Conference quark::human_relations-v1

   1.  0
   2.  Pay scales are meaningless, because having "all the money
       in the world...." in the hands of one person would make the
       present concept of money undefinable.
   3.  "Claude" would be ok.  That's what most people call me.
   4.  No
    
   Claude A. Bench
    

    Very good Claude!!
    
    Sue_who_prefers_to_be_called_Her_Supreme_and_Righteous_Oneness :^)
    

    Re: .0
    
    >if you had all the money in the world....
    >and owned every corporation....
    >
    >and established yourself as queen/king of the earth...
    
    No way!  Too much responsibility.
    
    On the other hand, if I won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes,
    I'd like to have a maid to clean house and cook dinner.  (A friend
    agrees; she said we need wives....)  She/he would get a good hourly
    wage and about 2/3-3/4 of the leftovers (so she/he wouldn't have
    to cook again; besides, it's tough shopping and cooking for just
    one person).

	 I wouldn't want to be queen of the earth...all the money in
	 the world?  Hummmm....I wouldn't want it...what fun is
	 spending money if you don't work hard to get it??

	 k

    Just a little question here...
    
    If I had all the money in the world, of what value would that money
    be? Not another soul could buy nor sell with money.     
    
    On with the questions
    
    I'd have as many servants who could stand me for any length of time,
    and I'd hold them to doing some of the menial tasks and alot of
    the educational tasks. I don't want a stupid worldom.
    
    I wouldn't pay them, I'm supposed to have all the money here, but
    then again, they probably wouldn't need money...just lots of food,
    housing, happiness, clothing, Sunny_Hugs, friends, and love.
    
    They could call me Sunny, or mom, or beautiful. ;-)
    
    Bowing and curtsying might be a little too formal for me, a good
    bear hug would be right up my ally.
    
                                                 -sunny-

    If I had all the money in the world, I would give 3/4ths of it away.
    That way I'd still have 1/4 and be very well off.
    
    I wouldn't have any servents, but I would always have someone close
    to the bar who can make a helluva good Pina Colada. (Doesn't even
    matter if the someone is me.)
    
    I'd like to be called Bill, and be known for the incredible parties
    that I would have.
    
    Would I have people bow to me, No they'd be too busy bowing to the
    porcelin god from partying with me too much.

    
    Bill   

	 RE: .5 Mike...

	 >>	K, surely you jest!

	 Not at all...what fun is having something if you didn't have
	 a challenge to get it??  The challenge is what is the most
	 fun!

	 (Although I wouldn't mind being given a few extra bucks to
	 pay off these credit cards!!!)  8^)

	 k

I don't want all the money in the world.  Just deposit $100,000 in my bank
account every year (just before Christmas, when you really need it!).  Being the
richest or even just one of the richest is a burden I don't care to bear.  It
brings on more responsibility than I care to have.

I want to be able to get up in the morning and say, "Nah, I think I'll just
sleep in this morning."

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

�n

    re: .4
    
    � what fun is spending money if you don't work hard to get it??
      
    I have no idea, Kath, but if you'll send me some, I'd be happy
    to spend it and report the amount of fun I had. . .
    
    Steve
    

	Hey, I'd take all the money, then I'd figure out a way to 
make the world economy non-existent.  Sort of one great big 
commune where every country gets a proportionally equal share of 
food, technology, etc...

And, I wouldn't mind being called "your worship"!  ;^)

mike    

    An interesting question, Rik.
    
    If I were King of the Earth and owned all the money, how many servants
    would I have? Well, let's see. These days, it runs to about five
    billion. Except I wouldn't be so crass as to call them "servants." I'd
    call them "loyal subjects." If some of my loyal subjects wanted to see
    to my needs, I'd let them -- after checking out their references, of
    course.
    
    Nor would I be so silly as to pay them. If I have all the money, then
    the stuff is pretty worthless. Blank pieces of paper with my signature
    on them would be worth a lot more than mere money. I *would* however,
    do my utmost to keep them fed, clothed, sheltered, and entertained. 
    
