Can China Dictate American Policy?
The_Carpathia
government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
because the government gave them a lot of money. Can China dictate
American policy? After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
MUST change our policies to their desires. Correct?
Kenneth W Clifton
JayPee Vee
I want an answer: are you that desperate for attention?
Do you think there's someone somewhere who takes you seriously?
Grow up, Kennie...
Better: get a job.
Michael Coburn
If the Chinese control the American employees through corporate ownership
and the corporations control the lobby that controls the Senate then the
Chinese will control America. This is actually pretty simple and it
illustrates why we are in the mess we are in. The 17th amendment needs
to be repealed and the House of Representatives needs to be expanded.
The people of the nation must control their government and at present
they do not.
There should also be very strict laws concerning "public liable". When
entities pose as News outlets and lie and distort in the name of ideology
and party they should be more easily sued by class action with punitive
damages awarded. At present there is no law against lying while
pretending to deliver unbiased information as NEWS.
If it is possible to prove that CBS lied about the Bush AWOL stuff then
CBS should have paid a huge penalty. To my knowledge it was never shown
that they lied at all. They may have been duped and gotten the story
wrong or not. What would happen I think is that the level of distortion
would drop precipitously as News organizations incurred very large
expenses for not validating their facts and for issuing propaganda.
A misinformed public is not conducive to a true republican form of
government.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
alexy
No.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Patriot Games
Not necessarily....
IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
(They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying
the interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything
they want...
The_Carpathia
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>
Wait a minute. Wasn't the TARP given to banks in hard times, and are
they not paying interest? If so, why can we dictate terms to them, if
China cannot dictate them to us?
Kenneth W Clifton
Michael Coburn
What a complete and utter moron. Exactly which court will they haul is
into in order to collect? And what "police force" will they use to
enforce and decision. Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured
in China. You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
The_Carpathia
We're talking about principle...you know...standards? You have them,
right? Leave aside HOW it gets done, do YOU believe that someone that
gives money to another can dictate terms on what they do with
it....companies...countries...etc? Or, do you admit to having two,
contradictory standards, here.
Kenneth W Clifton
Econotron
"The_Carpathia" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6fa87080-60e2-4ff6...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
e.
Michael Coburn
The people that loaned/bought the banks have all the bazookas, and flame
throwers. The banks have ball points. Who calls the shots?
Michael Coburn
What will China do if we shoot them the rob, moron Kenny?
Michael Coburn
No... YOU are talking about such claptrap. I am talking reality.
> You have them,
> right? Leave aside HOW it gets done, do YOU believe that someone that
> gives money to another can dictate terms on what they do with
> it....companies...countries...etc? Or, do you admit to having two,
> contradictory standards, here.
You live in "belief land", Kenny. I live in reality land. There is ONE
reality land, Kenny. I have the enforcement power and you don't.
MACK DADDY
China basically does own the United States. But don't blame it on
Obama! This problem goes back to when Ronold Raygun decided to
deregulate everything and let our good jobs go overseas, plus the
warmongering of the Bush family against Iraq. It all adds up to
deficit for the U.S., and huge profits for China.
MACK DADDY
It's not conducive to a true Democratic form of government either!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, and if cheap crap stopped coming into this country maybe Wal
Mart would fade away!
alexy
Bob LeChevalier
>I want
Nobody gives a damn what you want.
>an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters,
The government is the one "we the people" elected, and it is doing
what "we the people" want them to do.
>simply because the government gave them a lot of money.
Yep.
>Can China dictate American policy?
They occasionally try.
>After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt.
And if they were willing to take action based on that ownership, they
could really screw us over. But of course it would screw them over
even worse.
>So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
>MUST change our policies to their desires. Correct?
We have a say, if we are willing to accept the consequences. So do
the CEOs. They can leave; we can stop selling debt to China.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>On Oct 23, 7:30�pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>> > <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>> >>government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>> >>because the government gave them a lot of money. �Can China dictate
>> >>American policy? �After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
>> >>national debt. �So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and MUST
>> >>change our policies to their desires. �Correct?
>>
>> > Not necessarily....
>>
>> > IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
>> > THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
>>
>> > (They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
>>
>> > However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
>> > interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
>> > want...
>>
>> What a complete and utter moron. �Exactly which court will they haul is
>> into in order to collect? �And what "police force" will they use to
>> enforce and decision. �Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured
>> in China. �You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>
>We're talking about principle...you know...standards?
What does that have to do with international relations?
China clearly does not subscribe to our standards and principles. If
they did, they would be downright dangerous, being 4 times as populous
as us. (Imagine this country if China subdivided into states of 10
million people and they were all admitted to the union.)
>You have them, right?
And they aren't the same as yours, turkey.
>Leave aside HOW it gets done, do YOU believe that someone that
>gives money to another can dictate terms on what they do with
>it....companies...countries...etc?
Under our system of laws, sometimes yes.
And corporations aren't people, and should have no "rights" above and
beyond those of the individuals who own them. But the laws of our
society don't happen to agree with that principle of mine.
>Or, do you admit to having two, contradictory standards, here.
Kennie questions a double standard?
[guffaw]
Econotron
===================================================================
Those principles, in fact, imply common interest. The Chinese influence is
based not so much on what we owe them, but what we need in the future, that
is, more dough. They will keep lending us money, as long as it makes sense
to them. Such scenario presumes relatively stable currency. Actually, the
Fed can prop up the $ even without raising interest rate, but will not do it
until Bernanke's confirmation.
e.
lorad
CBS didn't lie about Junior going AWOL.. Junior did take off to 'help'
with a republican election campaign in Georgia.
Rather got set up when he was provided a *copy* of the official
document detailing junior's awol - even though the contents of the
copy remained correct.
And we don't need an ammendment to make coporate media tell the truth.
All we need is for the FCC to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine (which
mandates that media comapnies give free time for political parties to
make statements of opposing political views).
lorad
CBS didn't lie about Junior going AWOL.. Junior did take off to 'help'
David Johnston
<writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No such deal was made.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hbtea...@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>> <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>>>government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>>>because the government gave them a lot of money. Can China dictate
>>>American policy? After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
>>>national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and MUST
>>>change our policies to their desires. Correct?
>>
>> Not necessarily....
>>
>> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
>> THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
>>
>> (They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
>>
>> However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
>> interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
>> want...
>
> What a complete and utter moron. Exactly which court will they haul is
> into in order to collect?
The court of "We won't lend you so much as another dime in the future' you
idiot.
The court of 'You're totally screwed and we're fucking loaded' you idiot.
Bob LeChevalier
Unfortunately, they aren't "loaded", because they invested it all in
countries like the US that can't pay it back.
The problem is that you aren't really "loaded" unless you have a way
to productively spend or invest the money. If you don't have a way,
you can have $20 trillion, but it will be worth no more than $20. And
unfortunately for the Chinese, the US is the BEST investment that they
can make. All the other countries are worse off.
Michael Coburn
This is an illustration of the enormous ignorance concerning fiat money
that seems to be a conservative disease. The conservative mind simply
cannot accept that the US government does not need to borrow. They
clutch their money and believe it to be a life raft. Sink along with it,
idiot. There are _NO_ real goods that the USA _MUST_ have from China.
Most certainly the creator of dollars does not need to be supplied with
same by any other source.
The_Carpathia
I left your spam in your reply...
You claim to be centrist but back ONLY one party. You claim to be
neutral but back on side of the argument. You claim to be Christian
but deny the commands of Christ to forgive. You claim to be an
authority but deny that authority exists. You claim to be a
capitalist but want a socialist labor force and govt control of
resources. you claim to be against the war in Iraq but have no
problem with Obama keeping us there. You claim to be against the
occupation in Iraq against non-terrorists, even as you are in favor of
occupying Afghanistan against non-terrorists. Whatever Obama speaks
you rubber stamp. And, the most scary thing yet...you said that it is
justifiable to put a gun in someone's face to force them to give you
what you want (to submit to your morals).
Bob. I will continue to pray for you. Apparently, you hate me,
personally, for some reason. I've apologized to you, and you REFUSE
to follow the example of Christ (and his COMMAND) to forgive me. You
WANT to condemn me, and you cite your own condemnation of me as proof
that I need to be condemned. You have a pre-judged decision to hate
me and condemn me, and I cannot change your mind. So, go ahead and
hate me, attack me, condemn me. Just know, I will love you, pray for
you, and post this in reply to every post you put on my threads...for
that is the only exchange we have...I don't seek out your posts to
attack...just you seeking my posts to condemn. Indeed, you told me,
prior, that you attacked me for posting in the Education groups. So,
I stopped posting there, and you followed me here to attack...SOUGHT
me out to condemn.
I will pray for your bitter heart to break and God's love to touch
you.
Kenneth W Clifton
The_Carpathia
The_Carpathia
Wide Eyed in Wonder
So...let's confirm this. You are saying that it would be right in
principle for TARP receiving banks to do whatever is asked of them,
because they received Government money, while China gets stiffed for
the same? And...you don't see that as a contradiction of the
principle? You do have principles...right?
Let's take this in the other direction with you, then. If you think
that TARP banks MUST do whatever the government asks, because they
received government money, shouldn't the government have power to tell
students what to do with their educational programs, people to do with
their houses, businesses that get small business loans what to sell,
etc? Or...is it just WALL STREET that you have a problem with?
Kenneth W Clifton
alexy
Nope, never said that.
>because they received Government money, while China gets stiffed for
>the same?
China never got gov't money. It was the other way around.
> And...you don't see that as a contradiction of the
>principle?
No.
> You do have principles...right?
Yes.
>
>Let's take this in the other direction with you, then. If you think
>that TARP banks MUST do whatever the government asks
I never said that.
>, because they
>received government money, shouldn't the government have power to tell
>students what to do with their educational programs,
They do.
> people to do with their houses,
They do. You can't legally use the first-time home buyer credit to buy
a second home.
>businesses that get small business loans what to sell,
>etc?
They definitely impose requirements on recipients of SBA loans.
> Or...is it just WALL STREET that you have a problem with?
No.
You seem to have a hard time getting your mind around the idea of
sovereignty.
If I give my minor child money, I can dictate what they do with it.
(US : Banks :: Parent : Child)
If I lend a neighbor money with specific loan terms, I cannot dictate
changes in those terms. (China : US :: Lending neighbor : Borrowing
neighbor)
Bob LeChevalier
and all of them are incorporated under our government and subject to
our laws, and all of them chose to accept TARP funds with all the
strings that are attached.
>while China gets stiffed for the same?
China is not a corporation, and is not subject to our laws because
they are a sovereign nation. Thus, it is NOT "the same"
>And...you don't see that as a contradiction of the principle?
What principle? The one you pulled out of your ass to justify your
post? No one else would touch it with a ten foot pole.
>You do have principles...right?
I doubt that anyone shares YOUR principles.
>Let's take this in the other direction with you, then. If you think
>that TARP banks MUST do whatever the government asks, because they
>received government money, shouldn't the government have power to tell
>students what to do with their educational programs,
They do, within the realm covered by the student loan law. It happens
that the powers granted by the law aren't enormous, but they do exist.
>people to do with their houses,
Ever heard of zoning laws? Building codes? Eminent domain?
>businesses that get small business loans what to sell, etc?
If the laws authorizing the loans granted such authority, yes.
>Or...is it just WALL STREET that you have a problem with?
Wall Street is a problem, because it has chosen to be a problem. The
government enacted special laws to deal with the problems of Wall
Street. So far, they have been much too lenient about those laws.
Patriot Games
<writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 6:53�pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>> >government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>> >because the government gave them a lot of money. �Can China dictate
>> >American policy? �After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
>> >national debt. �So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
>> >MUST change our policies to their desires. �Correct?
>> Not necessarily....
>> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
>> THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
>> (They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
>> However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying
>> the interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything
>> they want...
>Wait a minute. Wasn't the TARP given to banks in hard times, and are
>they not paying interest?
I haven't seen the docs so I honestly don't know the terms...
>If so, why can we dictate terms to them, if
>China cannot dictate them to us?
My guess is: The banks and others DID NOT READ the paperwork and just
signed it... After all, Buckwheat was like Uncle Guido... Nobody,
NOBODY, was gonna given these companies a loan, period...
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>> <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>>>government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>>>because the government gave them a lot of money. Can China dictate
>>>American policy? After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
>>>national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and MUST
>>>change our policies to their desires. Correct?
>> Not necessarily....
>> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
>> THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
>> (They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
>> However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
>> interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
>> want...
>into in order to collect?
There isn't one...
>And what "police force" will they use to
>enforce and decision.
They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured
>in China.
They don't do that. WE PAY THEM to make that "crap," then WE PAY THEM
to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop making it if
we keep paying them to make it...
>You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
"crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us because
they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK everybody ELSE is
stupid?
hahahahahhahahaha!!!
Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
Michael Coburn
I will not insult your intelligence by insinuating that you actually
believe any of the crap you just wrote. (a loan from Buckley)
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wall Street is a problem, because they don't produce an actual product
that is of use to anyone.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny-boy got it all backwards. He thinks China borrowed money from
the United States!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is to
charge tariffs on the shit!
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Exactly. So, they would be able to tell the U.S. what to
do...correct?
Hint...the TARP banks are not your children's banks but your
NEIGHBOR's Bank....so you just destroyed your own argument.
Kenneth W Clifton
Wide Eyed in Wonder
That's not what I said. But, thank you for confirming my point. YOU
just implied that IF China borrowed from the U.S., we'd be able to
tell them what to do, as we do with TARP banks. Or, are you saying
that TARP banks can tell the U.S. govt what to do, since they borrowed
money?
Kenneth W Clifton
alexy
>On Oct 26, 9:34�am, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>> China never got gov't money. It was the other way around.
>
>Exactly. So, they would be able to tell the U.S. what to
>do...correct?
No.
>> You seem to have a hard time getting your mind around the idea of
>> sovereignty.
>>
>> If I give my minor child money, I can dictate what they do with it.
>> (US : Banks :: Parent : Child)
>>
>> If I lend a neighbor money with specific loan terms, I cannot dictate
>> changes in those terms. (China : US :: Lending neighbor : Borrowing
>> neighbor)
>
>Hint...the TARP banks are not your children's banks but your
>NEIGHBOR's Bank....so you just destroyed your own argument.
Analogies must have given you fits in the SATs.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:1p59e5h5t1gsggmpo...@4ax.com...
Which is why they might not invest any more if the US can't meet the
interest.
It's hardly rocket science.
> The problem is that you aren't really "loaded" unless you have a way
> to productively spend or invest the money.
They have. They are currently stockpiling raw materials for one thing. On an
unimaginable scale.
And the scale of their domestic 'stimulus' dwarfs that of the US. Their
infrastructure programme is so vast it's hard to grasp. They just built a
city of 7 million in 8 years flat from a greenfield site.
They build a new gigawatt power station every WEEK.
They also currently only have 57% of foreign reserves in dollars.(and
falling) It used to be nearly 80%.
Every third house sale in Australia is to a Chinese. (just as one minor
example)
They are also looking for a way out of the petrodollar.So are a dozen other
major powers.
There is a seachange going on - economic power is shifting to south and east
Asia.
All empires rise and then fall. The US is no different. I'm not saying you
will become a banana republic but your days as Number One are limited to
maybe another 10-20 years..
The US people seem to be the last to realise this.
If you don't have a way,
> you can have $20 trillion, but it will be worth no more than $20. And
> unfortunately for the Chinese, the US is the BEST investment that they
> can make. All the other countries are worse off.
You are at least one Bush term out of date.
The_Carpathia
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 26, 9:34 am, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
> >> China never got gov't money. It was the other way around.
>
> >Exactly. So, they would be able to tell the U.S. what to
> >do...correct?
>
> No.
>
> >> You seem to have a hard time getting your mind around the idea of
> >> sovereignty.
>
> >> If I give my minor child money, I can dictate what they do with it.
> >> (US : Banks :: Parent : Child)
>
> >> If I lend a neighbor money with specific loan terms, I cannot dictate
> >> changes in those terms. (China : US :: Lending neighbor : Borrowing
> >> neighbor)
>
> >Hint...the TARP banks are not your children's banks but your
> >NEIGHBOR's Bank....so you just destroyed your own argument.
>
> Analogies must have given you fits in the SATs.
Again...try to stay on topic. YOU said that if you lended your
neighbor money, you cannot dictate terms to them, while you could
dictate terms to your child. Yet, none of the bailed out companies
are your children and are run by your neighbors...thus...by YOUR
terms, you cannot tell them what salaries to set, what products to
sell, etc.
Kenneth W Clifton
alexy
>On Oct 27, 10:29�am, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 26, 9:34�am, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>> >> China never got gov't money. It was the other way around.
>>
>> >Exactly. �So, they would be able to tell the U.S. what to
>> >do...correct?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >> You seem to have a hard time getting your mind around the idea of
>> >> sovereignty.
>>
>> >> If I give my minor child money, I can dictate what they do with it.
>> >> (US : Banks :: Parent : Child)
>>
>> >> If I lend a neighbor money with specific loan terms, I cannot dictate
>> >> changes in those terms. (China : US :: Lending neighbor : Borrowing
>> >> neighbor)
>>
>> >Hint...the TARP banks are not your children's banks but your
>> >NEIGHBOR's Bank....so you just destroyed your own argument.
>>
>> Analogies must have given you fits in the SATs.
>
>Again...try to stay on topic.
I was.
> YOU said that if you lended your
I did not. (I am literate.)
>neighbor money, you cannot dictate terms to them, while you could
>dictate terms to your child. Yet, none of the bailed out companies
>are your children and are run by your neighbors...thus...by YOUR
>terms, you cannot tell them what salaries to set, what products to
>sell, etc.
Apparently, you really are that clueless about analogies, even where
they are spelled out. I bet if you are asked for money by a beggar,
you decline, feeling comfortable that since you are not from Samaria,
you are not his neighbor.
The_Carpathia
Still waiting. You said that if you loaned money to your child, you
could set terms, but you couldn't to your neighbor. Answer me...is
the TARP banks your child? In fact, you are bailing them out with
your children's money.
Kenneth W Clifton
Bob LeChevalier
>Again...try to stay on topic. YOU said that if you lended your
>neighbor money, you cannot dictate terms to them, while you could
>dictate terms to your child. Yet, none of the bailed out companies
>are your children and are run by your neighbors
All corporations in this country are chartered under the laws of
either the Federal or various state governments. They would not exist
without having been created by the government charter. Thus arguably,
they are all "children of the government".
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Either you have selective amnesia, or you just flat lie. However, it
is impossible to debate someone who CHOOSES to post falsehoods. YOU
make claims you know are false without sources. I rebuke them WITH
sources. Then, a few months later, you are back to the SAME
falsehoods, assuming the public would no longer rememer.
alexy
>On Oct 27, 1:40�pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Again...try to stay on topic. �YOU said that if you lended your
>> >neighbor money, you cannot dictate terms to them, while you could
>> >dictate terms to your child. �Yet, none of the bailed out companies
>> >are your children and are run by your neighbors
>>
>> All corporations in this country are chartered under the laws of
>> either the Federal or various state governments. �They would not exist
>> without having been created by the government charter. �Thus arguably,
>> they are all "children of the government".
>>
>> lojbab
>> ---
>> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>> loj...@lojban.org � Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
>Either you have selective amnesia, or you just flat lie.
Neither. He was right on target. He understands the concept of an
analogy.
haiku jones
> On Oct 27, 1:40 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Again...try to stay on topic. YOU said that if you lended your
> > >neighbor money, you cannot dictate terms to them, while you could
> > >dictate terms to your child. Yet, none of the bailed out companies
> > >are your children and are run by your neighbors
>
> > All corporations in this country are chartered under the laws of
> > either the Federal or various state governments. They would not exist
> > without having been created by the government charter. Thus arguably,
> > they are all "children of the government".
>
> > lojbab
> > ---
> > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> > loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
> Either you have selective amnesia, or you just flat lie.
"Yet. SCRIPTURE says that we are not to judge our neighbor"
-- K. Clifton, October 2009
The_Carpathia
Ahh...so if you follow Scripture, I can expect you to accept my
apology, as Scripture commands?
Kenneth W Clifton
haiku jones
Can I expect you to answer my repeated
question regarding scripture and forgiveness,
to wit:
However, I am rather fascinated by your re-tooling
of the Christian concepts I grew up with. I claimed
that, as I was taught, confession of sin, genuine
regret for having sinned, and earnest solicitation
of forgiveness were all necessary for that forgiveness
to be given. But you claim that none of that is
necessary, and support your claim by citing
Jesus having forgiven the soldiers who were
crucifying Him, even though they neither confessed
wrongdoing nor regretted their actions nor sought
His forgiveness; do I have that about right?
