Sorry about that last message, I sent it by accident before it was ready, rather
embarrassing after all my preaching about quoted material.
Michael S. Lorrey <email@example.com> Wrote:
> Oil companies will not be able to afford to distribute oil that is worth
> less than the cost of distribution and refinement, so the airlines will
> not even be able to get their hands on enough fuel
But in your hypothetical the airline had Mr. Fusion, what do they need with oil?
> Mock all of these consumer products if you want John.
Thank you, I believe I will. How much has the government spent to develop
stealth technology over the last 20 years? They don't want us to know exactly
but it must be close to 100 billion. What consumer product do we get from all that?
A stealth bra. How could I not mock that, it would certainly take more willpower than
>John, you are being WAY obtuse. I don't see how you can fail to
>get my point.
Oh I understand what you're saying, and what you're saying is foolish.
>I have agreed that over the long run things sort
>themselves out and we are all for the better in the end, but in the
>short term the economy cannot take up the slack caused by these
>unforeseen paradigm changes,
And I have said that any large change in the economy, the climate , the
geology, the TV schedule, the stock market, the social structure or the
architecture of a Stealth Bra is bound to be bad for somebody.
But to get back to the original argument, the idea that the poverty of the
30's was caused by over productivity (not over production, a very
different thing), the idea that the net wealth in a society declines because
things that people want and use are made too quickly and too well, is just loony.
John K Clark firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:55 MDT