    The proper way that one addresses a king, if you are a loyal subject
    is, "Your Majesty." People who are not the king's subjects may call the
    king, "Your Higness." High-ranking nobles, heads of other states, and
    folks like that may call the king, "Your Grace."
    
    Would I make them bow in my presence? Yes, of course. But to each
    other. After spending time in Japan, I still bow reflexively from time
    to time. I think it's a lovely custom. I don't really care whether they
    bow when I'm not around.
    
    	Jon

 re .-1
>     Nor would I be so silly as to pay them. If I have all the money, then
>    the stuff is pretty worthless. Blank pieces of paper with my signature
>    on them would be worth a lot more than mere money. I *would* however,
>    do my utmost to keep them fed, clothed, sheltered, and entertained. 
 
    Well, in order to "keep them fed, clothed, sheltered, and entertained",
    you will need a currency (money).  Otherwise, there will be no trade,
    and no commerce.  Moreover, in order to keep things stable, you need
    to open your own _His/her Majesty's Reserve Bank_, and ultimately,
    borrow a lot of mony from the so called "private sector" and become
    the largest debtor in your majesty's realm.  So you end up worrying
    how to reduce your majesty's budget deficity every day.  Also you
    had better take some courses in Macroeconomy to avoid getting into
    a depression but only to find out that macroeconomy is not that
    useful....  When you get a deep recession or a depression, you had 
    better be prepared for an upset population (to put it mildly).  
    :-) :-) :-)                                             
    
    Eugene                      
    

    re .14:
    
    Nonsense. One of the givens of this little thought experiment is that I
    own everything. If I own everything, I can distribute it as I see fit.
    I can't borrow money from the private sector, because there ain't no
    money nor private sector.

    re .15
    
    Well, if you look closely at .14, my "private sector" is put in quotes.
    However, you do need to maintain trade and commerce to keep them
    "warm, well fed, and entertained".  So you need to open up _Your
    Majesty's Reserve Bank_ and issue a currency, any by that action
    you have created a "private sector" (Although in theory you still
    own everything, but a difference that makes no difference is no
    difference).  Remember paper money is in essence an IOU note (interest
    free IOU, but nevertheless an IOU).  So in fact you become the largest
    debtor in your kingdom.  By creating your own reserve
    bank, you, in essence, transfered most of what you own to the
    individuals of your kingdom (even though you still own everything
    theoretically).  Why would you want to do that?  Well, you might
    want to check the base assumptions again.  The assumption says you
    own everything in the world now.  It does not garantee you that
    in the future (Does the French revolution ring a bell? :-).  So you
    had better create a "private sector" if there is none to begin with.
    :-) :-)                       
    
    Eugene
                                                             

    Re: .16
    
    Money is, in essence, a way of avoiding the inconveniences of the
    barter system.  Rather than trade goods and services for goods and
    services, we trade goods and services for the means with which to
    acquire goods and services.  Since people managed without money
    before, it's possible to argue that money isn't necessary.
    
    Which could put our ruler-of-the-world in an awkward position. 
    If no one else has money, they'll go back to doing without it and
    the most powerful person in the world is suddenly no better than
    anyone else.

>    Since people managed without money
>    before, it's possible to argue that money isn't necessary.
    
     Only in a primitive society where there is essentially no trade
     can people manage without money.  Except a few tribal societies,
     I have yet to find any advanced social structure where money is
     not needed.
    Eugene 

    Thank you for enlightening us with your fascinating views about
    economics. In honor of your most impressive achievements, I'd like to
    grant you the appointment of the position of the chair of the Economics
    department in the soon-to-be built University of Death Vally, where you
    will be free to muse about such things to your heart's content.
    