Anwswer that, and we'll talk about your question
next.
Haiku Jones
>
> Kenneth W Clifton
The_Carpathia
I'll address that, even though my apologies to you have preceeded your
questions...and have been given many times. I never said that all
that was required to be forgiven was to say the words. What i SAID
was that God commanded US to forgive those that asked it of
us...whether they will be forgiven by God is irrelevent to the matter
at hand. God told US to forgive, even if they haven't asked it of
us...implying that there is NO requirement for us to forgive. And, he
gave the example on the cross, as you quoted.
So, do you forgive me...yes or no. Will you REJECT CHRIST'S COMMAND
AND EXAMPLE and still condemn me with Scripture?
Kenneth W Clifton
Patriot Games
>charge tariffs on the shit!
That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
just barely able to compete with American-made products.
Those days are LONG GONE.
If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea would
never fly...
Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
to somehow encourage American business to source manufacturing in
Mexico instead of China.
The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should offset
the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's a bad idea too! It's slightly more pallatable than having shit
made in China, but I still support the idea of the United States
making it's own shit.
Michael Coburn
If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the Mexican hat
dance. Republicans understand fascism and that is all they understand.
Patriot Games
<pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Oct 28, 3:35嚙緘m, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>> >> >>>government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>> >> >>>American policy? 嚙璀fter all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
>> >> >>>national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and MUST
>> >> >>>change our policies to their desires. 嚙瘠orrect?
>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
>> >> >> THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
>> >> >> (They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
>> >> >> However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
>> >> >> interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
>> >> >> want...
>> >> >into in order to collect?
>> >> There isn't one...
>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to
>> >> >enforce and decision.
>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured
>> >> >in China.
>> >> to send that "crap" it to us. 嚙瞌bviously they won't stop making it if
>> >> we keep paying them to make it...
>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us because
>> >> they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK everybody ELSE is
>> >> stupid?
>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is to
>> >charge tariffs on the shit!
>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>> just barely able to compete with American-made products.
>> Those days are LONG GONE.
>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>> never fly...
>> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
>> to somehow encourage American business to source manufacturing in
>> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
It has both good and bad points...
>It's slightly more pallatable than having shit
>made in China, but I still support the idea of the United States
>making it's own shit.
Those days are pretty much gone...
If we make it we could only sell it to ourselves because nobody else
could afford it because our labor costs are so high. That would mean
ZERO income from exporting.
Additionally, if we make it we're selling it to ourselves at TWO or
THREE TIMES what we currently pay for it...
We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet rich
when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer.
Its just stupid.
Patriot Games
Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a total
and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists in China THEREFORE
if a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets from China vs.
100,000 Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH GREATER
because Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory (whereas
Chian already has one). That's why some financial mechanisms and
incentives at the US and Mexican National levels must FIRST exist to
bring Mexico up to a competitive caliber.
In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the US
and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black and
Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips, Eastman-Kodak,
Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier Air Conditioning,
Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and Pratt & Whitney.
>Republicans understand fascism and that is all they understand.
Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
again.
MACK DADDY
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 28, 3:35 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>
> >> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
> >> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
> >> >> >>>government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
> >> >> >>>national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and MUST
> >> >> >>>change our policies to their desires. Correct?
> >> >> >> Not necessarily....
> >> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our debt
> >> >> >> THEN they cannot dictate shit to us...
> >> >> >> (They have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...)
> >> >> >> However, if any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
> >> >> >> interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
> >> >> >> want...
> >> >> >into in order to collect?
> >> >> There isn't one...
> >> >> >And what "police force" will they use to
> >> >> >enforce and decision.
> >> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
> >> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured
> >> >> >in China.
> >> >> to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop making it if
> >> >> we keep paying them to make it...
> >> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
> >> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
> >> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us because
> >> >> they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK everybody ELSE is
> >> >> stupid?
> >> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
> >> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
> >> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is to
> >> >charge tariffs on the shit!
> >> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
> >> just barely able to compete with American-made products.
> >> Those days are LONG GONE.
> >> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
> >> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
> >> never fly...
> >> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
> >> to somehow encourage American business to source manufacturing in
> >> Mexico instead of China.
> >> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
> >That's a bad idea too!
>
> It has both good and bad points...
>
> >It's slightly more pallatable than having shit
> >made in China, but I still support the idea of the United States
> >making it's own shit.
>
> Those days are pretty much gone...
>
> If we make it we could only sell it to ourselves because nobody else
> could afford it because our labor costs are so high. That would mean
> ZERO income from exporting.
>
> Additionally, if we make it we're selling it to ourselves at TWO or
> THREE TIMES what we currently pay for it...
>
> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet rich
> when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
WE could make ourselves rich by making stuff here. It always worked
in the past, prior to Reagan eliminating trade tariffs.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't give a rats ass about widgets!
Michael Coburn
> On 29 Oct 2009 20:06:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:35:26 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
> >> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>>On Oct 26, 3:20 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >>>> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >What a complete and utter moron. Exactly which court will they
> >>>> >haul us into in order to collect?
> >>>> There isn't one...
> >>>> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
> >>>> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
> >>>> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured inChina.
> >>>> They don't do that. WE PAY THEM to make that "crap," then WE PAY
THEM
> >>>> to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop making it
if
> >>>> we keep paying them to make it...
> >>>> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
> >>>> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
> >>>> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
because
> >>>> they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK everybody ELSE
is
> >>>> stupid?
> >>>> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
> >>>> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
Like I said: You people are so damned stupid it's scary.
> >>> The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
to
> >>> charge tariffs on the shit!
> >> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
> >> just barely able to compete withAmerican-made products.
> >> Those days are LONG GONE.
> >> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
> >> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICTAmericancompanies from PAYING the
> >> Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea would
never
> >> fly...
> >> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
to
> >> somehow encourageAmericanbusiness to source manufacturing in Mexico
> >> instead ofChina.
> >> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should offset
> >> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
The rightraded soultion is _ALWAYS_ one of "bribe the rich"
and "encourage the rich" to do whatever. The proper
solution is to tax the hell out of em if they don't do what
is needed.
> > If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the Mexican
hat
> > dance.
> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a total
> and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists inChinaTHEREFORE
> if a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets fromChinavs.
> 100,000 Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH GREATER
> because Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory (whereas
> Chian already has one). That's why some financial mechanisms and
> incentives at the US and Mexican National levels must FIRST exist to
> bring Mexico up to a competitive caliber.
If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then we
will stop importing shit from China and get the stuff from
elsewhere (like right here). The objective is more favorable conditions
for the American middle class. If Mexico benefits also then that
is good too.
> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the US
> and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black and
> Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips, Eastman-Kodak,
> Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier Air Conditioning,
> Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and Pratt & Whitney.
What a nice list of names. Irrelevant, but cute. The point
is that this movement disenfranchised the American middle
class and enriched the owner class. We need to reverse that.
> >Republicans understand fascism and that is all they understand.
> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
> again.
Yet another display of infantile brainlessness form PG.
Michael Coburn
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
> <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 28, 3:35 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> >On Oct 26, 3:20 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there
>>> >> >>>for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other
>>> >> >>>matters, simply because the government gave them a lot of money.
>>> >> >>> Can China dictate American policy? After all, it owns a
>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. So, we have no say in
>>> >> >>>rejecting China's demands and MUST change our policies to their
>>> >> >>>desires. Correct?
>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on
>>> >> >> our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have
>>> >> >> already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of our
>>> >> >> debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the interest then
>>> >> >> they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they want...
>>> >> >What a complete and utter moron. Exactly which court will they
>>> >> >haul is into in order to collect?
>>> >> There isn't one...
>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>>> >> They don't do that. WE PAY THEM to make that "crap," then WE PAY
>>> >> THEM to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop
>>> >> making it if we keep paying them to make it...
>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
>>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
>>> >> because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK
>>> >> everybody ELSE is stupid?
>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is to
>>> >charge tariffs on the shit!
>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>>> just barely able to compete with American-made products. Those days
>>> are LONG GONE.
>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>>> Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea would
>>> never fly...
>>> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
>>> to somehow encourage American business to source manufacturing in
>>> Mexico instead of China.
>>> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should offset
>>> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
>>That's a bad idea too!
>
> It has both good and bad points...
The transportation costs are a flea on a camel's ass. But to pick such a
nit is a Republican mainstay.
>>It's slightly more pallatable than having shit made in China, but I
>>still support the idea of the United States making it's own shit.
>
> Those days are pretty much gone...
Because of Republicans and Clinton.
> If we make it we could only sell it to ourselves because nobody else
> could afford it because our labor costs are so high. That would mean
> ZERO income from exporting.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH TRAUMA!!!!!
> Additionally, if we make it we're selling it to ourselves at TWO or
> THREE TIMES what we currently pay for it...
LIE!
> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet rich
> when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer.
>
> Its just stupid.
You got something right!! Call the wire services.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Republican thinking is so flawed, it makes me sick!
Patriot Games
Sorry, that won't work. (See below.)
>It always worked in the past
It happenned in the past BEFORE we had cheaper imports.
Absolutely everybody's budget (personal and corporate) is based mostly
on lower cost products that are imported. Nobody in America today
could afford our OWN products.
>prior to Reagan eliminating trade tariffs.
Reagan eliminated trade tariffs?
Now you know why most people don't waste their time with you, because
YOU'RE STUPID.
Reagan:
1) Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports.
2) Reduced quotas on imported sugar, from an annual average of 4.85
million tons in 1979-81 to an annual average of 2.86 million tons in
1982-86.
3) Increased restrictiveness of the Multifiber Arrangement and
extended restrictions to previously unrestricted textiles.
4) Required 18 countries--including Brazil, Spain, South Korea, Japan,
Mexico, South Africa, Finland, and Australia, as well as the European
Community--to accept "voluntary restraint agreements" to reduce steel
imports, guaranteeing domestic producers a share of the American
market.
5) Imposed a five-year duty, beginning at 45 percent, on Japanese
motorcycles.
6) Raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles.
7) Forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of
computer memory-chip exports and increase Japanese purchases of
American-made chips. When the agreement was allegedly broken, the
administration imposed a 100 percent tariff on $300 million worth of
electronics goods.
8) Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain
their exports of machine tools, with some market shares rolled back to
1981 levels.
9) Accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings, because the price
did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen. The U.S. Customs
Service was ordered to collect duties equal to the so-called dumping
margins.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html
Patriot Games
>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>> <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there
>>>> >> >>>for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other
>>>> >> >>>matters, simply because the government gave them a lot of money.
>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no say in
>>>> >> >>>rejecting China's demands and MUST change our policies to their
>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on
>>>> >> >> our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have
>>>> >> >> already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of our
>>>> >> >> debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the interest then
>>>> >> >> they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they want...
>>>> >> >haul is into in order to collect?
>>>> >> There isn't one...
>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>>>> >> THEM to send that "crap" it to us. 嚙瞌bviously they won't stop
>>>> >> making it if we keep paying them to make it...
>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
>>>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
>>>> >> because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK
>>>> >> everybody ELSE is stupid?
>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is to
>>>> >charge tariffs on the shit!
>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>>>> just barely able to compete with American-made products. Those days
>>>> are LONG GONE.
>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>>>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>>>> never fly...
>>>> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
>>>> to somehow encourage American business to source manufacturing in
>>>> Mexico instead of China.
>>>> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should offset
>>>> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
>>>That's a bad idea too!
>> It has both good and bad points...
>The transportation costs are a flea on a camel's ass.
Money is money...
>>>It's slightly more pallatable than having shit made in China, but I
>>>still support the idea of the United States making it's own shit.
>> Those days are pretty much gone...
>Because of Republicans and Clinton.
Mostly Clinton.
>> If we make it we could only sell it to ourselves because nobody else
>> could afford it because our labor costs are so high. That would mean
>> ZERO income from exporting.
>OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH TRAUMA!!!!!
>> Additionally, if we make it we're selling it to ourselves at TWO or
>> THREE TIMES what we currently pay for it...
>LIE!
Chinese factory labor: $50/mo = 31 cents per hour...
http://www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/knightridder_chineseworkers_09082004.pdf
>> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet rich
>> when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer.
>> Its just stupid.
>You got something right!! Call the wire services.
Ask them to bring a photographer so they can capture for posterity me
shitting in your open mouth, again...
Patriot Games
<pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 2, 3:25嚙緘m, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2009 20:06:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:35:26 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>> >> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> >>>> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>> >>>> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for
>> >>>> >>>the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters,
>> >>>> >>>dictate American policy? 嚙璀fter all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent
>> >>>> >>>of our national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no say in rejecting China's
>> >>>> >>>demands and MUST change our policies to their desires. 嚙瘠orrect?
>> >>>> >> Not necessarily....
>> >>>> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on our
>> >>>> >> debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have already said
>> >>>> >> they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of our debt is on loose
>> >>>> >> terms or we get slack paying the interest then they COULD call in
>> >>>> >> the balances OR dictate anything they want...
>> >>>> >is into in order to collect?
>> >>>> There isn't one...
>> >>>> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>> >>>> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>> >>>> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>> >>>> to send that "crap" it to us. 嚙瞌bviously they won't stop making it if
>> >>>> we keep paying them to make it...
>> >>>> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>> >>>> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
>> >>>> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us because
>> >>>> they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK everybody ELSE is
>> >>>> stupid?
>> >>>> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>> >>>> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>> >>>The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is to
>> >>>charge tariffs on the shit!
>> >> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>> >> just barely able to compete with American-made products.
>> >> Those days are LONG GONE.
>> >> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>> >> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>> >> fly...
>> >> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't to
>> >> somehow encourage American business to source manufacturing in Mexico
>> >> instead of China.
>> >> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should offset
>> >> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
>> >If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the Mexican hat
>> >dance.
>> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a total
>> and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
>> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists in China THEREFORE
>> if a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets from China vs.
>> 100,000 Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH GREATER
>> because Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory (whereas
>> incentives at the US and Mexican National levels must FIRST exist to
>> bring Mexico up to a competitive caliber.
>> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the US
>> and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
>> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
>> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black and
>> Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips, Eastman-Kodak,
>> Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier Air Conditioning,
>> Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and Pratt & Whitney.
>> >Republicans understand fascism and that is all they understand.
>> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
>> again.
Its not my fault you're stupid.
Patriot Games
Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
again.
>> >>> The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
>> >>> to
>> >>> charge tariffs on the shit!
>> >> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>> >> just barely able to compete withAmerican-made products.
>> >> Those days are LONG GONE.
>> >> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>> >> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICTAmericancompanies from PAYING the
>> >> Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea would
>> >> never
>> >> fly...
>> >> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican gov't
>> >> to
>> >> somehow encourageAmericanbusiness to source manufacturing in Mexico
>> >> instead ofChina.
>> >> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should offset
>> >> the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
>The rightraded soultion is _ALWAYS_ one of "bribe the rich"
>and "encourage the rich" to do whatever.
I'm not talking about "the rich." This is about corporations...
>The proper
>solution is to tax the hell out of em if they don't do what
>is needed.
Spoken like a true Communist.
>> > If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the Mexican
>> > hat
>> > dance.
>> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a total
>> and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
>> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists inChinaTHEREFORE
>> if a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets fromChinavs.
>> 100,000 Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH GREATER
>> because Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory (whereas
>> Chian already has one). That's why some financial mechanisms and
>> incentives at the US and Mexican National levels must FIRST exist to
>> bring Mexico up to a competitive caliber.
>If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then we
>will stop importing shit from China and get the stuff from
>elsewhere (like right here).
Pay attention, Commie. THERE IS NO "elsewhere."
"If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then" our store
shelves will be mostly EMPTY.
>The objective is more favorable conditions
>for the American middle class.
High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
occupation.
No, that is NOT the objective. Full employment might be an objective.
Vastly reduced deficit might be an objective. Etc.
>If Mexico benefits also then that is good too.
They would.
>> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the US
>> and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
>> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
>> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black and
>> Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips, Eastman-Kodak,
>> Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier Air Conditioning,
>> Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and Pratt & Whitney.
>What a nice list of names. Irrelevant, but cute. The point
>is that this movement disenfranchised the American middle
>class and enriched the owner class.
These are PUBLIC companies, there is no "owner class."
No, the "American middle class" was not "disenfranchised."
Most of the "American middle class" at the companies mentioned above
are college educated corporate workers NOT FACTORY LABOR and they
mostly RETAINED their jobs at corporate offices STILL IN America.
>We need to reverse that.
We need to hunt down all Communists like YOU, drag you into the
street, soak you with gasoline and light you up.
Michael Coburn
> On 3 Nov 2009 21:33:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>> <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>On Oct 28, 3:35 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> >On Oct 26, 3:20 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there
>>>>> >> >>>for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other
>>>>> >> >>>matters, simply because the government gave them a lot of
>>>>> >> >>>money.
>>>>> >> >>> Can China dictate American policy? After all, it owns a
>>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. So, we have no say
>>>>> >> >>>in rejecting China's demands and MUST change our policies to
>>>>> >> >>>their desires. Correct?
>>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on
>>>>> >> >> our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have
>>>>> >> >> already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of
>>>>> >> >> our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the interest
>>>>> >> >> then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
>>>>> >> >> want...
>>>>> >> >What a complete and utter moron. Exactly which court will they
>>>>> >> >haul is into in order to collect?
>>>>> >> There isn't one...
>>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>>>>> >> They don't do that. WE PAY THEM to make that "crap," then WE PAY
>>>>> >> THEM to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop
>>>>> >> making it if we keep paying them to make it...
>>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
>>>>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
>>>>> >> because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK
>>>>> >> everybody ELSE is stupid?
>>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
>>>>> >to charge tariffs on the shit!
>>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>>>>> just barely able to compete with American-made products. Those days
>>>>> are LONG GONE.
>>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>>>>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>>>>> Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea would
Those who wish to enslave others will certainly salivate over cheap
foreign labor. But more to the point, idiot: If everything is so very
cheap then why do Americans need to work at all???? Why not just send
out money to everyone in equal amounts and be done with it?
The answer to this question illustrates the real problem we have in the
USA and it is a problem of distribution of the gains from comparative
advantage. All the gains go to the owner class and none to the producer
class. We are essentially IMPORTING the Chinese slavery and using it to
disenfranchise our own producers.
>>> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet rich
>>> when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer. Its just
>>> stupid.
>>You got something right!! Call the wire services.
>
> Ask them to bring a photographer so they can capture for posterity me
> shitting in your open mouth, again...
You are one very stupid, sick, perverted individual.
Michael Coburn
You are one sick perverted individual. A real standard bearer for your
bubble of rightardia.
>>> >>> The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> charge tariffs on the shit!
>>> >> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we
>>> >> were just barely able to compete withAmerican-made products. Those
>>> >> days are LONG GONE.
>>> >> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders"
>>> >> the ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICTAmericancompanies from PAYING
>>> >> the Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea
>>> >> would never
>>> >> fly...
>>> >> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican
>>> >> gov't to
>>> >> somehow encourageAmericanbusiness to source manufacturing in Mexico
>>> >> instead ofChina.
>>> >> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should
>>> >> offset the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
>>The rightraded soultion is _ALWAYS_ one of "bribe the rich" and
>>"encourage the rich" to do whatever.
>
> I'm not talking about "the rich." This is about corporations...
You would be bribing the rich -- the owner class.
>>The proper
>>solution is to tax the hell out of em if they don't do what is needed.
>
> Spoken like a true Communist.
Actually it was spoken like a true American. That is what we did to get
out of the depression and to promote a very good economy between 194x and
1964. Then came the tax cuts.
>>> > If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the Mexican
>>> > hat
>>> > dance.
>>> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a total
>>> and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
>>> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists inChinaTHEREFORE if
>>> a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets fromChinavs. 100,000
>>> Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH GREATER because
>>> Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory (whereas Chian
>>> already has one). That's why some financial mechanisms and incentives
>>> at the US and Mexican National levels must FIRST exist to bring Mexico
>>> up to a competitive caliber.
>>If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then we will stop
>>importing shit from China and get the stuff from elsewhere (like right
>>here).
>
> Pay attention, Commie. THERE IS NO "elsewhere."
>
> "If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then" our store
> shelves will be mostly EMPTY.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Nope. We will go to work and produce the stuff ourselves.
>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>class.
>
> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class" occupation.
Oh, but it is. And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated
plumbers, electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
painters, masons, etc. And lets not forget the tech school trained
nurses, medical technicians, medical screening equipment operators,
computer systems administrators, rail and truck operators, and a
bazillion other jobs that must be done in a thriving economy. But in
order to have a thriving economy people must have the OPPORTUNITY to
contribute and earn a living. When we send all our _borrowed_ money to
China that doesn't happen.
