RE: WTC Insurance

From: Adrian `Guru Zeb` Harper (
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 16:27:10 MDT

At 21:40 17/09/01, you wrote:

>>From: Adrian `Guru Zeb` Harper <>
>>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 <>
>>>>Subject: RE: WTC Insurance
>>>>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:08:03 +0100
>>>>At 06:02 17/09/01, you wrote:
>>>>>>From: "Sean Kenny" <>
>>>>>>Funnily enough, the BBC just reported (not online yet) that there were
>>>>>>massive share movements in Insurance companies just before the
>>>>>>attacks. Bin
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>good at
>>>>>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
>>>>show that
>>>>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....
>>>no offense....
>>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 ). :)


                                Guru Zeb,
                           Manchester, 1989

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:51 MDT