At 21:40 17/09/01, you wrote:
>>From: Adrian `Guru Zeb` Harper <email@example.com>
>>Subject: RE: WTC Insurance
>>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:02:23 +0100
>>At 19:30 17/09/01, you wrote:
>>>>From: Adrian `Guru Zeb` Harper <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>Subject: RE: WTC Insurance
>>>>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:08:03 +0100
>>>>At 06:02 17/09/01, you wrote:
>>>>>>From: "Sean Kenny" <email@example.com>
>>>>>>Funnily enough, the BBC just reported (not online yet) that there were
>>>>>>massive share movements in Insurance companies just before the
>>>>>>Laden may be be an insane terrorist but he's also a Billionaire I
>>>>>>understand, anyone know if that's inherited wealth or if he's just
>>>>>I heard he's more like a $300 millionaire. I do not believe he's a self
>>>>>made man. Probably inherited from a rich daddy. Not sure though.
>>>>Hmmmmm this brings me onto another topic, that many ppl on this list am
>>>>would instinctively react against. But does the situation with Bin Laden
>>>>it can be genuinely dangerous for too much financial power to be allowed to
>>>>in one persons control.
>>>I suppose you could show that both good and bad for society might come
>>>great personal wealth. But the main point is that society has the RIGHT to
>>>make such decisions. Since the great majority of wealth in the world in
>>>held by a few, then we may assume that great efforts will be expended to
>>>persuade society that great personal wealth is a Good Thing.
>>>That is b/c actions tend to be more effective when directed by a single
>>>actor as opposed to being directed by a committee, etc. The motivation (to
>>>persuade society) is certainly there--that's really inarguable. And
>>>certainly, the means (to persuade society) is there. Heh, heh, in fact
>>>that (in the hands of a few, relatively) is where the *means* is...
>>>Now, I am the kinda person who likes to look at things in a cause and
>>>effect way, and I see the world as a hodgepodge of force vectors, pointing
>>>in many different directions, and of varying magnitudes.
>>>Some vectors are big, some are small. Vectors may be organized together
>>>by sentient creatures so as to accomplish some task. The more sentient
>>>beings that attempt such organization, the less effective they are at
>>>accomplishing the task. But since so much wealth is in the hands of a few,
>>>I would fully expect that those few would be very effective at
>>>accomplishing tasks undertaken jointly. Socialism/communism must surely be
>>>a foe to be fought most tenaciously by those with great wealth. But where
>>>and how do they fight this fight?
>>>So, being the kind of guy I am, I see those massive force vectors, I see
>>>the motivation for persuading the public that wealth accumulation is a
>>>Good Thing, and I think...hmmm...that kind of force, wielded by so few,
>>>with such high motivational factors, there must surely be some effect upon
>>>society visible to me, Randy Smith. So, I go looking for it.
>>>And everywhere I go I see, like bomb craters, the aftereffects of these
>>>organized force vectors...your post, quoted above, is an aftereffect....
>>Non taken. Somewhat dismissive ....... but am sure i can take it. :)
>Well, actually, I am not really speaking to your reaction, but to those
>who would be offended by your post. They are the ones who have been
>"affected" by said "force vectors."
Didn't mean to sound touchy Randy. I actually found your analysis very
interesting and informative.
Am happy to hear anyones thoughts when they are clearly and rationally laid
out ( as yours above is ).
Rather than just a bad tempered, ill-conceived rant ( Rest of the world ). :)
"FURIOUS GREEN DREAMS, LAY SLEEPING IN STATE,
BUT SOON THE GREAT JELLY SHALL RISE FROM THE
AND ALL THOSE WHO MOCKED SHALL KNOW THEIR FATE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:51 MDT