> No, that is NOT the objective.
Yes, lying pig Republican idiot, a prosperous middle class _IS_ the
_ONLY_ valid objective of rational economics.
> Full employment might be an objective.
> Vastly reduced deficit might be an objective. Etc.
If we have full employment and proper taxation there will be no deficit.
To claim otherwise is stupidity on steroids and Republican pig shit.
>>If Mexico benefits also then that is good too.
>
> They would.
>
>>> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the US
>>> and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
>>> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
>>> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black and
>>> Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips, Eastman-Kodak,
>>> Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier Air Conditioning,
>>> Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and Pratt & Whitney.
>>What a nice list of names. Irrelevant, but cute. The point is that this
>>movement disenfranchised the American middle class and enriched the
>>owner class.
>
> These are PUBLIC companies, there is no "owner class."
There is definitely and owner class and a producer class. That has been
true since the beginning of recorded history and to deny it is to deny
reality. The stock holders of your list of companies have been the
beneficiaries of exporting the jobs. The PRODUCER class has been kicked
to the side of the road.
> No, the "American middle class" was not "disenfranchised."
Oh but it was, lying pig. It was disenfranchised by tax cutting, social
welfare gutting, and completely lopsided use of "free trade".
> Most of the "American middle class" at the companies mentioned above are
> college educated corporate workers NOT FACTORY LABOR and they mostly
> RETAINED their jobs at corporate offices STILL IN America.
The unemployment rate is 10.2%, pal. It is 10.2% because since the
beginning of this century the American economy has been based entirely on
real estate appreciation and debt, and on a huge trade deficit.
Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer class and so
to is medicare part "A". If you omit those self funded programs then
cutting actual income tax supported welfare programs would not create a
balanced budget at the current tax rates. The answer to the deficit
problem is a very significant increase in taxation on the owner class.
>>We need to reverse that.
>
> We need to hunt down all Communists like YOU, drag you into the street,
> soak you with gasoline and light you up.
More of your pathetic crap.
Patriot Games
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> charge tariffs on the shit!
>>>> >> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we
>>>> >> were just barely able to compete withAmerican-made products. Those
>>>> >> days are LONG GONE.
>>>> >> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders"
>>>> >> the ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICTAmericancompanies from PAYING
>>>> >> the Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that idea
>>>> >> would never
>>>> >> fly...
>>>> >> Which leaves the next best idea: Somehow encourage the Mexican
>>>> >> gov't to
>>>> >> somehow encourageAmericanbusiness to source manufacturing in Mexico
>>>> >> instead ofChina.
>>>> >> The cost savings of not having to ship across the ocean should
>>>> >> offset the somewhat higher labor cost in Mexico.
>>>The rightraded soultion is _ALWAYS_ one of "bribe the rich" and
>>>"encourage the rich" to do whatever.
>> I'm not talking about "the rich." This is about corporations...
>You would be bribing the rich -- the owner class.
The "owner class' is the stockholders, Commie.
>>>The proper
>>>solution is to tax the hell out of em if they don't do what is needed.
>> Spoken like a true Communist.
>Actually it was spoken like a true American.
Sorry, there is nothing "american" about YOU.
>>>> > If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the Mexican
>>>> > hat
>>>> > dance.
>>>> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a total
>>>> and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
>>>> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists inChinaTHEREFORE if
>>>> a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets fromChinavs. 100,000
>>>> Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH GREATER because
>>>> Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory (whereas Chian
>>>> already has one). That's why some financial mechanisms and incentives
>>>> at the US and Mexican National levels must FIRST exist to bring Mexico
>>>> up to a competitive caliber.
>>>If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then we will stop
>>>importing shit from China and get the stuff from elsewhere (like right
>>>here).
>> Pay attention, Commie. THERE IS NO "elsewhere."
>> "If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then" our store
>> shelves will be mostly EMPTY.
>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>Nope. We will go to work and produce the stuff ourselves.
You keep talking in circles. Trust me when I guarantee that I am
providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and humiliate YOURSELF
in front of the entire newsgroup.
If we "produce the stuff ourselves" the WE have to be PAID, and we
need to be paid wages WE'RE USED TO. Which puts the prices of those
commodities OUT OF OUR OWN REACH.
>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>class.
>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class" occupation.
>Oh, but it is.
No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated
>plumbers, electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>painters, masons, etc.
I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
YOU would have known that had YOU EVER been formally educated.
>But in
>order to have a thriving economy people must have the OPPORTUNITY to
>contribute and earn a living.
No, "opportunity" does NOT create or sustain a thriving economy.
"Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
>When we send all our _borrowed_ money to
>China that doesn't happen.
Try to pay attention, Commie. We don't "send" money to China, we PAY
China to make products for us. We could just as easily PAY anybody to
make the same stuff anywhere else on the planet. It should be
perfectly clear that most Americans don't give a shit WHERE our stuff
is made so long as its inexpensive, readily available, and of moderate
quality.
>> No, that is NOT the objective.
>Yes, lying pig Republican idiot, a prosperous middle class _IS_ the
>_ONLY_ valid objective of rational economics.
Try to pay attention, Commie. Truck drivers are NOT the Middle Class.
Perhaps, only when their wages are artificially pumped up by Union
Theft, are they somewhere in the LOWER portion of Middle Class.
>> Full employment might be an objective.
>> Vastly reduced deficit might be an objective. Etc.
>>>If Mexico benefits also then that is good too.
>> They would.
>>>> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the US
>>>> and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
>>>> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
>>>> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black and
>>>> Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips, Eastman-Kodak,
>>>> Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier Air Conditioning,
>>>> Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and Pratt & Whitney.
>>>What a nice list of names. Irrelevant, but cute. The point is that this
>>>movement disenfranchised the American middle class and enriched the
>>>owner class.
>> These are PUBLIC companies, there is no "owner class."
>There is definitely and owner class and a producer class. That has been
>true since the beginning of recorded history and to deny it is to deny
>reality. The stock holders of your list of companies have been the
>beneficiaries of exporting the jobs. The PRODUCER class has been kicked
>to the side of the road.
No, the "producer" Class was found waiting on the side of the road for
a handout and instead got a kick in the ass and a job.
>> No, the "American middle class" was not "disenfranchised."
>> Most of the "American middle class" at the companies mentioned above are
>> college educated corporate workers NOT FACTORY LABOR and they mostly
>> RETAINED their jobs at corporate offices STILL IN America.
>Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer class and so
>to is medicare part "A".
You have already been SHOWN TO BE A LIAR:
No, this "Producer" Class that you pretend exists pays almost NO
taxes:
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
For Tax Year 2006
(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>If you omit those self funded programs
They DO NOT exist and they NEVER DID.
The Upper Incomes TOTALLY SUPPORT the Lower Incomes.
>>>We need to reverse that.
>> We need to hunt down all Communists like YOU, drag you into the street,
>> soak you with gasoline and light you up.
>More of your pathetic crap.
Get used to the coming Reality. YOU aren't considered an American by
the Americans who made and make this country successful, YOU are
considered to be the ENEMY.
Would YOU prefer Regular or Unleaded?
From: The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net>
From: Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Title: The Trucker
Industry: Non-Profit
Website or Blog: GreaterVoice.org
About me: Retired now, I drove an 18 wheeler in 48 states and Canada
for 5 years, Prior to that I ran my own technology services company
providing heterogeneous systems administration and contract software
development (30 years). I have a few things to say before I croak.
greatervoice.org
IP: 209.41.200.68
Columbus, OK
Host: apollo.jtlnet.com
WHOIS Results for greatervoice.org
Domain ID:D83478242-LROR
Domain Name:GREATERVOICE.ORG
Created On:08-Feb-2002 21:32:06 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Nov-2008 01:48:02 UTC
Expiration Date:08-Feb-2014 21:32:06 UTC
Registrant ID:SD2361
Registrant Name:Michael Coburn
Registrant Street1:7614 E. Montana
Registrant City:Port Orchard
Registrant State/Province:Washington
Registrant Postal Code:98366
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.3608714992
Registrant Email:mik...@gte.net
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.+Montana
Patriot Games
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:11:39 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2009 21:33:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>> <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>>>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there
>>>>>> >> >>>for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other
>>>>>> >> >>>matters, simply because the government gave them a lot of
>>>>>> >> >>>money.
>>>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no say
>>>>>> >> >>>in rejecting China's demands and MUST change our policies to
>>>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>>>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on
>>>>>> >> >> our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have
>>>>>> >> >> already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of
>>>>>> >> >> our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the interest
>>>>>> >> >> then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
>>>>>> >> >> want...
>>>>>> >> >haul is into in order to collect?
>>>>>> >> There isn't one...
>>>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>>>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>>>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>>>>>> >> THEM to send that "crap" it to us. 嚙瞌bviously they won't stop
>>>>>> >> making it if we keep paying them to make it...
>>>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>>>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
>>>>>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
>>>>>> >> because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK
>>>>>> >> everybody ELSE is stupid?
>>>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>>>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
>>>>>> >to charge tariffs on the shit!
>>>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
>>>>>> just barely able to compete with American-made products. Those days
>>>>>> are LONG GONE.
>>>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
>>>>>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
Do you actually think ANYBODY fell for that stupid trick?
HAHAHAHHA!!
>The answer to this question...
There was no question.
>illustrates the real problem we have in the
>USA and it is a problem of distribution of the gains from comparative
>advantage. All the gains go to the owner class and none to the producer
>class.
There is no such thing as an "owner class", Commie.
There is no such thing as a "producer class", Commie.
All "gains" are earned and it is in EARNING that "distribution" occurs
- one GETS what one EARNS. The process of EARNING IS the process of
distribution. That is how it works in America.
>>>> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet rich
>>>> when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer. Its just
>>>> stupid.
>>>You got something right!! Call the wire services.
>> Ask them to bring a photographer so they can capture for posterity me
>> shitting in your open mouth, again...
>You are one very stupid, sick, perverted individual.
The COMMUNIST is EXPOSED:
MACK DADDY
> On 6 Nov 2009 23:41:34 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:11:39 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2009 21:33:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
> >>>>>On Oct 28, 3:35 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
> >>>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> >>>>>> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
> >>>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there
> >>>>>> >> >>>for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other
> >>>>>> >> >>>matters, simply because the government gave them a lot of
> >>>>>> >> >>>money.
> >>>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. So, we have no say
> >>>>>> >> >>>in rejecting China's demands and MUST change our policies to
> >>>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
> >>>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on
> >>>>>> >> >> our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have
> >>>>>> >> >> already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of
> >>>>>> >> >> our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the interest
> >>>>>> >> >> then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
> >>>>>> >> >> want...
> >>>>>> >> >haul is into in order to collect?
> >>>>>> >> There isn't one...
> >>>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
> >>>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
> >>>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
> >>>>>> >> THEM to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop
> >>>>>> >> making it if we keep paying them to make it...
> >>>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
> >>>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
> >>>>>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
> >>>>>> >> because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK
> >>>>>> >> everybody ELSE is stupid?
> >>>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
> >>>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
> >>>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
> >>>>>> >to charge tariffs on the shit!
> >>>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
> >>>>>> just barely able to compete with American-made products. Those days
> >>>>>> are LONG GONE.
> >>>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
> >>>>>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/ndbumo
>
> http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+...
>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/n8pzop- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would we wanna make China rich?
I think we need to go back to making our own country rich eh!
Michael Coburn
Yes, lying pig. The owners class is the stockholders in their role as
stockholders.
>>>>The proper
>>>>solution is to tax the hell out of em if they don't do what is needed.
>>> Spoken like a true Communist.
>>Actually it was spoken like a true American.
>
> Sorry, there is nothing "american" about YOU.
Your asinine opinions are worthless.
>>>>> > If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the
>>>>> > Mexican hat
>>>>> > dance.
>>>>> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a
>>>>> total and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
>>>>> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists inChinaTHEREFORE
>>>>> if a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets fromChinavs.
>>>>> 100,000 Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH
>>>>> GREATER because Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory
>>>>> (whereas Chian already has one). That's why some financial
>>>>> mechanisms and incentives at the US and Mexican National levels must
>>>>> FIRST exist to bring Mexico up to a competitive caliber.
>>>>If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then we will stop
>>>>importing shit from China and get the stuff from elsewhere (like right
>>>>here).
>>> Pay attention, Commie. THERE IS NO "elsewhere." "If it costs a lot
>>> more to import shit from China then" our store shelves will be mostly
>>> EMPTY.
>>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>>Nope. We will go to work and produce the stuff ourselves.
>
> You keep talking in circles. Trust me when I guarantee that I am
> providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and humiliate YOURSELF
> in front of the entire newsgroup.
You have the economic acumen of a skunk cabbage.
> If we "produce the stuff ourselves" the WE have to be PAID, and we need
> to be paid wages WE'RE USED TO. Which puts the prices of those
> commodities OUT OF OUR OWN REACH.
That is like claiming that I will starve to death when I can easily work
to acquire what I need. It is illogical and insane. You claim that
America lacks the natural resources necessary to the survival of its
people. It is idiotic.
>>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>>class.
>>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
>>> occupation.
>>Oh, but it is.
>
> No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
If it is "lower middle class", moron, then it is still middle class. And
prior to the arrival of Saint Ronnie it wasn't "lower" at all.
>>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated plumbers,
>>electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>>painters, masons, etc.
>
> I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
> EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
Many are actually superior regarding both knowledge and performance.
> YOU would have known that had YOU EVER been formally educated.
>
It is that only the rightarded that insist of formality and political
correctness in attaining a level of "authority". Many people are a lot
smarter and more knowledgeable than the majority that have been formally
schooled.
>>But in
>>order to have a thriving economy people must have the OPPORTUNITY to
>>contribute and earn a living.
>
> No, "opportunity" does NOT create or sustain a thriving economy.
Yes, idiot. It does.
> "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
Your claim is garbage. Commerce is the result of opportunity and not the
cause.
>>When we send all our _borrowed_ money to China that doesn't happen.
>
> Try to pay attention, Commie. We don't "send" money to China, we PAY
> China to make products for us.
Gee, moron.... That would mean you send money to China...
> We could just as easily PAY anybody to
> make the same stuff anywhere else on the planet.
Sure you can.... You can just keep sending money to China and borrowing
it back again.
> It should be perfectly
> clear that most Americans don't give a shit WHERE our stuff is made so
> long as its inexpensive, readily available, and of moderate quality.
Oh, its clear enough. But it is also clear that it can't continue unless
we intend to become the next Reich.
>>> No, that is NOT the objective.
>>Yes, lying pig Republican idiot, a prosperous middle class _IS_ the
>>_ONLY_ valid objective of rational economics.
>
> Try to pay attention, Commie. Truck drivers are NOT the Middle Class.
> Perhaps, only when their wages are artificially pumped up by Union
> Theft, are they somewhere in the LOWER portion of Middle Class.
I was middle class before I drove a truck, while I drove a truck, and now
that I am retired.
>>> Full employment might be an objective. Vastly reduced deficit might be
>>> an objective. Etc.
>>>>If Mexico benefits also then that is good too.
>>> They would.
>>>>> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the
>>>>> US and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
>>>>> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
>>>>> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black
>>>>> and Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips,
>>>>> Eastman-Kodak, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier
>>>>> Air Conditioning, Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and
>>>>> Pratt & Whitney.
>>>>What a nice list of names. Irrelevant, but cute. The point is that
>>>>this movement disenfranchised the American middle class and enriched
>>>>the owner class.
>>> These are PUBLIC companies, there is no "owner class."
>>There is definitely and owner class and a producer class. That has been
>>true since the beginning of recorded history and to deny it is to deny
>>reality. The stock holders of your list of companies have been the
>>beneficiaries of exporting the jobs. The PRODUCER class has been kicked
>>to the side of the road.
>
> No, the "producer" Class was found waiting on the side of the road for a
> handout and instead got a kick in the ass and a job.
How sweet.
>>> No, the "American middle class" was not "disenfranchised." Most of the
>>> "American middle class" at the companies mentioned above are college
>>> educated corporate workers NOT FACTORY LABOR and they mostly RETAINED
>>> their jobs at corporate offices STILL IN America.
>>Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer class and so
>>to is medicare part "A".
>
> You have already been SHOWN TO BE A LIAR:
Nope.
> No, this "Producer" Class that you pretend exists pays almost NO taxes:
>
> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000. The
> richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000. The bottom
> 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
<<< garbage about rich bitches paying the most tax deleted >>>>>>>>>>>
The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being paid
is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally beside
the point.
Michael Coburn
> On 6 Nov 2009 23:41:34 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:11:39 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov 2009 21:33:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>>> <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Oct 28, 3:35 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >On Oct 26, 3:20 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn
>>>>>>> >> <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>>>>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out
>>>>>>> >> >>>there for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and
>>>>>>> >> >>>other matters, simply because the government gave them a lot
>>>>>>> >> >>>of money.
>>>>>>> >> >>> Can China dictate American policy? After all, it owns a
>>>>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. So, we have no
>>>>>>> >> >>>say in rejecting China's demands and MUST change our
>>>>>>> >> >>>policies to their desires. Correct?
>>>>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>>>>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest
>>>>>>> >> >> on our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They
>>>>>>> >> >> have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if
>>>>>>> >> >> any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
>>>>>>> >> >> interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate
>>>>>>> >> >> anything they want...
>>>>>>> >> >What a complete and utter moron. Exactly which court will
>>>>>>> >> >they haul is into in order to collect?
>>>>>>> >> There isn't one...
>>>>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>>>>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>>>>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>>>>>>> >> They don't do that. WE PAY THEM to make that "crap," then WE
>>>>>>> >> PAY THEM to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't
>>>>>>> >> stop making it if we keep paying them to make it...
>>>>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>>>>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just
>>>>>>> >> make "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it
>>>>>>> >> to us because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU
>>>>>>> >> THINK everybody ELSE is stupid?
>>>>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>>>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>>>>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders
>>>>>>> >is to charge tariffs on the shit!
>>>>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we
>>>>>>> were just barely able to compete with American-made products.
>>>>>>> Those days are LONG GONE.
>>>>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders"
>>>>>>> the ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from
>>>>>>> PAYING the Chinks to make it for us in the first place. But that
What trick, lying idiot?
>>The answer to this question...
>
> There was no question.
Run away and hide little idiot boy.
>>illustrates the real problem we have in the USA and it is a problem of
>>distribution of the gains from comparative advantage. All the gains go
>>to the owner class and none to the producer class.
>
> There is no such thing as an "owner class", Commie.
>
> There is no such thing as a "producer class", Commie.
And there is no such thing as reality either, eh?
> All "gains" are earned and it is in EARNING that "distribution" occurs -
> one GETS what one EARNS. The process of EARNING IS the process of
> distribution. That is how it works in America.
NO, lying pig. While all "gains" may be earned, there is a very large
portion of gains that are not earned by those receiving them.
>>>>> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet
>>>>> rich when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer.
>>>>> Its just stupid.
>>>>You got something right!! Call the wire services.
>>> Ask them to bring a photographer so they can capture for posterity me
>>> shitting in your open mouth, again...
>>You are one very stupid, sick, perverted individual.
>
> The COMMUNIST is EXPOSED:
You have no clue who is and who is not a communist or what a communist
might even be. MY cat has a batter command of political economy than do
you.
--
Patriot Games
Any EVERYBODY with a 401k is a stockholder, Commie.
Participation Climbs in 401(k) Accounts - "Hewitt's annual
benchmarking report, titled "How Well Are Employees Saving and
Investing in 401(k) Plans," found that some 70.3 percent of workers
participated in defined contribution plans in 2004, up from 69.8
percent in 2003 and 68.2 percent in 2002."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/144673.aspx
Which means your claim of a "owner class" is actually over 70% of
Americans...
Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
again.
>>>>>The proper
>>>>>solution is to tax the hell out of em if they don't do what is needed.
>>>> Spoken like a true Communist.
>>>Actually it was spoken like a true American.
>> Sorry, there is nothing "american" about YOU.
>Your asinine opinions are worthless.
Keep thinking that all you want but thinking it won't put out the
fire.
>>>>>> > If that were true, moron, then we would already be doing the
>>>>>> > Mexican hat
>>>>>> > dance.
>>>>>> Sorry, Commie, doing the Mexican Hat Dance would FIRST require a
>>>>>> total and complete building of an industrial and manufacturing
>>>>>> infrastructure in Mexico WHEREAS it already exists inChinaTHEREFORE
>>>>>> if a businessperson were to cost out 100,000 Widgets fromChinavs.
