NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive (i.e like income taxes
and other government programs). I think some tax credits _are_
a good idea because they encourage people or businesses to
produce things (generally).


So some tax credits are good. Which ones? Do you suppose other people
might have a different idea about which tax breaks are good and which are
bad? Do you suppose this might explain in part why there are hordes of
lobbyists trying to influence Congress?

Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?



But to your point, If I were a strict Constitutionalist (which
I am not really) I would oppose all of that stuff. Some positive
social engineering can be good but too much of it (which is
really where we are no I believe) is a very bad thing.


So when should the federal government adhere to the Constitution and when
should it not?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:22:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et:

Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.


It doesn't.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:03:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.


It doesn't.


What does?

Larry Dighera wrote:


Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision. You think Hillary
or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?

You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.

I rest my case.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:40:04 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision.

I am at a loss to understand why you insist on bringing government
into the discussion. You were talking about PROFIT MOTIVE, not
government.

You think Hillary or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?

I have very little esteem for today's Congressional representatives.
And I have no clue how that is germane to the subject of PROFIT
MOTIVE.

You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.

Or you have just demonstrated your inability to comprehend the written
word. :-)

I rest my case.

For some unknown reason, we seem to be talking past each other.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:


Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision.


I am at a loss to understand why you insist on bringing government
into the discussion. You were talking about PROFIT MOTIVE, not
government.


In the absence of government mandating the taking of money from
people who work and giving it to people who do not, what other
entity would we be discussing?

You think Hillary or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?


I have very little esteem for today's Congressional representatives.
And I have no clue how that is germane to the subject of PROFIT
MOTIVE.


You say that as if 'profit motive' were a HORRIBLE thing. You would
still be using candles and crapping in a hole in the ground if it
were not for profit motive Larry. Businesses that make profits
benfit _all_ that work for or invest in that business.


You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.


Or you have just demonstrated your inability to comprehend the written
word. :-)

Irrationality is difficult to comprehend Larry.


I rest my case.


For some unknown reason, we seem to be talking past each other.


I know the reason.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:51:16 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:


Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision.


I am at a loss to understand why you insist on bringing government
into the discussion. You were talking about PROFIT MOTIVE, not
government.


In the absence of government mandating the taking of money from
people who work and giving it to people who do not, what other
entity would we be discussing?

Huh? In the absence of the "taking" to which you refer, we probably
wouldn't be having a discussion at all.


You think Hillary or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?


I have very little esteem for today's Congressional representatives.
And I have no clue how that is germane to the subject of PROFIT
MOTIVE.


You say that as if 'profit motive' were a HORRIBLE thing.

I do? Are you able to quote the part of what I said that supports
such an counter-intuitive notion? Capatolism without a profit motive
is ridiculous.

You would still be using candles and crapping in a hole in the ground if it
were not for profit motive Larry. Businesses that make profits
benfit _all_ that work for or invest in that business.


I have no argument with that.


You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.


Or you have just demonstrated your inability to comprehend the written
word. :-)

Irrationality is difficult to comprehend Larry.

Are you able to cite my specific words that cause you feel my
reasoning is not rational? Lacking that, I'm completely unable to see
how you arrived at that conclusion.



I rest my case.


For some unknown reason, we seem to be talking past each other.


I know the reason.

Well, you've not successfully expressed it.


There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

It is. It's just not sufficient encouragement to clean up afterwards.
Generalized, that's why we have government in the first place.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.