    	Jon

    
    
    actually (actually?...how the hell do i know!?!?!)...
    ok..not "actually"....
    
    it SEEMS as  though money is needed less and less and that we are
    headed to a state where it won't be needed at all..
i refer to the actual form of money..dollars and cents....as opposed
    to some form of bartering system...
        
    in fact (fact?...is it really a fact, rik?)
    i'll bet there are lots of people who don't need no stinking
    money at all!
    
    would someone care to try and live for a period of time on just
    checks and credit cards and let us know how it works out?
    i'd be interested in the results...
    
    i don't use either anymore....(credit cards or checks)
    but i know lots of people who use them, especially credit cards,
    for almost everything.....

    	in this fast paced world....credit cards slow us down a bit...
        
    so...dec puts a number into your bank account...
    and you mail out some checks and subtract from that number...
    and you take out your credit card for gas and lunch....
    a check for the groceries...
    credit for new clothes
    check for gas and lights, credit card for concert tickets....
    mail a check to the credit card company...
    etc...
    
    yes, there are still a few places where you MUST have cash...

    but we seem to be moving away from it and headed towards a cash-less
    society....
    and someday...when everything is all tied together via computer
    networks....i envision a life in which cash will be unneccessary...
    
    buy a drink at the local bar and they subtract the amount from your
    account and add it on to their own....(what about tips?)
    
    and what does this have to do with .0?
    :-)
must be a connection somewhere....
    i should probably read the replies...
    
    

    re .19:
    
    Your majesty.  All my effort has been geered at giving you advise
    on how to run your kingdom of the Globe most efficiently.  In
    light of my expert knowledge, a chair in the University of Death
    Vally is really under-utilizing my talent.  I ask your majesty to
    consider appointing me to be the chairman of _Your Majesty's Reserve 
    Bank_.  In return, I promise to buy T-bills as fast as you can issue
    them.  :-) :-) :-)
                                                       
    Long live the King!
    
    Eugene

    re .20
    
    The total money supply is not the measure of how much cash is running
    around in the society.  I won't go into details of how the monetary
    system works, other than to say that money (not just cash) is created 
    by the central bank (In the United States, it is the federal reserve 
    system) out of "thin air".  The central bank has almost total control 
    of the money supply in a country.
    
    Eugene

    re .23
    
    I thought I have....  As far as I can tell I am the only who
    "lightens up" in this note.
    
    Eugene

    
    re:.22
    eugene...
    (greetings)
    that was just what the "official experts" told you when you took
    their class in college or read it in the "official experts manual
    of rules and regulations"....
    
    and they, compadre, heard it from their teachers who heard it
    from their teachers who....
    
    just because the "official rules experts" say that it's true doesn't
    make it true....
    
    after all...they've been wrong before...
    
    haven't we all?
    
    and far too often society just mopes along believing a set of rules
    and regulations simply because some expert told us to....
    
    do me a favor...
    and...as opposed to just repeating what the experts told you to
    repeat....think about it some more...

    maybe you'll be the next "official expert" who re-writes the old
    rules....
    
    have a good one
    rik
    

    
    Anyone working on a translator for -.1's notes...?
    
    I'm sure there is some content, its just too tedious 
    for me to parse.

re .25

>                 -< must be too deep for my little mind, eh? >-

In other word, I am an arrogant elitist.  I am afraid you caught me 
quite off guard.  Let me just say that the only reason I did not expand 
on my explanation in .22 was because I was concerned that the moderator
might not like to see an essay on monetary system in the HUMAN_RELATION
conference.  

>    that was just what the "official experts" told you when you took
>    their class in college or read it in the "official experts manual
>    of rules and regulations"....
 
In .22, I was just stating a fact.  It is true that I learned the "rules
and regulations" through the above channels.  I am not an economist, and
certainly have not discovered any laws in economics, or made up any rules
and regulations.
   
>    and they, compadre, heard it from their teachers who heard it
>    from their teachers who....

What is wrong with that?

>    just because the "official rules experts" say that it's true doesn't
>    make it true....
 
Look, "official rules" are made up by the so
called "official experts".  You may or may not agree with them, but how
can the "official descriptions" of "rules and regulations" be wrong
when the "rules and regulations" are made up by the "officials"?
In fairness, the statement I made about the central bank controlling
the money supply is not a description of "rules and regulations", but
the control of the money supply is such a fundamental function of the
central bank.  It is like saying VAX runs VMS.

>    after all...they've been wrong before...
 
Not when they say "VAX runs VMS".   
    
>    and far too often society just mopes along believing a set of rules
>    and regulations simply because some expert told us to....
 
In .22, I was just stating a fact of the monetary system.  Whether you
believe it or not, rules and regulations exist, and they are exactly
those as described by the "experts" who made them.
   