>>>>>> 100,000 Widgets from Mexico the cost from Mexico would be MUCH
>>>>>> GREATER because Mexico would FIRST have to build a Widget factory
>>>>>> (whereas Chian already has one). That's why some financial
>>>>>> mechanisms and incentives at the US and Mexican National levels must
>>>>>> FIRST exist to bring Mexico up to a competitive caliber.
>>>>>If it costs a lot more to import shit from China then we will stop
>>>>>importing shit from China and get the stuff from elsewhere (like right
>>>>>here).
>>>> Pay attention, Commie. THERE IS NO "elsewhere." "If it costs a lot
>>>> more to import shit from China then" our store shelves will be mostly
>>>> EMPTY.
>>>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>>>Nope. We will go to work and produce the stuff ourselves.
>> You keep talking in circles. Trust me when I guarantee that I am
>> providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and humiliate YOURSELF
>> in front of the entire newsgroup.
>You have the economic acumen of a skunk cabbage.
Keep thinking that all you want but thinking it won't put out the
fire.
>> If we "produce the stuff ourselves" the WE have to be PAID, and we need
>> to be paid wages WE'RE USED TO. Which puts the prices of those
>> commodities OUT OF OUR OWN REACH.
>That is like claiming that I will starve to death when I can easily work
>to acquire what I need.
Wrong. Its VERY simple. Workers make 'X' and spend 'Y' for the goods
and services they consume. The COST of 'Y' is based on (foreign)
labor that is LESS THAN 'X' so if our 'X' decreases our ability to
afford 'Y' decreases.
>You claim that
>America lacks the natural resources necessary to the survival of its
>people.
Of course I never made such a claim.
As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
an EXCELLENT job of it!
And in so doing YOU are PROVING that your Communist ideas are totally
BOGUS.
Try to pay attention, Commie.
We buy some number of t-shirts right now, (somewhat less than we used
to because overall consumption is down). How many we buy is based
ENTIRELY on the cost of them and that cost is based ENTIRELY on the
cost of (foreign) labor to produce them.
If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
cost MORE AND IF THE CHEAPER (foreign-made) PRODUCT WAS TARIFFED we
would buy LESS product because WE can't afford to spend more.
If WE make them using LOWER (foreign-like) labor costs the product
would cost THE SAME but we would have LESS MONEY so we would buy LESS
product because WE can't afford to spend more.
All THREE versions FAIL.
The ONLY solution that actually works is a solution that FIRST closes
the gap between OUR higher labor and their LOWER (foreign) labor
PROVIDED THAT OUR higher labor DOES NOT decrease to narrow that gap.
Which means we need to ENSURE that foreign labor costs MORE while
ENSURING that foreign labor actually gets PAID MORE (thus making them
consumers, eventually), (thus building UP their economy without
dragging DOWN our economy), (thus closing that gap in a way that harms
no one and helps everyone).
Which means we need to CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor.
We have ZERO control over China.
We COULD have much more control over Mexico...
If there is a downside to re-sourcing our worldwide manufacturing from
China to Mexico (done properly, as described above) I'm not seeing
it... Feel free to SPECIFICALLY point it out.
(Yes, there are a lot fewer people in Mexico, so it would take a while
and we would also want a secondary re-sourcing such as Eastern
Europe...)
>>>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>>>class.
>>>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
>>>> occupation.
>>>Oh, but it is.
>> No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
>>>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated plumbers,
>>>electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>>>painters, masons, etc.
>> I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
>> EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
>Many are actually superior regarding both knowledge and performance.
Wrong. If they were superior in knowledge they would PROVE THAT by
performance that would REWARD THEM at levels HIGHER THAN "lower middle
class."
In America you are NOT what you say or think you are - YOU ARE WHAT
YOU DO.
>> YOU would have known that had YOU EVER been formally educated.
>It is that only the rightarded that insist of formality and political
>correctness in attaining a level of "authority". Many people are a lot
>smarter and more knowledgeable than the majority that have been formally
>schooled.
Wrong. Completely, totally WRONG. In America you are NOT "smarter
and more knowledgeable" because you say so, or because you think so,
you are ONLY "smarter and more knowledgeable" when you PROVE IT
THROUGH PERFORMANCE.
>>>But in
>>>order to have a thriving economy people must have the OPPORTUNITY to
>>>contribute and earn a living.
>> No, "opportunity" does NOT create or sustain a thriving economy.
>> "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
>Your claim is garbage. Commerce is the result of opportunity and not the
>cause.
Wrong. FAILED "opportunity" is visible everywhere and its why many
small businesses FAIL and its why many ideas that looked good on paper
FAILED. "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
Would our economy have collapsed had The Pet Rock or the Ronco Pocket
Fisherman never been invented or sold? Of course not.
The success (profit) of those products was the result of "Commerce"
and NOT the "opportunity."
>>>When we send all our _borrowed_ money to China that doesn't happen.
>> Try to pay attention, Commie. We don't "send" money to China, we PAY
>> China to make products for us.
>> We could just as easily PAY anybody to
>> make the same stuff anywhere else on the planet.
>> It should be perfectly
>> clear that most Americans don't give a shit WHERE our stuff is made so
>> long as its inexpensive, readily available, and of moderate quality.
>Oh, its clear enough. But it is also clear that it can't continue unless
>we intend to become the next Reich.
The reason it can't continue is because foreign labor can't be kept
low. As they get paid they buy stuff, and when they buy stuff they
want more stuff, and that means they need more pay... And that means
their stuff costs MORE to make so WE end up buying less of it. And
that means we look elsewhere for new-cheap foreign labor, and
eventually we'll meet ourselves on the other side of the planet
looking for new-cheaper foreign labor that simply (eventually) no
longer exists.
Which is the VERY BEST PROOF that the ORIGINAL IDEA of offshoring
manufacturing for cheap labor WAS A STUPID IDEA.
>>>> No, that is NOT the objective.
>>>Yes, lying pig Republican idiot, a prosperous middle class _IS_ the
>>>_ONLY_ valid objective of rational economics.
>> Try to pay attention, Commie. Truck drivers are NOT the Middle Class.
>> Perhaps, only when their wages are artificially pumped up by Union
>> Theft, are they somewhere in the LOWER portion of Middle Class.
>I was middle class before I drove a truck, while I drove a truck, and now
>that I am retired.
Because YOU say so? Hahahahaha!!
>>>> Full employment might be an objective. Vastly reduced deficit might be
>>>> an objective. Etc.
>>>>>If Mexico benefits also then that is good too.
>>>> They would.
>>>>>> In the absence of those financial mechanisms and incentives at the
>>>>>> US and Mexican National levels a number of US companies began slowly
>>>>>> integrating Mexican operations, usually by starting a subsidiary and
>>>>>> then by acquisition, including: Hershey's, Levis, Wrangler, Black
>>>>>> and Decker, Maytag, Black, La-Z-Boy, Honeywell, Phillips,
>>>>>> Eastman-Kodak, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Pillsbury, Carrier
>>>>>> Air Conditioning, Lexmark, Whirlpool, Colgate, Zenith, Canon and
>>>>>> Pratt & Whitney.
>>>>>What a nice list of names. Irrelevant, but cute. The point is that
>>>>>this movement disenfranchised the American middle class and enriched
>>>>>the owner class.
>>>> These are PUBLIC companies, there is no "owner class."
>>>There is definitely and owner class and a producer class. That has been
>>>true since the beginning of recorded history and to deny it is to deny
>>>reality. The stock holders of your list of companies have been the
>>>beneficiaries of exporting the jobs. The PRODUCER class has been kicked
>>>to the side of the road.
>> No, the "producer" Class was found waiting on the side of the road for a
>> handout and instead got a kick in the ass and a job.
>How sweet.
The facts are what they are.
>>>> No, the "American middle class" was not "disenfranchised." Most of the
>>>> "American middle class" at the companies mentioned above are college
>>>> educated corporate workers NOT FACTORY LABOR and they mostly RETAINED
>>>> their jobs at corporate offices STILL IN America.
>>>Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer class and so
>>>to is medicare part "A".
>> You have already been SHOWN TO BE A LIAR:
>Nope.
Everyone already knows it, YOUR AGREEMENT is NOT needed.
>> No, this "Producer" Class that you pretend exists pays almost NO taxes:
>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000. The
>> richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000. The bottom
>> 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
><<< garbage about rich bitches paying the most tax deleted >>>>>>>>>>>
No amount of deleting will CHANGE THE FACTS.
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
For Tax Year 2006
(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>If you omit those self funded programs
They DO NOT exist and they NEVER DID.
The Upper Incomes TOTALLY SUPPORT the Lower Incomes.
>The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being paid
>is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally beside
>the point.
YOU SAID: "Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer
class..."
YOU LIED.
Case closed.
>The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being paid
>is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally beside
>the point.
You attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT has FAILED.
YOU SAID: "Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer
class..."
YOU LIED.
Case closed.
Patriot Games
I don't think that was part of the original thinking...
>I think we need to go back to making our own country rich eh!
Makes sense to me...
China is Communist, America and Mexico are Democratic.
China is Anti-Christian, America and Mexico are predominantly
Pro-Christian.
China is on the other side of the planet, Mexico is our next door
neighbor.
We went to China BECAUSE of those negatives THEN we got all
touchy-feely and poisoned our own well....
We went to China because we knew they'd make an environmental mess of
the place and we wanted that environmental mess as far away from us
(US) as possible and we damned sure didn't want that environmental
mess next fucking door.
We went to China because we knew they were a Communist dictatorship
and would continue to enslave their people thus keeping our labor
costs as low as possible for as long as possible.
We sought an arms-length contract-based arrangement so we wouldn't
have to do the nasty exploiting ourselves.
The CORRECT approach is a close partnership-based arrangement so
nobody has to do the nasty exploiting.
Patriot Games
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:31:03 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 6 Nov 2009 23:41:34 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:11:39 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On 3 Nov 2009 21:33:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>>>> <pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
>>>>>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn
>>>>>>>> >> <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
>>>>>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out
>>>>>>>> >> >>>there for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and
>>>>>>>> >> >>>other matters, simply because the government gave them a lot
>>>>>>>> >> >>>of money.
>>>>>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no
>>>>>>>> >> >>>say in rejecting China's demands and MUST change our
>>>>>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
>>>>>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest
>>>>>>>> >> >> on our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They
>>>>>>>> >> >> have already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if
>>>>>>>> >> >> any of our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the
>>>>>>>> >> >> interest then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate
>>>>>>>> >> >> anything they want...
>>>>>>>> >> >they haul is into in order to collect?
>>>>>>>> >> There isn't one...
>>>>>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
>>>>>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
>>>>>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
>>>>>>>> >> PAY THEM to send that "crap" it to us. 嚙瞌bviously they won't
>>>>>>>> >> stop making it if we keep paying them to make it...
>>>>>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
>>>>>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just
>>>>>>>> >> make "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it
>>>>>>>> >> to us because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU
>>>>>>>> >> THINK everybody ELSE is stupid?
>>>>>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>>>>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
>>>>>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders
>>>>>>>> >is to charge tariffs on the shit!
>>>>>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we
>>>>>>>> were just barely able to compete with American-made products.
>>>>>>>> Those days are LONG GONE.
>>>>>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders"
>>>>>>>> the ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from
>> There was no question.
>>>distribution of the gains from comparative advantage. All the gains go
>>>to the owner class and none to the producer class.
>> There is no such thing as an "owner class", Commie.
>> There is no such thing as a "producer class", Commie.
>> one GETS what one EARNS. The process of EARNING IS the process of
>> distribution. That is how it works in America.
>NO, lying pig. While all "gains" may be earned, there is a very large
>portion of gains that are not earned by those receiving them.
Wrong. It NEVER happens...
>>>>>> We're making a Communist country on the other side of the planet
>>>>>> rich when we could be making a Democatic country next door richer.
>>>>>> Its just stupid.
>>>>>You got something right!! Call the wire services.
>>>> Ask them to bring a photographer so they can capture for posterity me
>>>> shitting in your open mouth, again...
>>>You are one very stupid, sick, perverted individual.
>> The COMMUNIST is EXPOSED:
>You have no clue who is and who is not a communist or what a communist
>might even be.
I know YOU are a Communist.
I know YOU are an ENEMY of America.
Michael Coburn
Yes. A high percentage of Americans own stocks and bonds. But the vast
majority of these stockholders derive their primary income from their
labor/job. Decreasing wages is not therefor, "good" for this vast
majority.
> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
> again.
Yet another display of your juvenile vulgarity.
Workers without jobs do not "make 'X'", moron. And aside from 2 years
(1999 and 2000), the USA has been going into debt since the Reagan
revolution of 1981 sending IOU's to china while making the US owner class
more and more rich. All stocks and other certificates of ownership may
have gained supposed value, but the distribution of the gains is very top
heavy indeed.
>>You claim that
>>America lacks the natural resources necessary to the survival of its
>>people.
>
> Of course I never made such a claim.
You are to damned ignorant to realize you made it.
> As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
> humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing an
> EXCELLENT job of it!
I do not feel the least bit embarrassed or challenged by your ignorance
or vulgarity.
> And in so doing YOU are PROVING that your Communist ideas are totally
> BOGUS.
>
> Try to pay attention, Commie.
>
> We buy some number of t-shirts right now, (somewhat less than we used to
> because overall consumption is down). How many we buy is based ENTIRELY
> on the cost of them and that cost is based ENTIRELY on the cost of
> (foreign) labor to produce them.
You contradict yourself and don't even know it. That isn't ignorance.
Self contradiction is blatant stupidity. You claim "the number bought"
is "ENTIRELY" based on the cost. Yet you also tell us that lass are
being bought because consumption is down. There was apparently been a
drop in "the number bought" though the price has not changed. In reality
the price has probably dropped. Yet "the number bought" has still
decreased. For rational people this would indicate that the quantity
reduction was not based "ENTIRELY" on the cost of foreign labor. Only
reeeeeeeely stupid shits like you would make such a statement.
> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods. So long
as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
have no problem. If this does not work it is because we do not have
sufficient natural resources to support ourselves or that the "OWNERS" of
these natural resources are stealing far too much from the producers.
Ownership produces _NOTHING_.
> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
> cost MORE AND IF THE CHEAPER (foreign-made) PRODUCT WAS TARIFFED we
> would buy LESS product because WE can't afford to spend more.
LIE!!! Very _*BIG*_ lie. If we have good paying jobs making our own
stuff from our own raw materials then WE will have the money to buy the
finished goods.
> If WE make them using LOWER (foreign-like) labor costs the product would
> cost THE SAME but we would have LESS MONEY so we would buy LESS product
> because WE can't afford to spend more.
>
> All THREE versions FAIL.
No. They do not fail at all. This country did very very well using
tariffs in the past and the Chinese did very, very poorly. I am all for
a prosperous China. But I am not all for a prosperous China at the
expense of the American producer class.
> The ONLY solution that actually works is a solution that FIRST closes
> the gap between OUR higher labor and their LOWER (foreign) labor
> PROVIDED THAT OUR higher labor DOES NOT decrease to narrow that gap.
Yet wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's. The only
time wages actually increased was when the Republicans created the NASDAQ
bubble with a tax cut for the rich. It was a short lived rise and bad
news on the down side of the NASDAQ bubble.
> Which means we need to ENSURE that foreign labor costs MORE while
> ENSURING that foreign labor actually gets PAID MORE (thus making them
> consumers, eventually), (thus building UP their economy without dragging
> DOWN our economy), (thus closing that gap in a way that harms no one and
> helps everyone).
That is not the only way to fix the problem, idiot. And thus far the
Chinese gain has been at the expense of the American producer class.
> Which means we need to CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor.
We do that with tariffs, idiot.
> We have ZERO control over China.
We have good control over our own borders with regard to China and our
own tariffs.
> We COULD have much more control over Mexico...
The Mexican border is quite porous.
> If there is a downside to re-sourcing our worldwide manufacturing from
> China to Mexico (done properly, as described above) I'm not seeing it...
> Feel free to SPECIFICALLY point it out.
The downside is that re-sourcing it to ANY foreign nation harms the
American producer class unless there is a redistribution of the gains.
The owner class that receives the bulk of the gains must be taxed and the
funds then redistributed to those who no longer have gainful employment.
The more straight forward approach is tariffs because the rich have so
corrupted the economic profession and the media that any redistribution
is labeled as a communist plot and a threat to the American flag. And
the economically illiterate like you, suck it right up.
> (Yes, there are a lot fewer people in Mexico, so it would take a while
> and we would also want a secondary re-sourcing such as Eastern
> Europe...)
What a total fascist.
>>>>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>>>>class.
>>>>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
>>>>> occupation.
>>>>Oh, but it is.
>>> No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
>>>>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated plumbers,
>>>>electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>>>>painters, masons, etc.
>>> I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
>>> EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
>>Many are actually superior regarding both knowledge and performance.
>
> Wrong. If they were superior in knowledge they would PROVE THAT by
> performance that would REWARD THEM at levels HIGHER THAN "lower middle
> class."
You are too ignorant and bone stupid for this conversation. The "class"
is, in this regard, irrelevant. Some people are simply a lot smarter
than others and seemingly more able to learn. Some can attend a
university for years and years and gain virtually nothing. Yet all do
not seek lip gloss and fast cars.
> In America you are NOT what you say or think you are - YOU ARE WHAT YOU
> DO.
Sophistry.
>>> YOU would have known that had YOU EVER been formally educated.
>>It is that only the rightarded that insist of formality and political
>>correctness in attaining a level of "authority". Many people are a lot
>>smarter and more knowledgeable than the majority that have been formally
>>schooled.
>
> Wrong. Completely, totally WRONG. In America you are NOT "smarter and
> more knowledgeable" because you say so, or because you think so, you are
> ONLY "smarter and more knowledgeable" when you PROVE IT THROUGH
> PERFORMANCE.
Ahh, yes... This is yet another example of what is labeled as
"conservative idiocy". To Republicans, the accumulation of power is a
sign from God that an individual has been chosen to lead the rest. Lying
ability plays a major role in this leadership and power competition. The
ability to lie is the only ability that upstages the ability to attain
wealth in the alleged mind of the Republican.
>>>>But in
>>>>order to have a thriving economy people must have the OPPORTUNITY to
>>>>contribute and earn a living.
>>> No, "opportunity" does NOT create or sustain a thriving economy.
>>> "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
>>Your claim is garbage. Commerce is the result of opportunity and not
>>the cause.
>
> Wrong. FAILED "opportunity" is visible everywhere and its why many
> small businesses FAIL and its why many ideas that looked good on paper
> FAILED. "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
There is no such thing as "failed opportunity", you idiot. Opportunity
exists or it doesn't. Any failure is the failure of the person(s)
exploiting the opportunity. As we attempt to exploit opportunity,
commerce is the result.
> Would our economy have collapsed had The Pet Rock or the Ronco Pocket
> Fisherman never been invented or sold? Of course not.
Would your brain collapse if you were unable to created false frames and
false analogies? YEP.
> The success (profit) of those products was the result of "Commerce" and
> NOT the "opportunity."
Ignorance and stupidity. What a combo.
>>>>When we send all our _borrowed_ money to China that doesn't happen.
>>> Try to pay attention, Commie. We don't "send" money to China, we PAY
>>> China to make products for us.
>>> We could just as easily PAY anybody to
>>> make the same stuff anywhere else on the planet. It should be
>>> perfectly
>>> clear that most Americans don't give a shit WHERE our stuff is made so
>>> long as its inexpensive, readily available, and of moderate quality.
>>Oh, its clear enough. But it is also clear that it can't continue
>>unless we intend to become the next Reich.
>
> The reason it can't continue is because foreign labor can't be kept low.
> As they get paid they buy stuff, and when they buy stuff they want more
> stuff, and that means they need more pay... And that means their stuff
> costs MORE to make so WE end up buying less of it. And that means we
> look elsewhere for new-cheap foreign labor, and eventually we'll meet
> ourselves on the other side of the planet looking for new-cheaper
> foreign labor that simply (eventually) no longer exists.
You seem to have a real problem with reality and that is typical for a
totally brain dead Republican bubble boy. The most immediate slap in the
face for you is the fact that the Chinese government owns all the T-Bills
and not the Chinese workers. The people doing the work have more money
to spend than they did before but a very large part of what they should
have is expropriated by the Chinese government and the American owner
class. Therefore the nice little dream of the bubble boy and the
neoclassical nincompoops gets very stinky and wet very quickly. The
Chinese producer class is being ripped off just like the American
producer class is being ripped off.
