Dennis Putnam dap at ILINKS.NET
Sun Jun 1 09:20:23 MDT 1997


At 09:42 AM 5/31/97 +0900, you wrote:
>   U and some of U friends always get into stiff digit, ignore the
>combination of the theory and the practice. then the conclusion of U
>is correct in math, but is wrong in fulfil. U must know, it's true
>that the America is rich, if there are 1,000,000,000 men in America, it
>out of the load of the current America. U may know:
>   One man needs a few materials for life, but if there are ten men in
>the requirement is more than oneman multiply 10, because the additional
>things are too many. if in a country or world, the figure will too large
>that rise is in geometry times, is not in math times, this is not a
>of math simply. and the rise of population is in geometry times, but the
>rise of economy is in math times. this is the key of the question.

What you don't seem to understand is that production is not static in a free
enterprise system. One man may need only a few things and indeed 10 men will
need 10 times as much. However, those 10 men can produce enough material for
20 when given the proper economic conditions. These conditions do not exist
in a communist economy and this is why you cannot understand the math. This
is not theory, this is the way things work in the US.

>   I must let U know :   there is usually one children in one family of
>America in average, because the woman always don't want fetaion,
>althrough she always like the babe.but in China, based on multifarious
>reasones, it's usually
>more than four babe that a family will suckle if don't limit it. don't
>laughing in this, it is fact. U can imagine it. it is too fearful that
>the question of population in China, or in the world in future.
>   They will be shocked that the man oppose Malthus's views if they know
>this. I think.

Actually the average number is 2.5 children. I don't think you will ever
see, because of the government propaganda you were educated with, that
killing unborn babies for political or personal convienence is a mortal sin.
In the US it is supposed to be up to the parents to provide for the children
they chose to bring into the world. If all Chinese think like you then why
do they have children in the first place knowing their children will not
have sufficient resources to live? Parents in the US (except those on
welfare who are taught to think the government should give them a handout)
only have the number of children they themselves can support.

>  There is no this word in China, China use Chinese, but I think it
>"freedom ism" in English, if i make some wrong in here(I always make it
>use English), I apologize to U.

I would not expect there to be a word for liberalism in China because it has
no context in communism. However, in the US modern liberalism is the theory
that all problems are caused by society and no individual is responsibile
for their own behavior. That the economy has a fixed value (this is very
close to the communist view) and when one person makes money someone else
loses money. As such only government can solve these problems and it does so
by punishing those who worked and earned money by taking it away and rewards
those that do not work by giving to them. This is all firmly rooted in
emotion based actions, ignoring results and the theory that if you have good
intentions and it makes you feel good about yourself then you have been
successful in solving the problem. In so many words, "symbolism over

Version: 2.6.2


Dennis Putnam
Loganville, Ga.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list