But the leaders there won't let it happen because of their greed for
money. Nice idea, but it discounts basic human nature.

It seems to me that this greed thing is a shared trait among all persons
in power. That is why a "republican form of government" is best.
Machiavelli said that republics _always_ get corrupted by the rich. He

The Trucker wrote:
But the leaders there won't let it happen because of their greed for
money. Nice idea, but it discounts basic human nature.

It seems to me that this greed thing is a shared trait among all persons
in power.  That is why a "republican form of government" is best.

Machiavelli said that republics _always_ get corrupted by the rich. He
therefore admire monarchies, which were like a family business. The
monarch took a longer view than the republic because he wanted to hand
the family business down later to his heirs.

But he also admired the German city state system in which no matter
what the local government was, craftsmen could, and did, vote with
their feet. We see Singapore today do well because of this. They
understand the professional class can get on a plane any time, so they
dont bother pandering to the masses. Chavez and Fidel have, and have
seen professionals leave their economies on that account. Recently
Rauel has tried to start turning that around.

But the most well documented stable system yet found is in the
independent city states just west of the hegemony of China at the Jade
Gate. Kucha, Khotan, Niya, Loulan, Urumchi, etc, all flourished from
the first millenium BC to the arrival of the Mongol hordes, well over
1000 years of peace and prosperity.

While there were sometimes kings in some of these cities, a closer
look at the evidence suggests they were front men for matriarchies.
The ruins conspicuously lack slums and palaces, much less monumental
architecture kings have used to feed their egos.

The most obvious example are the Gautamid queens of Kucha, who were,
in effect madams because the city owned the brothels. They didnt have
slums cause they drafted airheads into brothels, and the business from
camel trains and merchants at the brothels supported the government
without any taxes.

And of course, like the German city states, they were in competition
with each other, and needed a very low cost of management. The Silk
Road was not just one route, but at least three, and business could
always go elsewhere. (Course this competition was ruined by the
hegemony of the Mongols, and then Islam under the leadership of
Tamerlane. The prices and taxes went so high it motivated Europeans to
find a sea route to China, thus Columbus)

Anyway, since the queen did not need a harem, she didnt need a palace
to keep them in, nor a castle to protect the palace. So, she didnt
need the taxes to pay for it all.

And when we consider the corruption of republics by the rich, what do
they want with the money more than anything else? more pussy. Call
girls, trophy wives, and sex kittens. which women do not need. They
are, therefore, as they did in the oasis towns of the Silk Road,
taking over because they offer a lower cost of management. It wont
really matter all that much whether the matriarchy is oligarchic,
democratic, monarchic, socialist or capitalist. No matter what it is
officially, the women will setup peer to peer networks to, as Plato
said of the Golden Age of Peace in Europe, "rule by persuasion".

The Trucker wrote:
But the leaders there won't let it happen because of their greed for
money. Nice idea, but it discounts basic human nature.

It seems to me that this greed thing is a shared trait among all persons
in power. That is why a "republican form of government" is best.
Machiavelli said that republics _always_ get corrupted by the rich. He
therefore admire monarchies, which were like a family business. The
monarch took a longer view than the republic because he wanted to hand
the family business down later to his heirs.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:37:49 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

The Trucker wrote:
But the leaders there won't let it happen because of their greed for
money. Nice idea, but it discounts basic human nature.
It seems to me that this greed thing is a shared trait among all persons
in power. That is why a "republican form of government" is best.
Machiavelli said that republics _always_ get corrupted by the rich. He
therefore admire monarchies, which were like a family business. The
monarch took a longer view than the republic because he wanted to hand
the family business down later to his heirs.