> Which is the VERY BEST PROOF that the ORIGINAL IDEA of offshoring
> manufacturing for cheap labor WAS A STUPID IDEA.
Self contradiction is a mark of stupidity.
>>>>> No, that is NOT the objective.
>>>>Yes, lying pig Republican idiot, a prosperous middle class _IS_ the
>>>>_ONLY_ valid objective of rational economics.
>>> Try to pay attention, Commie. Truck drivers are NOT the Middle Class.
>>> Perhaps, only when their wages are artificially pumped up by Union
>>> Theft, are they somewhere in the LOWER portion of Middle Class.
>>I was middle class before I drove a truck, while I drove a truck, and
>>now that I am retired.
>
> Because YOU say so? Hahahahaha!!
According to every definition I have ever seen I would be considered
middle class. It is not something I am proud of. It just IS.
LIE
> The Upper Incomes TOTALLY SUPPORT the Lower Incomes.
LIE
>>The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being
>>paid is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally
>>beside the point.
>
> YOU SAID: "Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer
> class..."
>
> YOU LIED.
>
> Case closed.
Social Security _IS_ self funded by the producer class. But I can't
claim you are lying about Social Security. You have ignorance and
stupidity as excuses.
>>The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being
>>paid is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally
>>beside the point.
>
> You attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT has FAILED.
You are presenting off topic crap and accusing me of changing the
subject. But that is typical for a rightard.
> YOU SAID: "Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer
> class..."
>
> YOU LIED.
>
> Case closed.
Social Security is self funded by the producer class. That is a fact.
But I can't claim you are lying about Social Security. You have
ignorance and stupidity as excuses.
>>>>We need to reverse that.
>>> We need to hunt down all Communists like YOU, drag you into the
>>> street, soak you with gasoline and light you up.
>>More of your pathetic crap.
>
> Get used to the coming Reality. YOU aren't considered an American by
> the Americans who made and make this country successful, YOU are
> considered to be the ENEMY.
>
> Would YOU prefer Regular or Unleaded?
You seem to be a true fascist, but it is hard to tell because you are so
very, very stupid and so supremely ignorant.
> http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.
+Montana
>
> Or: http://tinyurl.com/ndbumo
>
> http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.
+Montana#a/maps/l::7614+E+Montana+St:Port
+Orchard:WA:98366-8529:US:47.562491:-122.550039:address:Kitsap+County:1/
m:hyb:16:47.562489:-122.550036:0:::::1:1:1::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e
>
> Or: http://tinyurl.com/n8pzop
--
Patriot Games
Thus PROVING that your CLAIM of an "owner" class is BULLSHIT.
>But the vast
>majority of these stockholders derive their primary income from their
>labor/job. Decreasing wages is not therefor, "good" for this vast
>majority.
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
Again, your CLAIM of an "owner" class is BULLSHIT.
Case closed.
>> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate in your open mouth in public,
>> again.
Which would be the extreme version "if our 'X' decreases our ability
to afford 'Y' decreases."
>And aside from...
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
Your were INCAPABLE of understanding "If we "produce the stuff
ourselves" the WE have to be PAID, and we need to be paid wages WE'RE
USED TO. Which puts the prices of those commodities OUT OF OUR OWN
REACH."
So I EXPLAINED it to you as one would EXPLAIN TO A CHILD: "Workers
make 'X' and spend 'Y' for the goods and services they consume. The
COST of 'Y' is based on (foreign) labor that is LESS THAN 'X' so if
our 'X' decreases our ability to afford 'Y' decreases."
Case closed.
>>>You claim that
>>>America lacks the natural resources necessary to the survival of its
>>>people.
>> Of course I never made such a claim.
>You are to damned ignorant to realize you made it.
Of course I never made such a claim.
Case closed.
>> As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>> humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing an
>> EXCELLENT job of it!
>I do not feel the least bit embarrassed or challenged by your ignorance
>or vulgarity.
Your agreement is NOT required.
>> And in so doing YOU are PROVING that your Communist ideas are totally
>> BOGUS.
>> Try to pay attention, Commie.
>> We buy some number of t-shirts right now, (somewhat less than we used to
>> because overall consumption is down). How many we buy is based ENTIRELY
>> on the cost of them and that cost is based ENTIRELY on the cost of
>> (foreign) labor to produce them.
>You claim "the number bought" is "ENTIRELY" based on the cost.
Your nitpicking PROVES that I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to
embarrass and humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and
YOU are doing an EXCELLENT job of it!
>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the
COST of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the
imported product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
>So long
>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>have no problem.
No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE
can manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>> cost MORE AND IF THE CHEAPER (foreign-made) PRODUCT WAS TARIFFED we
>> would buy LESS product because WE can't afford to spend more.
>> If WE make them using LOWER (foreign-like) labor costs the product would
>> cost THE SAME but we would have LESS MONEY so we would buy LESS product
>> because WE can't afford to spend more.
>> All THREE versions FAIL.
>No. They do not fail at all.
I proved they FAIL, I do NOT need YOUR agreement.
>> The ONLY solution that actually works is a solution that FIRST closes
>> the gap between OUR higher labor and their LOWER (foreign) labor
>> PROVIDED THAT OUR higher labor DOES NOT decrease to narrow that gap.
>Yet wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's.
Wrong. YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT LYING, again:
National average wage indexing series
1980 12,513.46
1981 13,773.10
1982 14,531.34
1983 15,239.24
1984 16,135.07
1985 16,822.51
1986 17,321.82
1987 18,426.51
1988 19,334.04
1989 20,099.55
1990 21,027.98
1991 21,811.60
1992 22,935.42
1993 23,132.67
1994 23,753.53
1995 24,705.66
1996 25,913.90
1997 27,426.00
1998 28,861.44
1999 30,469.84
2000 32,154.82
2001 32,921.92
2002 33,252.09
2003 34,064.95
2004 35,648.55
2005 36,952.94
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
Since the 70s the National Average Wage has increased 230%
YOU LIED.
>The only
>time wages actually increased was when the Republicans created the NASDAQ
>bubble with a tax cut for the rich. It was a short lived rise and bad
>news on the down side of the NASDAQ bubble.
See above.
YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR.
>> Which means we need to ENSURE that foreign labor costs MORE while
>> ENSURING that foreign labor actually gets PAID MORE (thus making them
>> consumers, eventually), (thus building UP their economy without dragging
>> DOWN our economy), (thus closing that gap in a way that harms no one and
>> helps everyone).
>> Which means we need to CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor.
>> We have ZERO control over China.
>> We COULD have much more control over Mexico...
>The Mexican border is quite porous.
The border? Who gives a FUCK about the border, LIAR?
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
This has NOTHING to do with the Border, LIAR.
It has EVERYTHING to do with ENSURING that when we pay a foreign
manufacturer $10/widget with the assumption that the worker makes
$10/hr. that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr.
>> If there is a downside to re-sourcing our worldwide manufacturing from
>> China to Mexico (done properly, as described above) I'm not seeing it...
>> Feel free to SPECIFICALLY point it out.
>The downside is that re-sourcing it to ANY foreign nation harms the
>American producer class unless there is a redistribution of the gains.
We already covered this Commie.
Try to pay attention, Commie.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "producer" class.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "owner" class.
As I PROVED ABOVE over 70% of America are BOTH PRODUCERS and OWNERS.
Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
>The owner class that receives the bulk of the gains must be taxed and the
>funds then redistributed to those who no longer have gainful employment.
Your COMMUNISM is NOT American, and one can only HOPE that you enjoy
the FIRE...
>> (Yes, there are a lot fewer people in Mexico, so it would take a while
>> and we would also want a secondary re-sourcing such as Eastern
>> Europe...)
>What a total fascist.
Fascist? Hahahahahhahahaha!!
Lemme see if I got this correct. I'm proposing HELPING INCREASE the
economies of Mexico AND Eastern Europe using methidologies that DO NOT
EXPLOIT THEM but YOU think that's Fascist?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
>>>>>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>>>>>class.
>>>>>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
>>>>>> occupation.
>>>>>Oh, but it is.
>>>> No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
>>>>>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated plumbers,
>>>>>electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>>>>>painters, masons, etc.
>>>> I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
>>>> EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
>>>Many are actually superior regarding both knowledge and performance.
>> Wrong. If they were superior in knowledge they would PROVE THAT by
>> performance that would REWARD THEM at levels HIGHER THAN "lower middle
>> class."
>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>Some can attend a
>university for years and years and gain virtually nothing.
Who cares? PERFORMANCE is what counts.
>Yet all do not seek lip gloss and fast cars.
Who cares? What one does with the REWARD for PERFORMANCE is
irrelevant. (And it is personal, private, and none of YOUR business.)
>> In America you are NOT what you say or think you are - YOU ARE WHAT YOU
>> DO.
>>>> YOU would have known that had YOU EVER been formally educated.
>>>It is that only the rightarded that insist of formality and political
>>>correctness in attaining a level of "authority". Many people are a lot
>>>smarter and more knowledgeable than the majority that have been formally
>>>schooled.
>> Wrong. Completely, totally WRONG. In America you are NOT "smarter and
>> more knowledgeable" because you say so, or because you think so, you are
>> ONLY "smarter and more knowledgeable" when you PROVE IT THROUGH
>> PERFORMANCE.
>To Republicans, the accumulation of power
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
"Power" has NOTHING to do with this.
In America you are NOT "smarter and more knowledgeable" because you
say so, or because you think so, you are ONLY "smarter and more
knowledgeable" when you PROVE IT THROUGH PERFORMANCE.
>>>>>But in
>>>>>order to have a thriving economy people must have the OPPORTUNITY to
>>>>>contribute and earn a living.
>>>> No, "opportunity" does NOT create or sustain a thriving economy.
>>>> "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
>>>Your claim is garbage. Commerce is the result of opportunity and not
>>>the cause.
>> Wrong. FAILED "opportunity" is visible everywhere and its why many
>> small businesses FAIL and its why many ideas that looked good on paper
>> FAILED. "Commerce" creates and sustains a thriving economy.
>> Would our economy have collapsed had The Pet Rock or the Ronco Pocket
>> Fisherman never been invented or sold? Of course not.
>> The success (profit) of those products was the result of "Commerce" and
>> NOT the "opportunity."
>>>>>When we send all our _borrowed_ money to China that doesn't happen.
>>>> Try to pay attention, Commie. We don't "send" money to China, we PAY
>>>> China to make products for us.
>>>> We could just as easily PAY anybody to
>>>> make the same stuff anywhere else on the planet. It should be
>>>> perfectly
>>>> clear that most Americans don't give a shit WHERE our stuff is made so
>>>> long as its inexpensive, readily available, and of moderate quality.
>>>Oh, its clear enough. But it is also clear that it can't continue
>>>unless we intend to become the next Reich.
>> The reason it can't continue is because foreign labor can't be kept low.
>> As they get paid they buy stuff, and when they buy stuff they want more
>> stuff, and that means they need more pay... And that means their stuff
>> costs MORE to make so WE end up buying less of it. And that means we
>> look elsewhere for new-cheap foreign labor, and eventually we'll meet
>> ourselves on the other side of the planet looking for new-cheaper
>> foreign labor that simply (eventually) no longer exists.
>> Which is the VERY BEST PROOF that the ORIGINAL IDEA of offshoring
>> manufacturing for cheap labor WAS A STUPID IDEA.
>>>>>> No, that is NOT the objective.
>>>>>Yes, lying pig Republican idiot, a prosperous middle class _IS_ the
>>>>>_ONLY_ valid objective of rational economics.
>>>> Try to pay attention, Commie. Truck drivers are NOT the Middle Class.
>>>> Perhaps, only when their wages are artificially pumped up by Union
>>>> Theft, are they somewhere in the LOWER portion of Middle Class.
>>>I was middle class before I drove a truck, while I drove a truck, and
>>>now that I am retired.
>> Because YOU say so? Hahahahaha!!
>According to every definition I have ever seen I would be considered
>middle class. It is not something I am proud of. It just IS.
Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
PROVEN... They are NOT "self funded by taxation on the producer
class."
YOU SAID they were "self funded by taxation on the producer class."
YOU LIED.
>> The Upper Incomes TOTALLY SUPPORT the Lower Incomes.
>LIE
PROVEN. See above.
YOU LIED.
>>>The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being
>>>paid is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally
>>>beside the point.
>> YOU SAID: "Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer
>> class..."
>> YOU LIED.
>> Case closed.
>Social Security _IS_ self funded by the producer class.
Wrong. PROVEN wrong. See above.
>>>The problem with all that crap is that the total amount of tax being
>>>paid is woefully insufficient. You are presenting data that is totally
>>>beside the point.
>> You attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT has FAILED.
>> YOU SAID: "Social Security is self funded by taxation on the producer
>> class..."
>> YOU LIED.
>> Case closed.
>Social Security is self funded by the producer class. That is a fact.
The so-called "producer" class is "Top 5% AGI?"
Hahahahahaha!!!
The so-called "producer" class is "Top 5% AGI" that PAYS " 60.14% of
all taxes?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>>>>>We need to reverse that.
>>>> We need to hunt down all Communists like YOU, drag you into the
>>>> street, soak you with gasoline and light you up.
>>>More of your pathetic crap.
>> Get used to the coming Reality. YOU aren't considered an American by
>> the Americans who made and make this country successful, YOU are
>> considered to be the ENEMY.
Would YOU prefer Regular or Unleaded?
From: The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net>
From: Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.+Montana
Michael Coburn
Not in the least.
>>But the vast
>>majority of these stockholders derive their primary income from their
>>labor/job. Decreasing wages is not therefor, "good" for this vast
>>majority.
>
> Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>
> Again, your CLAIM of an "owner" class is BULLSHIT.
>
> Case closed.
Sorry... You lose again, moron.
That is a lie as I have already illustrated, moron.
> So I EXPLAINED it to you as one would EXPLAIN TO A CHILD: "Workers make
> 'X' and spend 'Y' for the goods and services they consume. The COST of
> 'Y' is based on (foreign) labor that is LESS THAN 'X' so if our 'X'
> decreases our ability to afford 'Y' decreases."
>
> Case closed.
Yes. Case closed. You have the economic acumen of a carrot.
>>>>You claim that
>>>>America lacks the natural resources necessary to the survival of its
>>>>people.
>>> Of course I never made such a claim.
>>You are to damned ignorant to realize you made it.
>
> Of course I never made such a claim.
>
> Case closed.
As I said: You are to ignorant of economics to realize that you made the
claim.
>>> As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>>> humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
>>> an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>I do not feel the least bit embarrassed or challenged by your ignorance
>>or vulgarity.
>
> Your agreement is NOT required.
>
>>> And in so doing YOU are PROVING that your Communist ideas are totally
>>> BOGUS.
>>> Try to pay attention, Commie.
>>> We buy some number of t-shirts right now, (somewhat less than we used
>>> to because overall consumption is down). How many we buy is based
>>> ENTIRELY on the cost of them and that cost is based ENTIRELY on the
>>> cost of (foreign) labor to produce them.
>>You claim "the number bought" is "ENTIRELY" based on the cost.
You made and ignorant claim that was easily refuted. It is just the
continuation of your display of ignorance and stupidity.
> Your nitpicking PROVES that I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to
> embarrass and humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and
> YOU are doing an EXCELLENT job of it!
Sure it does.... Rave on, lunatic.
>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
>
> No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the COST
> of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the imported
> product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
Not if there is a tariff on the import.
>>So long
>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>>have no problem.
>
> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE can
> manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
natural resources to produce what we need. You don't actually understand
that because you are hopelessly stupid as well as ignorant.
>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>> cost MORE AND IF THE CHEAPER (foreign-made) PRODUCT WAS TARIFFED we
>>> would buy LESS product because WE can't afford to spend more. If WE
>>> make them using LOWER (foreign-like) labor costs the product would
>>> cost THE SAME but we would have LESS MONEY so we would buy LESS
>>> product because WE can't afford to spend more. All THREE versions
>>> FAIL.
>>No. They do not fail at all.
>
> I proved they FAIL, I do NOT need YOUR agreement.
That is true, bubble boy. You prove it to yourself and you are done.
Yours are _NOMINAL_ numbers, lame brain.
Here's the actual data:
http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/12/historical-real-hourly-
wages.html
And here's the REAL COMMIE graph of wages VS GDP I found while googling
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/china/graph3
And then there's some more RECENT data for you:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/03/gdp_versus_wage.html
Here's the WSJ discussion on the subject:
Since the end of 2000, gross domestic product per person in the U.S.
has expanded 8.4%, adjusted for inflation, but the average weekly wage
has edged down 0.3%.
That contrast goes a long way in explaining why many Americans tell
pollsters they don't believe the Bush administration when it trumpets the
economy's strength. What is behind the divergence? And what will change
it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The only
>>time wages actually increased was when the Republicans created the
>>NASDAQ bubble with a tax cut for the rich. It was a short lived rise
>>and bad news on the down side of the NASDAQ bubble.
>
> See above.
>
> YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR.
See above. You are a proven idiot. (or liar).
>>> Which means we need to ENSURE that foreign labor costs MORE while
>>> ENSURING that foreign labor actually gets PAID MORE (thus making them
>>> consumers, eventually), (thus building UP their economy without
>>> dragging DOWN our economy), (thus closing that gap in a way that harms
>>> no one and helps everyone).
>>> Which means we need to CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor. We have
>>> ZERO control over China.
>>> We COULD have much more control over Mexico...
>>The Mexican border is quite porous.
>
> The border? Who gives a FUCK about the border, LIAR?
>
> Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>
> This has NOTHING to do with the Border, LIAR.
>
> It has EVERYTHING to do with ENSURING that when we pay a foreign
> manufacturer $10/widget with the assumption that the worker makes
> $10/hr. that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr.
ON that particular score you still haven't scored anything. The Chinese
are accumulating the IOU's as treasury bills. The Mexican plutocracy
would simply accumulate the money is Swiss accounts and possibly convert
it to gold or other paper. The difference would be a less blatant
hoarding.
>>> If there is a downside to re-sourcing our worldwide manufacturing from
>>> China to Mexico (done properly, as described above) I'm not seeing
>>> it...
>>> Feel free to SPECIFICALLY point it out.
>>The downside is that re-sourcing it to ANY foreign nation harms the
>>American producer class unless there is a redistribution of the gains.
>
> We already covered this Commie.
>
> Try to pay attention, Commie.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as a "producer" class.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as an "owner" class.
>
> As I PROVED ABOVE over 70% of America are BOTH PRODUCERS and OWNERS.
>
> Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
So it appears that there are 30% that are pure owners and pure
producers? Actually, the pure owner class is called the rentier class.
but it is a matter of degree. But that is not something that a binary
moron such as yourself can grasp.
>>The owner class that receives the bulk of the gains must be taxed and
>>the funds then redistributed to those who no longer have gainful
>>employment.
>
> Your COMMUNISM is NOT American, and one can only HOPE that you enjoy the
> FIRE...
You have NO clue what the words "communism", "socialism", "fascism" even
mean, ignoramus.
>>> (Yes, there are a lot fewer people in Mexico, so it would take a while
>>> and we would also want a secondary re-sourcing such as Eastern
>>> Europe...)
>>What a total fascist.
>
> Fascist? Hahahahahhahahaha!!
>
> Lemme see if I got this correct. I'm proposing HELPING INCREASE the
> economies of Mexico AND Eastern Europe using methidologies that DO NOT
> EXPLOIT THEM but YOU think that's Fascist?
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
I think that there are many who benefit from my exposing your abject
ignorance and stupidity.
>>>>>>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>>>>>>class.
>>>>>>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
>>>>>>> occupation.
>>>>>>Oh, but it is.
>>>>> No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
>>>>>>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated plumbers,
>>>>>>electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>>>>>>painters, masons, etc.
>>>>> I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
>>>>> EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
>>>>Many are actually superior regarding both knowledge and performance.
>>> Wrong. If they were superior in knowledge they would PROVE THAT by
>>> performance that would REWARD THEM at levels HIGHER THAN "lower middle
>>> class."
>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>
> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
To whom do they "prove it", moron-idiot? Is it proved to a Republican (P)
resident, or the head banker, or to Rush???? Perhaps you can only accept
those who have been a-proved by Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.
>>Some can attend a
>>university for years and years and gain virtually nothing.
>
> Who cares? PERFORMANCE is what counts.
>
>>Yet all do not seek lip gloss and fast cars.
>
> Who cares? What one does with the REWARD for PERFORMANCE is irrelevant.
> (And it is personal, private, and none of YOUR business.)
The reward itself is personal and private and none of YOUR business.
> http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.
+Montana
>
> Or: http://tinyurl.com/ndbumo
>
> http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.
