Re: Fw: Back to Serfs and Royalty?

From: Robert J. Bradbury (
Date: Sat Sep 01 2001 - 17:52:06 MDT

Now, I'm annoyed. No, I'm more than annoyed.
I'm angry. Actually, in fact, I'm more than angry.
I'm really incredibly f**king pissed off.

This is the *EXTROPIANS* mailing list. The purpose of this list
is to promote the increase of valid memes, ideas, discussions, etc.
that *decrease* the amount of noise in the universe. It *isn't*
about individuals pushing their individual opinions and polluting
the meme space.

J. R. Molloy recently wrote:

> If there is a problem, it's concentrated more in government (the PC ruling
> class) than in private industry (the working class). Most overpaid bosses
> are in government, starting with the US president, who is paid millions and
> is responsible for no identifiable product.

This is nothing but political BULLSHIT. If J.R. had bothered to investigate
this even a little (1 google search), he would find that the President has
a salary of $400K ( annually.

So claiming that the "US president, who is paid millions" is either a lack
an attempt to support an argument (about the overpaid "PC ruling class")
on the basis of incorrect claims (which is an extreme disservice to the list).

On the whole, government salaries are very low compared to industry
positions of equivalent difficulty. That is why replacing directors for
such agencies as NASA or NIH tends to be problematic (the salaries do
not justify the headaches).

CLAIM: "most overpaid bosses are in goverment"
Citation Please!

CLAIM: "the president... is responsible for no identifiable product"

One only need look at the valuation knocked off the public stock markets
last week (^DJI&d=2b; DJIA: 10,400 -> 9950)
to realize that the President plays a critical role in the perceptions of
and actions taken by consumers and investors. What happened? The President
changed from the typical "presidential-role", e.g. "the economy is fine", in
an attempt to appear more sensitive politically than his father, to: "there
are people being affected by current economic conditions". Result -- billions
of dollars of investment capital down the tubes.

Two "identifiable product(s)" with which the President is associated are the
design and execution of a U.S. foreign policy and the health of the
U.S. economy (in the absence of involvement in conflicts, in which
case he plays the role of the commander-in-chief). Now, I view the presidents
as being in boxes not of their creation so the job sucks from the outset. How
many people on the list would want a job negotiating between the Arabs and the
Isrealis for $400K/yr? Do you want the deaths of American citizens sent
off to fight in foreign conflicts on your conscience? Or would you prefer
the weight of those deaths that could result from your policies of
non-intervention? Do you want the headaches of having to negotiate with
several hundred individuals whose agendas are quite different from your own,
many of whom really *want* your job?

Its no small wonder that we end up with "C" students for presidents.
Anyone smarter is bright enough to avoid the job.

People should get their facts straight and avoid excessive editorial
extrapolations with little basis (if you catch me doing it, you may
feel free to call me on it).

JUST THE FACTS FOLKS, JUST THE FACTS. Identify the speculations as such
otherwise I'll make it my mission position your mind just above the
event horizon of a black hole, where you are slowly corrupted by
Hawking radiation even as the matter composing said mind gets slowly
sucked down into the singularity.

This isn't a game -- this is reality (maybe).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:23 MDT