>    do me a favor...
>    and...as opposed to just repeating what the experts told you to
>    repeat....think about it some more...

Well, I learned the experts' description of the monetary system, thought
about it, and found it to be an accurate description of the system.
I found it ironic for someone to question the "expert 
explanation" when (1) they do not know what the "experts explanation"
is, and (2) they themselves cannot provide an explanation, let alone
a better one.  Finally, the federal reserve system is a man-made system
designed specifically to handle monetary policies.  In this case, 
challenging the official experts' description is tantamount to challenging 
the statement:  "VAX computers are designed to run programs".  Well, 
you might be an expert in economy and monetary system.  If I have made any 
inaccurate statements about the monetary system, I would like you to point 
them out, and I would be glad to correct them.  This is one way for me to 
learn new things.  In that case, I would also retract those statements.

>    have a good one
 
The feeling is mutual.

Eugene   

"how can the "official descriptions" of "rules and regulations" be wrong when
the "rules and regulations" are made up by the "officials"? 

The rules can be wrong if the "officials" are wrong.

"It is like saying VAX runs VMS."

No, it's like saying that a VAX HAS TO run VMS.  Or saying that the best/perfect
operating system to run on a VAX is VMS.  Which is wrong.  A VAX doesn't have to
run VMS.  A VAX can run VMS, or it can run UNIX, ULTRIX, ELN, or just sit in the
corner and rust. 

Jim.

>>"how can the "official descriptions" of "rules and regulations" be wrong when
>>the "rules and regulations" are made up by the "officials"? 

>The rules can be wrong if the "officials" are wrong.
  
    Well, the "official expert" made the rule.  Then he/she explains
    these rules by an "official description".  Now you may or may not like
    the rules, but how can such "official description" of rules be incorrect?
    VMS people designed the semantic rules for VMS.  They describe the
    rules to us in the user's manual.  You may or may not like the way
    VMS handle certain things (you may even thing VMS is a bad system).
    Nevertheless, the "official description" (VMS manual) is an accurate
    description of the VMS system.  To avoid further confusion,
    I want to make it clear that I am not making a statement about VMS.
    I am just using it as an analogy (personally, I rather like VMS).

>No, it's like saying that a VAX HAS TO run VMS.  Or saying that the best/perfect
>operating system to run on a VAX is VMS.  Which is wrong.  A VAX doesn't have to
>run VMS.  A VAX can run VMS, or it can run UNIX, ULTRIX, ELN, or just sit in the
>corner and rust. 

    Wait a minite.  Who said this?  In .27, I was making an analogy between
    my statement about the control of the money supply to the statement
    of "VAX runs VMS".  I believe that analogy is valid.
    
                                            
    Eugene                           

"how can such "official description" of rules be incorrect?"

The "official description" of the "official rules" are not what can be wrong.

The official rules perporting to describe reality, or what is right, are what
can be wrong.

Jim. 

re .30

>>"how can such "official description" of rules be incorrect?"

>The "official description" of the "official rules" are not what can be wrong.

>The official rules purporting to describe reality, or what is right, are what
>can be wrong.

I do not remember I ever claimed that "The official rules purporting to
describe reality....".  Nor do I remember ever claimed that "official rules 
purporting to describe reality, or what is right" or words to that effect.  
Hence, I am not quite sure about the points you are trying to make, and
certainly have no idea as to what I have written so far is "-< wrong >-".

Strictly speaking, "rules and regulations" are a set of commands that are 
set out (by official experts, shall we say?) to be obeyed.  For example, the 
Ten Commandments, or "Thou shall get your car inspected every 12 months".  
You may or may not like them, but to say whether they "purport to describe 
reality" makes no sense since they are not meant to describe reality.  
The interpretations of the "rules and regulations" made by the people who 
wrote them are, by definition, accurate (To argue with Moses on the meaning 
of the Ten Commandments is, in my humble opinion, laughable).