+Montana#a/maps/l::7614+E+Montana+St:Port
+Orchard:WA:98366-8529:US:47.562491:-122.550039:address:Kitsap+County:1/
m:hyb:16:47.562489:-122.550036:0:::::1:1:1::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e
>
> Or: http://tinyurl.com/n8pzop
--
Patriot Games
>>>majority of these stockholders derive their primary income from their
>>>labor/job. Decreasing wages is not therefor, "good" for this vast
>>>majority.
>> Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>> Again, your CLAIM of an "owner" class is BULLSHIT.
>> Case closed.
>> 'X' and spend 'Y' for the goods and services they consume. The COST of
>> 'Y' is based on (foreign) labor that is LESS THAN 'X' so if our 'X'
>> decreases our ability to afford 'Y' decreases."
>> Case closed.
>>>>>America lacks the natural resources necessary to the survival of its
>>>>>people.
>>>> Of course I never made such a claim.
>>>You are to damned ignorant to realize you made it.
>> Of course I never made such a claim.
>> Case closed.
>>>> humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
>>>> an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>I do not feel the least bit embarrassed or challenged by your ignorance
>>>or vulgarity.
>> Your agreement is NOT required.
>>>> And in so doing YOU are PROVING that your Communist ideas are totally
>>>> BOGUS.
>>>> Try to pay attention, Commie.
>>>> We buy some number of t-shirts right now, (somewhat less than we used
>>>> to because overall consumption is down). How many we buy is based
>>>> ENTIRELY on the cost of them and that cost is based ENTIRELY on the
>>>> cost of (foreign) labor to produce them.
>>>You claim "the number bought" is "ENTIRELY" based on the cost.
>> embarrass and humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and
>> YOU are doing an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>>>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>>>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
>> No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the COST
>> of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the imported
>> product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
>Not if there is a tariff on the import.
Lemme see if I understand this correctly. You think MERELY tariffing
an imported product will prevent its being available to American
consumers YET WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON for importing cocaine and THAT
HAS NOT STOPPED ITS IMPORTATION?
hahahahahhahaha!!!
As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>So long
>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>>>have no problem.
>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE can
>> manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>natural resources to produce what we need.
No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
they have the factories, we don't.
Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000
Total Labor Force in US: 153,100,000
Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000
Industrial Labor Force in US: 35,213,000
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
Pay attention, Commie.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
We don't have the factories to make the stuff in and we don't have the
people to work in those factories.
Are you paying attention. Commie?
Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a
tariff on the import."
The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT
ONLY WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products. Even if
MAGIC happenned and those factories APPEARED we DO NOT HAVE the labor
force to staff those factories.
Are you paying attention. Commie?
And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC. Someone has to PAY to
build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they
need and its already staffed in China?
Are you paying attention. Commie?
Your RETARDED notion of tariffing (just another version of STEALING)
won't FIX THE PROBLEM.
>>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>>> cost MORE AND IF THE CHEAPER (foreign-made) PRODUCT WAS TARIFFED we
>>>> would buy LESS product because WE can't afford to spend more. If WE
>>>> make them using LOWER (foreign-like) labor costs the product would
>>>> cost THE SAME but we would have LESS MONEY so we would buy LESS
>>>> product because WE can't afford to spend more. All THREE versions
>>>> FAIL.
>>>No. They do not fail at all.
>> I proved they FAIL, I do NOT need YOUR agreement.
Sorry, that's PHONY data.
It begins with "Average Hourly Earnings: Total Private Industries"
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AHETPI?rid=50&soid=22
(Which PROVES wages have INCREASED, thus PROVING YOU LIED.)
THEN "adjusts" the data based on "Consumer Price Index For All Urban
Consumers."
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCSL
But this is TYPICAL of the LYING we expect from COMMUNISTS LIKE YOU.
This is why COMMUNISTS LIKE YOU should be dragged from their homes
into the street, sprayed with gasoline and lit up!
As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
an EXCELLENT job of it!
>And here's the REAL COMMIE graph of wages VS GDP I found while googling
>http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/china/graph3
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
You said: "wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's"
YOU LIED.
>And then there's some more RECENT data for you:
>http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/03/gdp_versus_wage.html
That cite disproves your claim BUT it only covers the period of
2000-2005 and YOUR LIE was since the 70s.
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
You said: "wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's"
YOU LIED.
>Here's the WSJ discussion on the subject:
> Since the end of 2000
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
You said: "wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's"
YOU LIED.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>The only
>>>time wages actually increased was when the Republicans created the
>>>NASDAQ bubble with a tax cut for the rich. It was a short lived rise
>>>and bad news on the down side of the NASDAQ bubble.
>> See above.
>> YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR.
>>>> Which means we need to ENSURE that foreign labor costs MORE while
>>>> ENSURING that foreign labor actually gets PAID MORE (thus making them
>>>> consumers, eventually), (thus building UP their economy without
>>>> dragging DOWN our economy), (thus closing that gap in a way that harms
>>>> no one and helps everyone).
>>>> Which means we need to CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor. We have
>>>> ZERO control over China.
>>>> We COULD have much more control over Mexico...
>>>The Mexican border is quite porous.
>> The border? Who gives a FUCK about the border, LIAR?
>> Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>> This has NOTHING to do with the Border, LIAR.
>> It has EVERYTHING to do with ENSURING that when we pay a foreign
>> manufacturer $10/widget with the assumption that the worker makes
>> $10/hr. that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr.
>ON that particular score you still haven't scored anything. The Chinese
>are accumulating the IOU's as treasury bills.
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>The Mexican plutocracy
>would simply accumulate the money is Swiss accounts and possibly convert
>it to gold or other paper.
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>The difference would be a less blatant hoarding.
What part of "CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor" don't you
understand?
What part of "ENSURING... that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr." don't
you understand?
If we CONTROL the source of foreign labor then we can ENSURE that the
workers are getting the better wages THUS GUARANTEEING that we BUILD
UP that foreign economy WITHOUT dragging ours down.
The main difference is PARTNER instead of COMPETITOR.
China WAS our competitor. They WON. (We lost...)
Mexico COULD BE our partner - where we BOTH WIN and no one loses.
Eastern Europe COULD BE our partner - where we BOTH WIN and no one
loses.
>>>> If there is a downside to re-sourcing our worldwide manufacturing from
>>>> China to Mexico (done properly, as described above) I'm not seeing
>>>> it...
>>>> Feel free to SPECIFICALLY point it out.
>>>The downside is that re-sourcing it to ANY foreign nation harms the
>>>American producer class unless there is a redistribution of the gains.
>> We already covered this Commie.
>> Try to pay attention, Commie.
>> There is NO SUCH THING as a "producer" class.
>> There is NO SUCH THING as an "owner" class.
>> As I PROVED ABOVE over 70% of America are BOTH PRODUCERS and OWNERS.
>> Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
>So it appears that there are 30% that are pure owners and pure
>producers?
Try to pay attention, Commie.
What TWO groups of Americans mostly DO NOT have a 401k?
Children and retired (non-working) people.
Now you know who most of that 30% are....
>>>The owner class that receives the bulk of the gains must be taxed and
>>>the funds then redistributed to those who no longer have gainful
>>>employment.
>> Your COMMUNISM is NOT American, and one can only HOPE that you enjoy the
>> FIRE...
>>>> (Yes, there are a lot fewer people in Mexico, so it would take a while
>>>> and we would also want a secondary re-sourcing such as Eastern
>>>> Europe...)
>>>What a total fascist.
>> Fascist? Hahahahahhahahaha!!
>> Lemme see if I got this correct. I'm proposing HELPING INCREASE the
>> economies of Mexico AND Eastern Europe using methidologies that DO NOT
>> EXPLOIT THEM but YOU think that's Fascist?
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>> Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
>I think that there are many who benefit from my exposing your abject
>ignorance and stupidity.
Then go get some and bring them into this discussion so that I may
embarrass and humiliate them and shit in their open mouth...
I'm waiting...
Oops! Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
You FAILED TO EXPLAIN how HELPING INCREASE the economies of Mexico AND
Eastern Europe using methodologies that DO NOT EXPLOIT THEM is
Fascist.
Begin your explanation here: ________________
>>>>>>>>>The objective is more favorable conditions for the American middle
>>>>>>>>>class.
>>>>>>>> High school educated factory-worker is NOT a "middle-class"
>>>>>>>> occupation.
>>>>>>>Oh, but it is.
>>>>>> No, it isn't. At best it is lower middle class.
>>>>>>>And so too are trade school educated and OJT educated plumbers,
>>>>>>>electricians, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, commercial
>>>>>>>painters, masons, etc.
>>>>>> I wonder how many trade school educated workers consider themselves
>>>>>> EQUAL TO a half-stupid OJT worker? Probably about ZERO.
>>>>>Many are actually superior regarding both knowledge and performance.
>>>> Wrong. If they were superior in knowledge they would PROVE THAT by
>>>> performance that would REWARD THEM at levels HIGHER THAN "lower middle
>>>> class."
>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>To whom do they "prove it"
To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
their childen's complete college educations.
To their parents, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
their parent's comfortable retirement.
To themselves, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
annual charitable contributions IN EXCESS of their total annual
compensation when they first began working.
Those are just a few examples of how one PROVES VIA PERFORMANCE that
they are IN FACT "smart."
>>>Some can attend a
>>>university for years and years and gain virtually nothing.
>> Who cares? PERFORMANCE is what counts.
>>>Yet all do not seek lip gloss and fast cars.
>> Who cares? What one does with the REWARD for PERFORMANCE is irrelevant.
>> (And it is personal, private, and none of YOUR business.)
>The reward itself is personal and private and none of YOUR business.
The FALSE CLAIM that "some people are simply a lot smarter than others
and seemingly more able to learn" WHEN PERFORMANCE IS NOT demonstrated
is NOT personal, is NOT private, and IS my business.
Michael Coburn
The opportunity to expose your abject stupidity and non existent economic
knowledge is greatly appreciated. And your false analogy to cocaine is
the usual rightrarded false analogy. Nothing ever changes for you pea
brained blowhards. Always the same.
>>>>So long
>>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE
>>>>should have no problem.
>>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE
>>> can manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>>natural resources to produce what we need.
>
> No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
> and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
That is true, moron. And it means we have plenty of construction jobs and
industrial jobs OTHER THAN BUILDING HOUSES AND CARS.
> We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
> they have the factories, we don't.
Yes... The Republican rip off artists used the tax cuts to buy
government backed securities and the invest in China. Too bad. They
will find these to be poor investments.
> Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000 Total Labor Force in US:
> 153,100,000
This sort of crap is not relevant to anyone who does not want to oppress
labor.
> Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000 Industrial Labor Force in
> US: 35,213,000 http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
>
> Pay attention, Commie.
Why? You have said nothing of any importance. Nothing that relates to
the prosperity of the American producer class. If there is less producer
class individuals then the wages will be higher. That is how it works.
> WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
That may be true at present. But it need not stay that way, moron.
> We don't have the factories to make the stuff in and we don't have the
> people to work in those factories.
> Are you paying attention. Commie?
Producing factories and using factories to produce products is what the
producer class does, moron.
>
> Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a tariff
> on the import."
I never left that particular topic, moron.
> The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
> field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT ONLY
> WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
No, idiot. IT works when government is committed to prosperity of the
actual producers of America and it fails when the owner class runs the
government to their own benefit.
> We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products. Even if MAGIC
> happenned and those factories APPEARED we DO NOT HAVE the labor force to
> staff those factories.
>
> Are you paying attention. Commie?
I appreciate your display of abject ignorance and stupidity. I hardly
need to do anything at all.
> And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC. Someone has to PAY to
> build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
> DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they need
> and its already staffed in China?
>
> Are you paying attention. Commie?
Gee, moron, who cares what the current American companies want other than
the butt suckers of the current American companies? In case you haven't
noticed the Fed and the elected government have created over 10 trillion
dollars in the last year. Yet you are still jerking off about people who
"have" money. We obviously do not need their money in that we can create
what we need. "They" and their Chinese factory can be slowly
marginalized as the value of the US dollar wanes, the tariffs are slowly
increased, and the American owned Chinese factories go tits up.
No, idiot. This is just another example of your ignorance and stipidity.
> As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
> humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing an
> EXCELLENT job of it!
I think we are again seeing that you are a total lying pig.
>>And here's the REAL COMMIE graph of wages VS GDP I found while googling
>>http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/china/graph3
>
> Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>
> You said: "wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's"
>
> YOU LIED.
>
>>And then there's some more RECENT data for you:
>>http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/03/gdp_versus_wage.html
>
> That cite disproves your claim BUT it only covers the period of
> 2000-2005 and YOUR LIE was since the 70s.
I posted the data from the Fed covering the entire period. You are a
moron, and a liar.
--
Patriot Games
Fake analogy? No, its entirely REAL.
YOU RAN AWAY!
Hahahahahahahhaha!!!
>>>>>So long
>>>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE
>>>>>should have no problem.
>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE
>>>> can manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>>>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>>>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>>>natural resources to produce what we need.
>> No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
>> and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
>That is true
I know its true, that's WHY I INSTRUCTED YOU.
>And it means we have plenty of construction jobs and
>industrial jobs OTHER THAN BUILDING HOUSES AND CARS.
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>> We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
>> they have the factories, we don't.
>> Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000 Total Labor Force in US:
>> 153,100,000
>This sort of crap is not relevant to anyone who does not want to oppress
>labor.
The FACTS are what they are.
RUNNING AWAY does NOT change those FACTS.
>> Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000 Industrial Labor Force in
>> US: 35,213,000 http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
>> Pay attention, Commie.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
>That may be true at present.
Pay attention, Commie. It IS TRUE AT PRESENT.
Pay attention, Commie. "At PRESENT" is ALL that matters.
>> We don't have the factories to make the stuff in and we don't have the
>> people to work in those factories.
>> Are you paying attention. Commie?
>> Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a tariff
>> on the import."
>> The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
>> field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT ONLY
>> WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
>No...
So, YOUR CLAIM is that we should tariff imported Televisions BECAUSE
THAT would cause American consumers to purchase American-made
Televisions.
Yet you have FAILED TO PROVE your claim.
YOU WILL NOW PROVE YOUR CLAIM (or be known as the LIAR).
1) How many televisions were purchased by Americans in 2008?
2) Of that total, what percentage were IMPORTED, and what percentage
were MADE (NOT assembled) in America?
3) Show your work, CITE YOUR ANSWERS.
BEGIN IMMEDIATELY: _______________
>> We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products. Even if MAGIC
>> happenned and those factories APPEARED we DO NOT HAVE the labor force to
>> staff those factories.
>> Are you paying attention. Commie?
>> And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC. Someone has to PAY to
>> build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
>> DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they need
>> and its already staffed in China?
>> Are you paying attention. Commie?
>Gee... In case you haven't...
Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
AGAIN, the question YOU tried to RUN AWAY FROM: Why would an American
company PAY to build a factory THEY DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when
they ALREADY HAVE the factory they need and its already staffed in
China?
>> Your RETARDED notion of tariffing (just another version of STEALING)
>> As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>> humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing an
>> EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>And here's the REAL COMMIE graph of wages VS GDP I found while googling
>>>http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/china/graph3
>> Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>> You said: "wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's"
>> YOU LIED.
>>>And then there's some more RECENT data for you:
>>>http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/03/gdp_versus_wage.html
>> That cite disproves your claim BUT it only covers the period of
>> 2000-2005 and YOUR LIE was since the 70s.
>I posted the data from the Fed covering the entire period.
No, you did not. The data YOU provided was FALSE as explained ABOVE.
RUN AWAY!
What part of "CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor" don't you
understand?
>> What part of "ENSURING... that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr." don't
>> you understand?
RUN AWAY!!!
And your RETARDED statement "So it appears that there are 30% that are
pure owners and pure producers" has been SHIT ON and SMEARED IN YOUR
FACE.
>>>>>The owner class that receives the bulk of the gains must be taxed and
>>>>>the funds then redistributed to those who no longer have gainful
>>>>>employment.
>>>> Your COMMUNISM is NOT American, and one can only HOPE that you enjoy
>>>> the FIRE...
>>>>>> (Yes, there are a lot fewer people in Mexico, so it would take a
>>>>>> while and we would also want a secondary re-sourcing such as Eastern
>>>>>> Europe...)
>>>>>What a total fascist.
>>>> Fascist? Hahahahahhahahaha!!
>>>> Lemme see if I got this correct. I'm proposing HELPING INCREASE the
>>>> economies of Mexico AND Eastern Europe using methidologies that DO NOT
>>>> EXPLOIT THEM but YOU think that's Fascist? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>>>> Do you think ANYBODY is believing your BULLSHIT?
>>>I think that there are many who benefit from my exposing your abject
>>>ignorance and stupidity.
>> Then go get some and bring them into this discussion so that I may
>> embarrass and humiliate them and shit in their open mouth...
>> I'm waiting...
I'm STILL waiting....
>> Oops! Sorry, your attempt to change the Subject has FAILED.
>> You FAILED TO EXPLAIN how HELPING INCREASE the economies of Mexico AND
>> Eastern Europe using methodologies that DO NOT EXPLOIT THEM is Fascist.
>> Begin your explanation here: ________________
RUN AWAY!!!
Now that YOU have some examples of how one PROVES PERFORMANCE, and
since you RAN AWAY from those examples, WE WILL CONCLUDE THAT YOU DO
NOT MEASURE UP.
Your FAILED life is NOT OUR PROBLEM.
>>>>>Some can attend a
>>>>>university for years and years and gain virtually nothing.
>>>> Who cares? PERFORMANCE is what counts.
>>>>>Yet all do not seek lip gloss and fast cars.
>>>> Who cares? What one does with the REWARD for PERFORMANCE is
>>>> irrelevant.
>>>> (And it is personal, private, and none of YOUR business.)
>>>The reward itself is personal and private and none of YOUR business.
>> The FALSE CLAIM that "some people are simply a lot smarter than others
>> and seemingly more able to learn" WHEN PERFORMANCE IS NOT demonstrated
>> is NOT personal, is NOT private, and IS my business.
RUN AWAY!!!
We will NOW CONCLUDE that YOUR FALSE CLAIM that "some people are
simply a lot smarter than others and seemingly more able to learn" has
been SHIT ON and SMEARED IN YOUR FACE.
Bob LeChevalier
>>>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>>>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>>>>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>>>>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
>>> No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the COST
>>> of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the imported
>>> product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
>>Not if there is a tariff on the import.
>
>Lemme see if I understand this correctly. You think MERELY tariffing
>an imported product will prevent its being available to American
>consumers YET WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON for importing cocaine and THAT
>HAS NOT STOPPED ITS IMPORTATION?
Cocaine prices are enormously higher per unit, and the people doing
the importing are primarily criminals, not bona fide companies that
want to sell on the open market.
>As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
>an EXCELLENT job of it!
Actually, I think you are doing so, and in front of FIVE newsgroups
(though I have to drop one to post).
This is not to say that I agree with your opponent as to the virtue of
tariffs to solve current problems, but your arguments in particular
aren't worth much.
>>>>So long
>>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>>>>have no problem.
>>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE can
>>> manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>>natural resources to produce what we need.
>
>No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
>and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
10% unemployment, or 17% using the broadest measure. That is many
millions of human resources that are available.
If we reach the point where that unemployment rate is reduced to an
acceptable level, then tariffs would logically be adjusted to maintain
that equilibrium.
>We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
>they have the factories, we don't.
We have factories sitting idle, and others operating at less than
capacity. Most noteworthy these days of course are the auto company
plants, many in Michigan but others all around the country.
>Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000
>Total Labor Force in US: 153,100,000
>
>Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000
>Industrial Labor Force in US: 35,213,000
>http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
China isn't only manufacturing for the USA.
>Pay attention, Commie.
>
>WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
When we run out of people, let us worry about it then.
>Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a
>tariff on the import."
>
>The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
>field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT
>ONLY WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
There remain many industries where we have American manufacturers.
>We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products.
Mostly because of labor costs, which tariff adjustments can
ameliorate.
>And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC.
They are already there.
>Someone has to PAY to
>build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
>DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they
>need and its already staffed in China?
Because the tariff balances the difference in cost.
>Are you paying attention. Commie?
>
>Your RETARDED notion of tariffing (just another version of STEALING)
Taxation is not theft, especially when it would be going to offset our
enormous national debt.
>>The difference would be a less blatant hoarding.
>
>What part of "CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor" don't you
>understand?
>
>What part of "ENSURING... that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr." don't
>you understand?
>
>If we CONTROL the source of foreign labor
By definition, we cannot control the source of foreign labor.
