require taxation of existing incomes, but quite the opposite. The fact that you refer to your personal finances for evidence of solvency ignores the situation of the population at large and growing state debts as well.
If you do not understand this then you are certainly rare among my serious acquaintances and contacts. It is a logical fallacy to assume automatically that the part is necessarily representative of the whole. I suspect that you do not want to understand this issue and simply continue to misrepresent it. I am disinclined to believe that you are simply obtuse.
Further, although you claim to be an “atheist” I think that you have betrayed a clear adherence to Puritanism by your apparent unyielding disapproval of anyone “getting something for nothing” as you erroneously conceive the matter, and of your strong criticism of the characters of any and all who might receive income other than from paid work.
By the way, do you "clip any coupons" for your income—or receive any State “benefits"? If so, what do you do to deserve such income? This is none of my business so don’t feel obligated to answer these questions.
Concerning your reference to "religious hogwash”, the word “religion” derives from the Latin “religio" or “religare”, meaning to bind back. Thus a religion is a philosophy of life that attempts to bind back to reality. No individual or society could function without some form of philosophy or religion, i.e., some code of behaviour based upon a value system. Thus, although you may not believe in a “deity”, per se, you most certainly must adhere to a religion in the form of a code or philosophy of life. Anyone who lacks a code of behaviour must be suspect as being mentally dissociated—which I doubt you are.
From my observation it appears to me that you adhere in fact to the philosophy of a group whom you have been known strongly to criticize. I am quite content to leave assessment of the validity of my submission, sent, by the way, at your request, to others who may read it. You, of course, are under no obligation either to like it or to accept it. That’s your choice. But don’t accuse me of failing to respond conscientiously to your request.