[Trombone-l] Mrs. Johnson's Answer

[Alisha Ard]

Please!  You're preaching to the choir!  I have friends who were  
raised from birth until their 20's under Communism, and they'll tell  
you EXACTLY why it's a failed experiment!  This I know!  I'm just  
saying let's not sit around exonerating someone for profiteering!   
It's an eBay auction for cryin' out loud!  It's about MONEY!  So, if  
you've got enough, buy the stuff!  Heck, maybe you can turn around  
and sell it for a profit yourself!

A

P.S. Is Capitalism involved in museums?  As long as non-profits have  
to romance the wealthy to receive necessary contributions to maintain  
an operating budget, and as long as the wealthy make these tax- 
deductible contributions and get buildings and things named after  
them to boot, I'd say yeah.  But before you launch into another  
rebuttal, I have spoken with a gentleman who runs a theater company  
in Stockholm, where all arts are supported by the government.  He  
said the pro is that you always have a steady source of funding, but  
the con is trying to get any more if you think you need it, because  
the public doesn't want to contribute to something their heavy taxes  
already supports.  But damn, those wealthy Scandinavian Socialist  
countries sure are beautiful.  Free healthcare too!  And no famines.


On Dec 16, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Chris Tune wrote:

Interesting notions about whether Capitalism is or is not involved in  
museums.   I'd say that non-profit things like charities and museum  
benefit from capitalism, but are apart from core capitalism.

Capitalism is an overall economy thing.  This is MACROeconomics.  
Microeconomics covers the economics of individual transactions,  
whereas Macroeconomics covers the economies of entire countries.

One of the HUGE flaws in Socialsm and all the related thinking is  
that you can somehow eliminate individual transaction effects (like  
profit, return on investment, and competition effects for all the  
various parts of an economy) by introducing some massive overarching  
control mechanism, which eliminates the entire ownership/ 
entrepreneurship model, and therefore, magically fixes what is  
"wrong" with capitalism.  Under Marxism, revolution results in  
private ownership being eliminated in favor of the "overarching  
model", of a "peoples state", which just means that the state  
allocates all economic resources.  Everybody gets the job the state  
says you get, every commodity is provided to manufacturers based upon  
centrally established exchange rates (whether monetary or simply  
"representative credits". . .using some artificial monetary unit).

What actually happens, is INCENTIVE gets eliminated.  The thing that  
is useful about the Capitalism system is not some massive FAIRNESS  
thing, but is the fact that the most efficieint use of all the  
existing resources is what happens.  If we need more Steel, the price  
of steel goes up, and investment returns on Steel manufacturers goes  
up, thus more money is invested in steel making. Eventually you have  
shorter times where there are inefficient shortages of anything.

Has anybody else noticed that the Western world, i.e. Western Europe,  
Americas, etc. has not experienced any massive famines during the  
time from the 18th Century to the present?  Meanwhile, autocratic,  
and state-run economies have actually run pretty severe food  
shortages and famines.  China lost many millions due to famine.   
Soviet Russia lost in the tens of millions due to death by  
starvation.  This is PROVEN, folks.  This is not open to debate!

Don't goof around with Socialsm--IT SUCKS!  That is well  
established.  I know it is popular to sound hip, like you "know  
something" if you promote the ideas of socialism.  It really just  
shows that you haven't studied basic economics (I HAVE I have  
something like 18-24 semester units in fundamental economics,  
statistics and business mathematics)

Under Socialism you have lousy products, distributed inefficiently,  
by people who do not care about anything, unless they are threatened,  
and you also have MASSIVE pollution, (like during WWII. . .the  
Russians did fine, because they were threatened. . .just before the  
war there were massive famines in the Ukraine. . .millions died). In  
a nutshell Socialism is interesting only as a failed experiment.

Chris



----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Dinwiddie"  
<billdin at comcast.net>
To: "Alisha Ard" <alishamarieard at gmail.com>
Cc: "List Trombone" <TROMBONE-L at server5.samford.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Mrs. Johnson's Answer


> Well, I guess it wouldn't really bother me too much if Mrs. Johnson  
> made a
> few bucks on this or any other deal. She was married to JJ for many  
> years
> and 6 years after his death, maybe she could use some money...like  
> most
> widows. I really don't know the specifics of this story, but, in  
> the absense
> of any real information, my sympathies go to JJ's widow. Cutting her a
> little slack might be the most appropriate thing to do here.
>
> Bill D.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alisha Ard"  
> <alishamarieard at gmail.com>
> To: "Bill Dinwiddie" <billdin at comcast.net>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 3:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Mrs. Johnson's Answer
>
>
>> While I can't contradict the sincerity of her sentiment, the  
>> cynical side
>> of me is still noticing that money is changing hands and these   
>> treasures
>> are still going to the highest bidder.  There are other  ways to  
>> "share
>> them with JJ's fans."  Like maybe an essay contest  where the  
>> topic is
>> "How JJ's Music Changed My LIfe."  Or how 'bout  donating them to  
>> someone
>> who WOULD want to start a museum?  But  that's capitalism for ya!
>> (Qualifier: I work part-time at a museum  cataloging a collection  
>> that is
>> being purchased from a private  individual, and money haggling is
>> definitely going on.  No matter how  philanthropic we'd like to  
>> think we
>> are, even when it comes to  preserving legacies for posterity,  
>> there's
>> always a hint of greed in  there somewhere.)
>>
>> Alisha
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Bill Dinwiddie wrote:
>>
>> I think that Mrs. Johnson's answer was really beautiful and quite
>> logical.
>> She doesn't want to start a museum, and she is trying to get on  
>> with her
>> life after JJ's passing. It's very hard to deal with the  
>> traumatic  loss
>> of a
>> husband or wife and disposing of some of their personal effects is a
>> great
>> way to help arrest the mourning process and to get her life moving  
>> again.
>> "I do not need mutes or mouth pieces, to treasure the love I have for
>> JJ".
>> That's a real strong statement and I'm glad she is able to say  
>> it,  and
>> God
>> bless her.
>>
>>
>> A:
>> Hello rcv1963, Before JJ passed away 6 years ago he donated items to
>> organizations. The Simthsonian and more. I have many people  
>> thanking me
>> for giving them the opportunity to have something that belonged to JJ
>> and not putting them in a yard sale or throwing them away. I  
>> wanted to
>> share them with JJ's fans it would be a waste for me to hold on them
>> just sitting in boxes. I rather see someone making beautiful music  
>> and
>> keep his memeories alive. I do not need mutes or mouth pieces, to
>> treasure the love I have for JJ. He was a celebrity to many and a
>> wonderful husband to me. To show my appreciation for the love that  
>> JJ's
>> fans has for him this is what I choose to do. I hope this answer your
>> question.
>> Thank you, Carolyn Johnson  Happy holidays  God Bless
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Dinwiddie
>> billdin at comcast.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Trombone-l mailing list
>> Trombone-l at maillists.samford.edu
>> http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trombone-l mailing list
> Trombone-l at maillists.samford.edu
> http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l