It is difficult enough to control the source of American labor, and
our laws and legal system are primary within the country's boundaries.
>then we can ENSURE that the
>workers are getting the better wages THUS GUARANTEEING that we BUILD
>UP that foreign economy WITHOUT dragging ours down.
We cannot do anything like that in a foreign country. WE have to
abode by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
>What TWO groups of Americans mostly DO NOT have a 401k?
About 3/4 of the population.
http://media.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8831728&pid=74
<Nearly 73 million Americans, or a little less than 50 percent of the
< working population, have a 401(k), according to the Society of
< Professional Asset-Managers and Record Keepers.
>Children and retired (non-working) people.
and unemployed people, and half of those who ARE employed.
>Now you know who most of that 30% are...
A bogus number:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_Americans_own_stock
<Because there are many ways to "own" stock, this question can have
< many answers. For example, if you own a mutual fund in your company's
< retirement plan, you can be said to be the "owner" of the stocks that
< are in the mutual fund. That's in spite of the fact that you probably
< don't know what they are, and you have no voting control in either
< the stocks themselves or the mutual fund. The most commonly offered
< answer to this question uses this broad, and, arguably meaningless
< definition.
<The Mutual Fund Industry group - Investment Company Institute - has a
< lot of data on this subject. Its 2002 study,
< http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_02_equity_owners.pdf showed that 49.5% (or
< 52.7 million) of US Households owned equities in some way shape or
< form in 2002. However, only 21 million (less than 20%) owned
< individual stocks outside an employee sponsored plan.
50% of households owned equities in some way shape or form. Less than
20% owned individual stocks on their own. Many of those 20% are
probably like me, with a couple hundred shares that I inherited,
generating some noise-level dividend checks, but otherwise playing no
significant role in our household finances. I don't consider myself
"owner-class", on that basis. (Having my mortgage paid off, on the
other hand, makes me a true "owner" of real estate.)
>You FAILED TO EXPLAIN how HELPING INCREASE the economies of Mexico AND
>Eastern Europe using methodologies that DO NOT EXPLOIT THEM is
>Fascist.
Exploitation is irrelevant to the definition of fascism.
>>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>>To whom do they "prove it"
>
>To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>their childen's complete college educations.
Most children haven't a clue where their parents' money comes from,
much less whether it was well-earned by performance. Relative few
parents pay for their kid's entire college education even if they have
the means to do so, and they certainly aren't going to do so merely to
prove something to their kids.
>To their parents, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>their parent's comfortable retirement.
What percentage of people do that, these days. Very few, I suspect.
>To themselves, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>annual charitable contributions IN EXCESS of their total annual
>compensation when they first began working.
What percentage of people do that?
>Those are just a few examples of how one PROVES VIA PERFORMANCE that
>they are IN FACT "smart."
None of those strikes me as evidence of being smart (much less
"proof". They may be evidence of being generous, and possibly
self-sacrificing, but not really smart.
>The FALSE CLAIM that "some people are simply a lot smarter than others
>and seemingly more able to learn" WHEN PERFORMANCE IS NOT demonstrated
>is NOT personal, is NOT private, and IS my business.
The claim is too poorly defined to decide whether it is true or false.
Whether you think some random claim is your business or not, is
utterly NOT of interest to anyone else, and therefore not our
business.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>>>>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>>>>>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>>>>>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the COST
>>>> of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the imported
>>>> product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
>>>Not if there is a tariff on the import.
>>Lemme see if I understand this correctly. You think MERELY tariffing
>>an imported product will prevent its being available to American
>>consumers YET WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON for importing cocaine and THAT
>>HAS NOT STOPPED ITS IMPORTATION?
>Cocaine prices are enormously higher per unit,
Is it still being imported? Yes.
You can go away now.
>and the people doing the importing are primarily criminals,
True, and irrelevant.
You can go away now.
>not bona fide companies that want to sell on the open market.
True, and irrelevant.
You can go away now.
>>As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>>humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
>>an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>>>So long
>>>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>>>>>have no problem.
>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE can
>>>> manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>>>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>>>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>>>natural resources to produce what we need.
>>No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
>>and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
>10% unemployment, or 17% using the broadest measure. That is many
>millions of human resources that are available.
True, and irrelevant.
You can go away now.
>If we reach the point where that unemployment rate is reduced to an
>acceptable level, then tariffs would logically be adjusted to maintain
>that equilibrium.
Wrong. Tariffs ONLY work when there exists a local-made competitive
product, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with employment.
>>We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
>>they have the factories, we don't.
>We have factories sitting idle, and others operating at less than
>capacity.
No cite = REJECTED.
>>Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000
>>Total Labor Force in US: 153,100,000
>>Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000
>>Industrial Labor Force in US: 35,213,000
>>http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
>China isn't only manufacturing for the USA.
True, and irrelevant.
You can go away now.
>>Pay attention, Commie.
>>WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
>>Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a
>>tariff on the import."
>>The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
>>field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT
>>ONLY WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
>There remain many industries where we have American manufacturers.
Yet you were able to CITE exactly ZERO.
You can go away now.
>>We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products.
>Mostly because of labor costs, which tariff adjustments can
>ameliorate.
Tariffs has ZERO IMPACT on labor costs.
>>And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC.
>They are already there.
Yet you were able to CITE exactly ZERO.
>>Someone has to PAY to
>>build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
>>DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they
>>need and its already staffed in China?
>Because the tariff balances the difference in cost.
There is NO "difference" to "balance" UNLESS YOU HAVE a local
competitive product. WE DO NOT HAVE THOSE local competitive products
in most instances and in a few such instances we have them at a
FRACTION of the volume CURRENTLY being met by importation.
>>Are you paying attention. Commie?
>>Your RETARDED notion of tariffing (just another version of STEALING)
>Taxation is not theft, especially when it would be going to offset our
>enormous national debt.
As a Proven Liar your opinions have no value.
>>>The difference would be a less blatant hoarding.
>>What part of "CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor" don't you
>>understand?
>>What part of "ENSURING... that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr." don't
>>you understand?
>>If we CONTROL the source of foreign labor
>By definition, we cannot control the source of foreign labor.
Sure we can.
Treaty - trea�ty [ tr?tee ] (plural trea�ties)
noun
Definition:
1. agreement between states: a formal contract or agreement negotiated
between countries or other political entities.
2. pact: an agreement or contract between two or more parties.
What part above totally and completely befuddled you?
>It is difficult enough to control the source of American labor, and
>our laws and legal system are primary within the country's boundaries.
See above. Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for
this discussion?
Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
you are left with NOTHING to offer?
>>then we can ENSURE that the
>>workers are getting the better wages THUS GUARANTEEING that we BUILD
>>UP that foreign economy WITHOUT dragging ours down.
>We cannot do anything like that in a foreign country. WE have to
>abode by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
See Treaty, above.
Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for this
discussion?
Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
you are left with NOTHING to offer?
>>What TWO groups of Americans mostly DO NOT have a 401k?
>About 3/4 of the population.
>http://media.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8831728&pid=74
><Nearly 73 million Americans, or a little less than 50 percent of the
>< working population, have a 401(k), according to the Society of
>< Professional Asset-Managers and Record Keepers.
"Hewitt's annual benchmarking report, titled "How Well Are Employees
Saving and Investing in 401(k) Plans," found that some 70.3 percent of
workers participated in defined contribution plans in 2004, up from
69.8 percent in 2003 and 68.2 percent in 2002."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/144673/144673.aspx#144673
>>Children and retired (non-working) people.
>>Now you know who most of that 30% are...
>A bogus number:
>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_Americans_own_stock
><Because there are many ways to "own" stock, this question can have
>< many answers. For example, if you own a mutual fund in your company's
>< retirement plan, you can be said to be the "owner" of the stocks that
>< are in the mutual fund. That's in spite of the fact that you probably
>< don't know what they are, and you have no voting control in either
>< the stocks themselves or the mutual fund. The most commonly offered
>< answer to this question uses this broad, and, arguably meaningless
>< definition.
><The Mutual Fund Industry group - Investment Company Institute - has a
>< lot of data on this subject. Its 2002 study,
>< http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_02_equity_owners.pdf showed that 49.5% (or
>< 52.7 million) of US Households owned equities in some way shape or
>< form in 2002. However, only 21 million (less than 20%) owned
>< individual stocks outside an employee sponsored plan.
>50% of households owned equities in some way shape or form. Less than
>20% owned individual stocks on their own. Many of those 20% are
>probably like me, with a couple hundred shares that I inherited,
>generating some noise-level dividend checks, but otherwise playing no
>significant role in our household finances. I don't consider myself
>"owner-class", on that basis. (Having my mortgage paid off, on the
>other hand, makes me a true "owner" of real estate.)
Whatever... There is no such thing as an "owner" class.
>>You FAILED TO EXPLAIN how HELPING INCREASE the economies of Mexico AND
>>Eastern Europe using methodologies that DO NOT EXPLOIT THEM is
>>Fascist.
>>>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>>>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>>>To whom do they "prove it"
>>To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>their childen's complete college educations.
>Most children haven't a clue where their parents' money comes from
Irrelevant.
>>To their parents, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>their parent's comfortable retirement.
>What percentage of people do that, these days.
Irrelevant.
If you FAILED to understand the examples that is NOT my fault.
>>To themselves, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>annual charitable contributions IN EXCESS of their total annual
>>compensation when they first began working.
>What percentage of people do that?
Irrelevant.
If you FAILED to understand the examples that is NOT my fault.
>>Those are just a few examples of how one PROVES VIA PERFORMANCE that
>>they are IN FACT "smart."
>None of those strikes me...
We already covered this. As a Proven Liar your opinions have no
value.
Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for this
discussion?
Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
you are left with NOTHING to offer?
= REFERENCES ==========================
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:22:33 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>President Obama signed an emergency declaration AT THE SAME TIME THE
>>>ICE WAS FALLING IN KENTUCKY.
>>TWO DAYS AFTER.
>>Bush coordinated with States BEFORE the Disasters.
>Only when the disaster was recognized before it actually happened.
Duh...
>>Buckwheat did NOTHING before.
>There was no disaster expected before.
Liar:
Ice storm preparations and reports being made
The following information was gathered by the Region D Joint
Information System (DJIS) from County Emergency Management Directors
in 18 counties in southwest Missouri. This information is current as
of 4 p.m. Sunday.
http://www.ky3.com/news/local/12295211.html
>>>There is nothing more the president can do.
>>Has he visited? No.
>Not at all useful, and probably harmful. Bush's visits to the Katrina
>area were disruptive, not helpful.
You may now keep your opinions to yourself since as a PROVEN LIAR your
opinions are now worthless.
= TOTAL REJECTION OF "Bob LeChevalier" ===============
Malicious Posters should be KILLFILED!
From: Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.187.235.94
70.187.235.94 = Fairfax, VA.
My ORIGINAL Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/9b47e44b8921358e?hl=en
-------------------------------
From: Patriot Games
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009
As a PROVEN LIAR you are obviously INCAPABLE of thinking
-------------------------------
The MALICIOUSLY EDITED Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/eb71d178659866b7?hl=en
-------------------------------
From: Bob LeChevalier
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009
Patriot Games
>As a PROVEN LIAR I am obviously INCAPABLE of thinking
-------------------------------
Bob LeChevalier is a MALICIOUS POSTER.
Do yourself a favor, KILLFILE him NOW!
Nickname unavailable
> I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
> government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
> American policy? After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
> national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
> MUST change our policies to their desires. Correct?
>
> Kenneth W Clifton
china is a free market house of cards, propped up by free market
drunken sailor spending, with no real internal demand of their own.
they rely on american markets to keep their serfs employed. they have
no real idea that their flooding the world with sweatshop, slave labor
made products, has destroyed the demand of the western worker. demand
is wage driven. so now we maybe in a depression, a depression is a
lack of demand, it will drive down prices, as well as wages.
china has huge stock piles of unsold steel, now they admit to have a
huge stock pile of unsold copper, both commodities they are about to
dump on the worlds markets further suppressing demand(wages).
china cannot tell us what to do, and have their currency pegged to
low to the dollar. china as well as the idiotology known as free trade
are the problem.
china has vast amounts of dollars, but its really chump change in a
country as large as china, with little or no internal demand. china
has a really small, and i mean really small middle class, that
averages about 5k a year, and makes up about 8% of their population,
the rest, around 1 billion serfs, live on $2.00 a day or less.
2 parts of their country are really under martial law, and it could
spread, it will take many dollars to suppress a billion starving
serfs. besides, china no longer is the largest purchaser of
treasuries, japan is now.
but what can we expect out of a world economy designed by milton
friedman:)
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:46:26 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>>>>>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>>>>>>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>>>>>>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
>>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the COST
>>>>> of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the imported
>>>>> product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
>>>>Not if there is a tariff on the import.
>>>Lemme see if I understand this correctly. You think MERELY tariffing
>>>an imported product will prevent its being available to American
>>>consumers YET WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON for importing cocaine and THAT
>>>HAS NOT STOPPED ITS IMPORTATION?
>>Cocaine prices are enormously higher per unit,
>
>Is it still being imported? Yes.
Not relevant. It is not a manufactured good producible in an American
factory.
>You can go away now.
Not planning on it, loser.
>
>>and the people doing the importing are primarily criminals,
>
>True, and irrelevant.
Quite relevant. The motivations for the import, the mechanisms for
the import, and the capabilities to interfere with illegal importation
are much different.
>You can go away now.
Not planning on it, loser.
>>not bona fide companies that want to sell on the open market.
>
>True, and irrelevant.
Quite relevant. The motivations for the import, the mechanisms for
the import, and the capabilities to interfere with illegal importation
are much different.
>You can go away now.
Not planning on it, loser.
>>>As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>>>humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
>>>an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>>>>So long
>>>>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>>>>>>have no problem.
>>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE can
>>>>> manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>>>>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>>>>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>>>>natural resources to produce what we need.
>>>No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
>>>and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
>>10% unemployment, or 17% using the broadest measure. That is many
>>millions of human resources that are available.
>
>True, and irrelevant.
Quite relevant, since it argues against your claim that there are
"ZERO foreign products that WE can manufacturer in quantities to meet
OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION", even if we might not have enough
manufacturing capability to make ALL products within our boundaries.
>You can go away now.
Not planning on it, loser.
>>If we reach the point where that unemployment rate is reduced to an
>>acceptable level, then tariffs would logically be adjusted to maintain
>>that equilibrium.
>
>Wrong. Tariffs ONLY work when there exists a local-made competitive
>product, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with employment.
If there are employable people, then there is the capability to have a
locally-made competitive product. The only question is whether it
would be financially competitive, and tariffs help to resolve any such
problem.
>>>We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
>>>they have the factories, we don't.
>>We have factories sitting idle, and others operating at less than
>>capacity.
>
>No cite = REJECTED.
No cite is needed. It is common knowledge that auto factories have
been shut down from lack of business, and the employees laid off. That
is a lot of large factories sitting idle, and plenty of workforce, in
one economic sector.
But if you want a cite, here is one at random, from June:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alkgbcb0ps7U
<The amount of industrial capacity in use dropped to a record-low 68.3
< percent.
68.3% means that we could produce almost 50% more than we currently
are producing without reaching our factory's capacity. We would
probably reach full employment before we reached 100% capacity.
>>>Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000
>>>Total Labor Force in US: 153,100,000
>>>Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000
>>>Industrial Labor Force in US: 35,213,000
>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
>>China isn't only manufacturing for the USA.
>
>True, and irrelevant.
Quite relevant, since it makes your numerical comparison one of apples
vs all fruit.
>You can go away now.
Not planning on it, loser.
>>>Pay attention, Commie.
>>>WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
>>>Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a
>>>tariff on the import."
>>>The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
>>>field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT
>>>ONLY WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
>>There remain many industries where we have American manufacturers.
>
>Yet you were able to CITE exactly ZERO.
Automobiles for one. Need more?
>You can go away now.
Not planning on it, loser.
>>>We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products.
>>Mostly because of labor costs, which tariff adjustments can
>>ameliorate.
>
>Tariffs has ZERO IMPACT on labor costs.
Never claimed that they did. Tariff adjustments can ameliorate their
effects on competitiveness.
>>>And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC.
>>They are already there.
>
>Yet you were able to CITE exactly ZERO.
See above.
You haven't been a font of cites yourself.
>>>Someone has to PAY to
>>>build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
>>>DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they
>>>need and its already staffed in China?
>>Because the tariff balances the difference in cost.
>
>There is NO "difference" to "balance" UNLESS YOU HAVE a local
>competitive product.
There would be, if there were tariffs to compensate for price
differences.
>WE DO NOT HAVE THOSE local competitive products in most instances
I guess I should dismiss your uncited assertion as quickly as you did
mine?
>and in a few such instances we have them at a
>FRACTION of the volume CURRENTLY being met by importation.
The limitation is not volume, but number of customers willing to pay
the price of locally-made goods, when they can get foreign made goods
more cheaply. If they could not get foreign goods more cheaply, then
the American made goods would indeed be quite competitive.
>>>Are you paying attention. Commie?
>>>Your RETARDED notion of tariffing (just another version of STEALING)
>>Taxation is not theft, especially when it would be going to offset our
>>enormous national debt.
>
>As a Proven Liar your opinions have no value.
Coming from a repeated liar like yourself, your opinions about my
opinions are of even less value. Meanwhile, my credibility as a
poster remains high, and nothing that the likes of you might post is
going to affect that credibility, since you are a loser as well as a
liar.
>>>>The difference would be a less blatant hoarding.
>>>What part of "CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor" don't you
>>>understand?
>>>What part of "ENSURING... that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr." don't
>>>you understand?
>>>If we CONTROL the source of foreign labor
>>By definition, we cannot control the source of foreign labor.
>
>Sure we can.
>
>Treaty - trea�ty [ tr?tee ] (plural trea�ties)
>noun
>Definition:
>1. agreement between states: a formal contract or agreement negotiated
>between countries or other political entities.
>2. pact: an agreement or contract between two or more parties.
>
>What part above totally and completely befuddled you?
The part that give us the ability to enforce a treaty's provisions on
companies in another country. All we can do is cancel the treaty or
enforce sanctions at our borders, And the effects of our attempts to
do so have a bit more similarity to our attempts to enforce controls
on the cocaine trade, than the comparison that you made above.
>>It is difficult enough to control the source of American labor, and
>>our laws and legal system are primary within the country's boundaries.
>
>See above. Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for
>this discussion?
If we played dueling IQs, I would undoubtedly win. But it hardly
matters - I have credibility on Usenet, and you don't.
>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>you are left with NOTHING to offer?
If I pulled wild-assed guesses from my ass, I would still have far
more to offer than you do. But of course I do far better than that.
>>>then we can ENSURE that the
>>>workers are getting the better wages THUS GUARANTEEING that we BUILD
>>>UP that foreign economy WITHOUT dragging ours down.
>>We cannot do anything like that in a foreign country. WE have to
>>abode by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
>
>See Treaty, above.
Even with a treaty.
WE have to abide by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
>Do I need to point out that I'm not smart enough for this discussion?
You have repeatedly demonstrated that.
>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>I am left with NOTHING to offer?
You have repeatedly demonstrated that.
>>>What TWO groups of Americans mostly DO NOT have a 401k?
>>About 3/4 of the population.
>>http://media.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8831728&pid=74
>><Nearly 73 million Americans, or a little less than 50 percent of the
>>< working population, have a 401(k), according to the Society of
>>< Professional Asset-Managers and Record Keepers.
>
>"Hewitt's annual benchmarking report, titled "How Well Are Employees
>Saving and Investing in 401(k) Plans," found that some 70.3 percent of
>workers participated in defined contribution plans in 2004, up from
>69.8 percent in 2003 and 68.2 percent in 2002."
>http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/144673/144673.aspx#144673
Dueling cites. How droll. Now do you have any reason for someone to
believe your source is more correct than mine?
Your unsubstantiated opinion is worth as little as the rest of your
post: nothing.
>>>You FAILED TO EXPLAIN how HELPING INCREASE the economies of Mexico AND
>>>Eastern Europe using methodologies that DO NOT EXPLOIT THEM is
>>>Fascist.
>>>>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>>>>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>>>>To whom do they "prove it"
>>>To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>their childen's complete college educations.
>>Most children haven't a clue where their parents' money comes from
>
>Irrelevant.
If they don't know, then nothing has been proven, loser.
>>>To their parents, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>their parent's comfortable retirement.
>>What percentage of people do that, these days.
>
>Irrelevant.
If few people do it, then few have proven anything to their parents.
>If you FAILED to understand the examples that is NOT my fault.
Your examples prove nothing, loser.