Now, if we take a more lenient interpretation, "rules and regulations" 
can also be used to describe a set of acts that will give certain results.  
For example, in VMS, if you type "$dir", the VMS system will give you a 
list of all the files and subdirectories in your current directory.  In
my humble opinion, the VMS manual, written by the creators of the VMS system,
describes accurately how the VMS system works (you may or may not like VMS,
but I doubt you can write a more accurate VMS manual).  The central points
I have been making is that (1) Money is a man made thing (like a VAX computer),
(2) The federal reserve system is a man made system to control monetary policies
(VMS is created to run VAX computers), (3) The money supply is almost
totally controlled by the central bank via its actions (You do a "$dir", 
and you get a list of all the files and subdirectories in your current 
directory).  I will admit that no analogy is perfect.  It is only
used here to clear a point.

Finally, in a remote sense, "rules" (but not regulations) can be used to
describe a natural process, for example, the laws of Quantum Mechanics.
There the "experts" have been wrong before.  Personally, I accept what the
"experts" tell me until (1) I understand all aspects of the "expert's
laws", (2) I find such laws are inaccurate in its descriptions on some
of its applications, (3) (this is most important) there is a new improved 
law that can account for all the phenomena the old laws can and the ones the 
old law cannot.   Only then, I am willing to abandon the old "expert laws".  
In all likelihood the new laws are discovered by the same kind of "experts" 
(as history has shown so far).

Eugene
     

    if *I* were king I'd say all semantic debates should be much more
    fun than this......loaded with punned verbiage and double entendres
    so the point was not to see who was the most right and the most
    wrong, but to see who could have the best time at it. ;)
    
    -Jody

    p.s.  Of course, this would have to be in the official description
    of the official rules, so there you have it.... 8)
    
    

    Agreed, Jody.  It seems clear to me that the phrase "rules and
    regulations" have two different definitions in this discussion,
    and the confusion stemming from the assumption by all parties that
    there is but one definition has been. . .well, what can I say?
    That's entertainment!
    
    Steve
    

"if *I* were king I'd say all semantic debates should be much more fun than
this"

You're right, this is boring...  let's see if I can spice this up a bit...
(be carefull of what you ask for, you may get it!) :-) 

...

What's the point?  The point is the thing on my head that I'm goring this fellow
to death with....  Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be noticing a thing... The
point is that rules and regulations that are so complex or verbose that they
can't be remembered or even understood are point*less*!  The point is that may
rules and regulations are totally pointless and ignored even by the officials
unless they feel like harassing you specifically.  In trying to keep us free
from X, these pointless rules make us do pointless things only vaguely related
to the problem which they claim to address. 

The point is that rules and regulations should be some common sense guidelines
following the way the universe works for making your life easier, rather then
obtuse pig-latin written on the whim of some politician or bureaucrat, causing
me to go through hours of anguish periodically. 

I'd much prefer a sign saying "Please don't eat the daisies" over "Tresspassers
will be Violated".  Even a short "Tresspassers will" would be better.  Or maybe
a plaque saying, "Welcome to my home.  Please take care of it and enjoy it as I
have".

"Thou shall get your car inspected every 12 months", is an order.  Actually this
very rule is wrong.  The actual rule says something more like 'you must have
your car inspected everything you register', even if because of the vagarity and
perculuarity of other regulations you are forced to register your car two months
in a row!  It's also incomplete in that the actual rule states a penalty like a
50$ fine, if you don't have your car inspected.  What the rule fails to add,
though, is 'only if you get caught', which would accurately reflect the reality
of the situation.

Jim. 

    
    re: .27...eugene
    no, not..."in other words i'm an arrogant elitist"
    i have no idea why you assumed that was what i meant..
    it's not what i meant at all...
    
    i meant:	we go to schools...they teach us the rules...
    	we believe...we follow...
    
    rarely do we quetion......
    
    often..the "rule" is just man made and can be unmade...or
    tweeked....
    
    re: .26
    bob...i know you think you're a nice guy....and i know many
    other people think you're a nice guy....
    in fact, i'm sure that you really are a nice guy...
    
    but you have a tendency to be rude and insulting to me...
    i think this shows a lack of growth!
    i'm sorry that you feel you need to be so rude and insulting...
    i have no idea why you get such a thrill out of it...
   i'm sure you no longer stand on street corners and insult
    people as they walk by....
    
    please...try to be nice...
    don't be so rude and insulting...
    
    however...i also know that you will state....
    "moi?...i wasn't being rude or insulting...!"
    
    you told me once that the noters were perceptive...
 
    well..i'm perceptive too!
    and i percieve rude and insulting commentary from you on
    a regular basis.
    
    this is childish and immature, bob.
    please try to refrain....
    thanks
    rik
    

    re: .35
    
    � . . .	we go to schools...they teach us the rules...
    �	we believe...we follow...
    �
    � rarely do we quetion......
    