Monarchy was quashed by the United States Constitution because the people
simply would not accept it. Machiavelli may have been absolutely correct
but if you actually look at the Constitution you will find how the people
of that time intended to prevent this "corruption by the rich". Please
assume a House of Representatives in which each thirty thousand people had
a representative. That would be ten thousand independent votes on every
piece of legislation. It would, according to most people, be a populist
mob. By then we have this other coequal branch of the legislature called
the Senate that protects the rich from assault by the mob. We also have a
Supreme Court that will prevent any sort of mob rule by virtue of the
Constitutional restraints on mob rule. I maintain that the rich have
corrupted the government because of the failure to properly express and
ratify the very first amendment to the Constitution. That amendment would
have created a House of 6000 members based on the current population or a
House of 1600 depending upon interpretation of the original House version
of the amendment. The republic has been corrupted by the rich because we
failed to include a constitutional provision insisting on an increase in
membership of the House as population grew. The people have lost any real
representation in the government because of this.
Mach also noted that the monarch of an established line realizes the

The Trucker wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:37:49 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

The Trucker wrote:
But the leaders there won't let it happen because of their greed for
money. Nice idea, but it discounts basic human nature.
It seems to me that this greed thing is a shared trait among all persons
in power.  That is why a "republican form of government" is best.
Machiavelli said that republics _always_ get corrupted by the rich. He
therefore admire monarchies, which were like a family business. The
monarch took a longer view than the republic because he wanted to hand
the family business down later to his heirs.

Monarchy was quashed by the United States Constitution because the people
simply would not accept it.  Machiavelli may have been absolutely correct
but if you actually look at the Constitution you will find how the people
of that time intended to prevent this "corruption by the rich".  Please
assume a House of Representatives in which each thirty thousand people had
a representative.  That would be ten thousand independent votes on every
piece of legislation.  It would, according to most people, be a populist
mob.  By then we have this other coequal branch of the legislature called
the Senate that protects the rich from assault by the mob.  We also have a
Supreme Court that will prevent any sort of mob rule by virtue of the
Constitutional restraints on mob rule.  I maintain that the rich have
corrupted the government because of the failure to properly express and
ratify the very first amendment to the Constitution.  That amendment would
have created a House of 6000 members based on the current population or a
House of 1600 depending upon interpretation of the original House version
of the amendment.  The republic has been corrupted by the rich because we
failed to include a constitutional provision insisting on an increase in
membership of the House as population grew.  The people have lost any real
representation in the government because of this.

Mach also noted that the monarch of an established line realizes the
threat posed by members of the aristocracy who may, and many have,
replace him, and that they therefore curry favor with the masses. The
balance of powers. And as you imply, and Mach plainly said, the rich
always corrupt republics.

Nobody talks about it, but one of the things Caesar did was seize the
assets of the rich for the benefit of the masses. His successor took
particular pains to appear to live modestly. Course, that dont last.

But the problem is somewhat revealed by what we now know about DNA;
among other things- that intelligence is handed down more on the mtDNA.
The problem the alpha male leaders had was selecting obedient airheads
to bear their sons cause smart bitches were too challenging.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

zzbunkerwrote:
  The gas problem is really just a an extension of the Generalized
Investing Problem.
  And the only advice that can really be given to poor investors is:

   I)   Learn how to invest when you're young, reinforce the lessons,
and don't forget it.

   II)   Learn that the only thing saving money will get you is to a
bank.
   III)  Learn that the only thing banks invest in is governments.
   IV)  Learn to diversify, divest, modernize, and upgrade your
Portible Folio;
         or die like an idiot.

Much of the information needed you refer to was not available. The board
members of Enron and Worldcom did not share their plans with the young
people you have in mind while they were gutting the business.

In an honest system, what you propose works. But we do not have that.

The gas problem is really just a an extension of the Generalized
Investing Problem.
And the only advice that can really be given to poor investors is:

I) Learn how to invest when you're young, reinforce the lessons,
and don't forget it.

II) Learn that the only thing saving money will get you is to a
bank.
III) Learn that the only thing banks invest in is governments.
IV) Learn to diversify, divest, modernize, and upgrade your
Portible Folio;
or die like an idiot.
Much of the information needed you refer to was not available. The board

zzbunker wrote:
The gas problem is really just a an extension of the Generalized
Investing Problem.
And the only advice that can really be given to poor investors is:

I) Learn how to invest when you're young, reinforce the lessons,
and don't forget it.

II) Learn that the only thing saving money will get you is to a
bank.
III) Learn that the only thing banks invest in is governments.
IV) Learn to diversify, divest, modernize, and upgrade your
Portible Folio;
or die like an idiot.
Much of the information needed you refer to was not available. The board
members of Enron and Worldcom did not share their plans with the young
people you have in mind while they were gutting the business.

In an honest system, what you propose works. But we do not have that.