    Oh, I dunno; seems to me that you and I and those of our "generation"
    made school careers of questioning everything.  In retrospect, I 
    sometimes think we were questioned a lot of things because it was 
    "in" or just to create a fuss.
    
    re: insults 
    
    A coupla thoughts: imo, Bob did zing you, rik.  But, my "Alien"
    friend, it seems to me that some of this planet might take your
    personal name's meaning to be that they don't "reason".  Should
    they feel insulted?
    
    Steve

    
:    Oh, I dunno; seems to me that you and I and those of our "generation"
:    made school careers of questioning everything. 
 yeah...but then...everyone stopped!
    and just sorta...joined....
    darn.
       
:     In retrospect, I 
:    sometimes think we were questioned a lot of things because it was 
:    "in" or just to create a fuss.
 perhaps.  but this doesn't mean some things didn't need to be questioned...
  or that things don't need to be questioned today...
    
       
    re: insults 
    
  :  A coupla thoughts: imo, Bob did zing you, rik.
    thanks for saying that. bob insists that he's above doing
    that type of thing.  i thought i might be losing what
    little mind i have left.
    
   :   But, my "Alien"
   : friend,
    thanks for calling me friend!!!
    
   :  it seems to me that some of this planet might take your
   : personal name's meaning to be that they don't "reason".  Should
   : they feel insulted?
    
    but..steve...i thought you and i and bob were all on the same 
    planet!!!...did you move...:-)
    i didn't put it there to insult anyone.
    in my opinion most people don't really reason things out
    very much....this is not, in my mind, an insult...just
    a...truth?..observation?...possibility...
    and....rudeness is not justifiable (imoho)!
    2 wrongs don't make a right...
    if i say something offensive...tell me!
    and i'll correct it....
    don't offend in return....
    
   if you noticed...i changed my personal name because of your
    point...which i thought was a good one...
    thanks
    rik
    
    (see, bob....steve and i didn't insult each other....)
       

    Re: .37
    
    >yeah...but then...everyone stopped!
    >and just sorta...joined....
    
    Careful about using sweeping generalizations.  Once someone else
    comes up with a counterexample, your credibility gets shot to pieces
    and there goes your whole argument.

    
    rE: 38...sorry...you're right....
    
    MOST everyone stopped....
    and MOST everyone...joined...
    
    at least MOST everyone i meet...
    
    of course, thank whatever gods there be, i do know 10-12 people
    who didn't stop....
    
    rik

    
    is  MOST acceptable?
    
    probably not...from MOST people's point of view....
    
    but...as i said before....and MOST everyone told me how
    silly i was to say it...
    
    i'm very different from MOST people...
    
    which is ok

    rik,
    
    A short question.  Just exactly what "rules and regulations" I have
    so far discussed do you want me to question?
                     
    Eugene

                          
    re .35
    
    I didn't mean to insult you, Rik. 
    Its how you took it...
    
    But, there is a need for a application that will 
    read your notes, remove the generalizations, capitalize
    the proper nouns and starting letters, and perform
    other grammatical chores. 
    
    One could use yacc to kack something together along the
    lines of the infamous j*** program... 
    
    We could call it dxrik (or for you VMS types, decw$rik). 

    re: .42
    
    � But, there is a need for a application that will. . .etc.
    
    With tongue in cheek:  isn't that a little general, General?  
    
    By this I mean only that some (me, anyway) don't feel a great
    need for the program (possible exception: the "generalities remover",
    something that most all of us could use).  Compared to, say, e e cummings,
    rik's entries feel like textbook engl, uh, English. . .
    
    Steve