>>>To themselves, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>annual charitable contributions IN EXCESS of their total annual
>>>compensation when they first began working.
>>What percentage of people do that?
>
>Irrelevant.
If they don't do it, they prove nothing.
>If you FAILED to understand the examples that is NOT my fault.
Your examples prove nothing, loser.
>>>Those are just a few examples of how one PROVES VIA PERFORMANCE that
>>>they are IN FACT "smart."
>>None of those strikes me...
>
>We already covered this. As a Proven Liar your opinions have no
>value.
Coming from a repeated liar like yourself, your opinions about my
opinions are of even less value. Meanwhile, my credibility as a
poster remains high, and nothing that the likes of you might post is
going to affect that credibility, since you are a loser as well as a
liar.
>Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for this
>discussion?
If we played dueling IQs, I would undoubtedly win. But it hardly
matters - I have credibility on Usenet, and you don't.
>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>I am left with NOTHING to offer?
We already know that.
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:46:26 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If WE make them OUR labor cost would be HIGHER and the product would
>>>>>>>> cost MORE and we would buy the CHEAPER (foreign-made) product.
>>>>>>>If WE make them while paying ourselves decent wages then WE will have
>>>>>>>more money and we will be able to buy the higher priced goods.
>>>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. If we pay ourselves "decent wages" the COST
>>>>>> of the products INCREASES to be MORE than the cost of the imported
>>>>>> product which cause everybody to buy the CHEAPER product.
>>>>>Not if there is a tariff on the import.
>>>>Lemme see if I understand this correctly. You think MERELY tariffing
>>>>an imported product will prevent its being available to American
>>>>consumers YET WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON for importing cocaine and THAT
>>>>HAS NOT STOPPED ITS IMPORTATION?
>>>Cocaine prices are enormously higher per unit,
>>Is it still being imported? Yes.
>Not relevant. It is not a manufactured good producible in an American
>factory.
Cocaine is NOT made in America?
hahahahahahahah!!!
>>You can go away now.
>Not planning on it, loser.
Good, because I ALWAYS enjoy SHITTING IN YOUR OPEN MOUTH in public!
The POINT you FAILED to understand, because you're STUPID, is that
merely tariffing a product DOES NOT prevent either the tariffed
product or the blackmarket version fom being available.
>>>and the people doing the importing are primarily criminals,
>>True, and irrelevant.
>>>not bona fide companies that want to sell on the open market.
>>True, and irrelevant.
>>>>As I said, I am providing YOU the opportunity HERE to embarrass and
>>>>humiliate YOURSELF in front of the entire newsgroup and YOU are doing
>>>>an EXCELLENT job of it!
>>>>>>>So long
>>>>>>>as we place a sufficient tariff on the foreign made goods then WE should
>>>>>>>have no problem.
>>>>>> No, Commie, pay attention. There are ZERO foreign products that WE can
>>>>>> manufacturer in quantities to meet OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION. Your
>>>>>> SIMPLE-MINDED version is NOT possible.
>>>>>Like I have already presented, moron, that is a claim that we lack the
>>>>>natural resources to produce what we need.
>>>>No, we lack the manufacturing resources to manufacture those products
>>>>and we lack the HUMAN resources to manufacture THAT MANY products.
>>>10% unemployment, or 17% using the broadest measure. That is many
>>>millions of human resources that are available.
>>True, and irrelevant.
>Quite relevant, since it argues against your claim that there are
>"ZERO foreign products that WE can manufacturer in quantities to meet
>OUR CURRENT CONSUMPTION", even if we might not have enough
>manufacturing capability to make ALL products within our boundaries.
Yet YOU FAILED to CITE JUST ONE product that we can manufacture in
quantities to meet our CURRENT IMPORTS of that same product.
YOU WILL NOW CITE JUST ONE product that we can manufacture in
quantities to meet our CURRENT IMPORTS, YOU WILL show your work, YOU
WILL CITE your answers, YOU WILL respond promptly, AND YOU WILL
provide ALL NECESSARY QUANTITIES WITH CITES.
Begin here: _________
>>>If we reach the point where that unemployment rate is reduced to an
>>>acceptable level, then tariffs would logically be adjusted to maintain
>>>that equilibrium.
>>Wrong. Tariffs ONLY work when there exists a local-made competitive
>>product, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with employment.
>If there are employable people, then there is the capability to have a
>locally-made competitive product. The only question is whether it
>would be financially competitive, and tariffs help to resolve any such
>problem.
Wrong. You must FIRST have the facilities/factories that would employ
those people. Merely tariffing an imported product DOES NOT magically
get facilities/factories built.
>>>>We spent the last 30 years building the factories IN CHINA, not here,
>>>>they have the factories, we don't.
>>>We have factories sitting idle, and others operating at less than
>>>capacity.
>>No cite = REJECTED.
>No cite is needed.
YOU are REJECTED.
>But if you want a cite, here is one at random, from June:
>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alkgbcb0ps7U
><The amount of industrial capacity in use dropped to a record-low 68.3
>< percent.
>68.3% means that we could produce almost 50% more than we currently
>are producing without reaching our factory's capacity.
When those factories were operating at near 100% were we importing ANY
FOREIGN PRODUCTS? Yes. THEREFORE, we DO NOT have the industrial
capacity to produce as much product as we consume.
>We would
>probably reach full employment before we reached 100% capacity.
As a Proven Liar your opinions have no value.
>>>>Total Labor Force in China: 800,700,000
>>>>Total Labor Force in US: 153,100,000
>>>>Industrial Labor Force in China: 176,154,000
>>>>Industrial Labor Force in US: 35,213,000
>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ch-china/lab-labor
>>>China isn't only manufacturing for the USA.
>>True, and irrelevant.
>Quite relevant, since it makes your numerical comparison one of apples
>vs all fruit.
Is there SOME OTHER consumer of Chinese-made product OTHER THAN North
America that YOU WILL NOW CITE? Begin here: ____________
>>>>Pay attention, Commie.
>>>>WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE ALL THE STUFF WE BUY!
>>>>Let's NOW return to your RETARDED notion that "Not if there is a
>>>>tariff on the import."
>>>>The NOTION of tariffing imports to create a so-called level playing
>>>>field WAS A DECENT IDEA (but with problems) in decades past BUT IT
>>>>ONLY WORKS when WE have a LOCAL competitive industry and products.
>>>There remain many industries where we have American manufacturers.
>>Yet you were able to CITE exactly ZERO.
>Automobiles for one. Need more?
Yes, many more. BUT ONLY CITE industries that can produce QUANTITES
EQUAL TO our imported consumption.
Begin here: _________
>>>>We DO NOT have local competitive industries and products.
>>>Mostly because of labor costs, which tariff adjustments can
>>>ameliorate.
>>Tariffs has ZERO IMPACT on labor costs.
>Never claimed that they did. Tariff adjustments can ameliorate their
>effects on competitiveness.
Your SQUIRMING is noted.
>>>>And those factories WILL NOT APPEAR BY MAGIC.
>>>They are already there.
>>Yet you were able to CITE exactly ZERO.
>See above.
You provided NOTHING, try again.
>>>>Someone has to PAY to
>>>>build them. Why would an American company PAY to build a factory THEY
>>>>DON'T NEED and CAN'T STAFF when they ALREADY HAVE the factory they
>>>>need and its already staffed in China?
>>>Because the tariff balances the difference in cost.
>>There is NO "difference" to "balance" UNLESS YOU HAVE a local
>>competitive product.
>There would be, if there were tariffs to compensate for price
>differences.
Are you claiming the Federal gov't would TAX foreign imports and the
Federal gov't would use that revenue to BUILD FACTORIES - KINDA LIKE
HOW COMMUNISM WORKS?
>>WE DO NOT HAVE THOSE local competitive products in most instances
>>and in a few such instances we have them at a
>>FRACTION of the volume CURRENTLY being met by importation.
>The limitation is not volume, but number of customers willing to pay
>the price of locally-made goods, when they can get foreign made goods
>more cheaply. If they could not get foreign goods more cheaply, then
>the American made goods would indeed be quite competitive.
Wrong. LACK of cheaper imported products DOES NOT automatically
increase American consumers paychecks...
>>>>Are you paying attention. Commie?
>>>>Your RETARDED notion of tariffing (just another version of STEALING)
>>>Taxation is not theft, especially when it would be going to offset our
>>>enormous national debt.
>>As a Proven Liar your opinions have no value.
>Coming from a repeated liar like yourself,
Yet YOU were capable of provided NOT EVEN ONE CITE...
hahahahahaha!!
>Meanwhile, my credibility as a poster remains high
As a Proven Liar and a Proven Malicious Poster your credibility was
SHIT ON by me.
>>>>>The difference would be a less blatant hoarding.
>>>>What part of "CONTROL the SOURCE of foreign labor" don't you
>>>>understand?
>>>>What part of "ENSURING... that THE WORKER ACTUALLY GETS $10/hr." don't
>>>>you understand?
>>>>If we CONTROL the source of foreign labor
>>>By definition, we cannot control the source of foreign labor.
>>Sure we can.
>>Treaty - trea�ty [ tr?tee ] (plural trea�ties)
>>noun
>>Definition:
>>1. agreement between states: a formal contract or agreement negotiated
>>between countries or other political entities.
>>2. pact: an agreement or contract between two or more parties.
>>What part above totally and completely befuddled you?
>The part that give us the ability to enforce a treaty's provisions on
>companies in another country.
Treaties are like any other contract, violate any provision and pay a
penalty.
>All we can do is cancel the treaty or enforce sanctions at our borders,
We can do anything we want in a Treaty.
>>>It is difficult enough to control the source of American labor, and
>>>our laws and legal system are primary within the country's boundaries.
>>See above. Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for
>>this discussion?
>If we played dueling IQs, I would undoubtedly win. But it hardly
>matters - I have credibility on Usenet, and you don't.
We already covered this. YOU are a PROVEN Malicious Poster, YOU have
ZERO Credibility.
>>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>>you are left with NOTHING to offer?
>>>>then we can ENSURE that the
>>>>workers are getting the better wages THUS GUARANTEEING that we BUILD
>>>>UP that foreign economy WITHOUT dragging ours down.
>>>We cannot do anything like that in a foreign country. WE have to
>>>abode by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
>>See Treaty, above.
>Even with a treaty.
>WE have to abide by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
We can put anything we want in a Treaty, any form of verification, any
form of inspection, and we can require any manner of compliance. Just
like ANY Contract, once a Treaty is signed ALL PROVISIONS become
valid.
>>Do I need to point out that I'm not smart enough for this discussion?
>>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>>I am left with NOTHING to offer?
>>>>What TWO groups of Americans mostly DO NOT have a 401k?
>>>About 3/4 of the population.
>>>http://media.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8831728&pid=74
>>><Nearly 73 million Americans, or a little less than 50 percent of the
>>>< working population, have a 401(k), according to the Society of
>>>< Professional Asset-Managers and Record Keepers.
>>"Hewitt's annual benchmarking report, titled "How Well Are Employees
>>Saving and Investing in 401(k) Plans," found that some 70.3 percent of
>>workers participated in defined contribution plans in 2004, up from
>>69.8 percent in 2003 and 68.2 percent in 2002."
>>http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/144673/144673.aspx#144673
>Dueling cites. How droll. Now do you have any reason for someone to
>believe your source is more correct than mine?
The answer to your question is IN the cites above. I'll let YOU read
and re-read them and we'll see if YOU can find it.
>>>>You FAILED TO EXPLAIN how HELPING INCREASE the economies of Mexico AND
>>>>Eastern Europe using methodologies that DO NOT EXPLOIT THEM is
>>>>Fascist.
>>>>>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>>>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>>>>>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>>>>>To whom do they "prove it"
>>>>To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>>their childen's complete college educations.
>>>Most children haven't a clue where their parents' money comes from
>>Irrelevant.
>If they don't know, then nothing has been proven, loser.
And YOU think children, with no knowledge of working, earning a
living, getting paid, and saving ARE ENROLLING AS COLLEGE FRESHMAN?
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
>>>>To their parents, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>>their parent's comfortable retirement.
>>>What percentage of people do that, these days.
>>Irrelevant.
>If few people do it, then few have proven anything to their parents.
"If?" FIRST, you must PROVE YOUR CLAIM, ONLY THEN may you refer to it
AS "IF" it was a FACT.
>>If you FAILED to understand the examples that is NOT my fault.
>Your examples prove nothing, loser.
My examples PROVED that YOUR FAILED LIFE has CAUSED YOU to HATE the
success of OTHERS.
>>>>To themselves, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>>annual charitable contributions IN EXCESS of their total annual
>>>>compensation when they first began working.
>>>What percentage of people do that?
>>Irrelevant.
>If they don't do it, they prove nothing.
"If?" FIRST, you must PROVE YOUR CLAIM, ONLY THEN may you refer to it
AS "IF" it was a FACT.
>>If you FAILED to understand the examples that is NOT my fault.
>Your examples prove nothing, loser.
My examples PROVED that YOU DEMAND to be recognized for
NON-PERFORMANCE merely because you exist - thus PROVING that YOU are
no more than another me-first, self-interested, selfish SOCIALIST (or
possibly a Communist).
>>>>Those are just a few examples of how one PROVES VIA PERFORMANCE that
>>>>they are IN FACT "smart."
>>>None of those strikes me...
>>We already covered this. As a Proven Liar your opinions have no
>>value.
>>Do I need to point out that you're not smart enough for this
>>discussion?
>>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>>I am left with NOTHING to offer?
>We already know that.
More Malicious posting?
Which, OF COURSE, PROVES better than any other way THAT YOU HAVE
NOTHING!
Here are those REFERENCES you deleted:
= REFERENCES ==========================
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:22:33 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Malicious Posters should be KILLFILED!
From: Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.187.235.94
70.187.235.94 = Fairfax, VA.
My ORIGINAL Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/927f0c26fa4421e7?hl=en
-------------------------------
From: Patriot Games
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009
Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
you are left with NOTHING to offer?
-------------------------------
The MALICIOUSLY EDITED Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/637cd72664e73c87?hl=en
-------------------------------
From: Bob LeChevalier
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009
Patriot Games
>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>I am left with NOTHING to offer?
Patriot Games
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 10:31嚙窮m, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>> government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>> American policy? 嚙璀fter all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
>> national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
>> MUST change our policies to their desires. 嚙瘠orrect?
> china is a free market house of cards, propped up by free market
>drunken sailor spending, with no real internal demand of their own.
>they rely on american markets to keep their serfs employed.
No, they rely on North America and Western Europe.
>demand is wage driven.
If that we true we would have trillions floating in credit card
debt... Try to get a clue.
>so now we maybe in a depression, a depression is a
>lack of demand, it will drive down prices, as well as wages.
"In economics, a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in
economic activity in one or more economies. It is a more severe
downturn than a recession, which is seen as part of a normal business
cycle.
"Considered a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is
characterized by its length, and by abnormal increases in
unemployment, falls in the availability of credit, shrinking output
and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and
commerce, as well as highly volatile relative currency value
fluctuations, mostly devaluations. Price deflation, financial crisis
and bank failures are also common elements of a depression."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)
Maybe you should try to get a clue?
> china has huge stock piles of unsold steel, now they admit to have a
>huge stock pile of unsold copper, both commodities they are about to
>dump on the worlds markets further suppressing demand(wages).
"...in the same week that the USA was urging other countries to crack
down on subsidies at the OECD talks, the state of Pennsylvania
provided financial support to enable the restart of a plant shut down
by bankrupt Bethlehem Steel and the state of Ohio helped Republic
Engineered Products finance the installation of a new rolling mill.
These are only the latest examples of government funding for ailing
steel companies that is widespread in the USA. How do the Americans
expect the rest of the world to accept a subsidy ban when their own
behaviour is so out of line?"
http://www.meps.co.uk/viewpoint6-03.htm
> china has vast amounts of dollars, but its really chump change in a
>country as large as china, with little or no internal demand. china
>has a really small, and i mean really small middle class, that
>averages about 5k a year, and makes up about 8% of their population,
>the rest, around 1 billion serfs, live on $2.00 a day or less.
> 2 parts of their country are really under martial law, and it could
>spread, it will take many dollars to suppress a billion starving
>serfs. besides, china no longer is the largest purchaser of
>treasuries, japan is now.
"A little known fact (and one totally ignored by the mainstream media)
is that the Fed accounted for nearly half of all Treasury purchases in
the second quarter ($164 billion out of $339 billion). In fact, the
Fed bought more Treasuries than the next three largest purchasers
combined!!
"The Fed嚙編 purchases outnumber foreign holders (foreign governments),
US households, and Primary Dealers (mega banks) combined. One should
also note that foreign holders reduced their purchases of US debt from
$159 billion in 1Q09 to $101 billion in 2Q09 (a 40% decrease)."
http://investment-blog.net/oct-7th-treasury/
> but what can we expect out of a world economy designed by milton
>friedman:)
So, looking at how utterly and totally WRONG you were about EVERYTHING
above, should I conclude that you're basically just a common RETARD?
Bob LeChevalier
So what?
A tariff, say, on Japanese autos would not stop people from buying
them. But it would make them more expensive than American cars, and
the market would shift somewhat towards American purchases. A really
high tariff, and the market would switch more drastically.
>>Meanwhile, my credibility as a poster remains high
>
>As a Proven Liar and a Proven Malicious Poster your credibility was
>SHIT ON by me
Nobody cares what you "think".
>>The part that give us the ability to enforce a treaty's provisions on
>>companies in another country.
>
>Treaties are like any other contract, violate any provision and pay a
>penalty.
Good luck enforcing it, if the violation was in another country.
>>All we can do is cancel the treaty or enforce sanctions at our borders,
>
>We can do anything we want in a Treaty.
We can't enforce treaty provisions in other countries. We have to
allow the other country to do so, and if they don't ...
>>Even with a treaty.
>>WE have to abide by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
>
>We can put anything we want in a Treaty, any form of verification, any
>form of inspection, and we can require any manner of compliance.
And the other country can tell us to shove our treaty up our ass.
>>>>>>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>>>>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>>>>>>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>>>>>>To whom do they "prove it"
>>>>>To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>>>their childen's complete college educations.
>>>>Most children haven't a clue where their parents' money comes from
>>>Irrelevant.
>>If they don't know, then nothing has been proven, loser.
>
>And YOU think children, with no knowledge of working, earning a
>living, getting paid, and saving ARE ENROLLING AS COLLEGE FRESHMAN?
Quite a few indeed. My son fit that description a couple years ago.
He was awesomely clueless. For that matter, so was I when I first
enrolled in college.
>>>Irrelevant.
>>If few people do it, then few have proven anything to their parents.
>
>"If?" FIRST, you must PROVE YOUR CLAIM, ONLY THEN may you refer to it
>AS "IF" it was a FACT.
Since you have proved absolutely nothing in this entire thread, you
can meet your own standards first.
>My examples PROVED
... absolutely nothing.
>>>Do I need to point out that with uncited comment and opinion REJECTED
>>>I am left with NOTHING to offer?
>>We already know that.
>
>More Malicious posting?
No, just efficient responding to your nonsense.
Bob LeChevalier
> I am an IDIOT POSTER.
>
>Do yourself a favor, KILLFILE me NOW!
Nickname unavailable
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:12:41 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
> >On Oct 23, 10:31 am, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
> >> government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
> >> national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
> >> MUST change our policies to their desires. Correct?
> > china is a free market house of cards, propped up by free market
> >drunken sailor spending, with no real internal demand of their own.
> >they rely on american markets to keep their serfs employed.
>
> No, they rely on North America and Western Europe.
>
yes, the wages of the western worker. which i posted just that.
> >demand is wage driven.
>
> If that we true we would have trillions floating in credit card
> debt... Try to get a clue.
>
try to get a clue, ROTFLOL. what a mental giant, then where does
demand come from dummy, mars. wages drive demand stupid, otherwise
workers in poor countries would all be living in mansion driving
caddies, what a moron!!!!!
> >so now we maybe in a depression, a depression is a
> >lack of demand, it will drive down prices, as well as wages.
>
> "In economics, a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in
> economic activity in one or more economies. It is a more severe
> downturn than a recession, which is seen as part of a normal business
> cycle.
>
gee, and i wonder if it has anything due with demand, a lack of it
stupid.
> "Considered a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is
> characterized by its length, and by abnormal increases in
> unemployment, falls in the availability of credit, shrinking output
> and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and
> commerce, as well as highly volatile relative currency value
> fluctuations, mostly devaluations. Price deflation, financial crisis
> and bank failures are also common elements of a depression."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)
>
because idiot, demand, which is the worker, needs wages to consume,
save, and service debt. and if wages fall behind the cost of living,
demand for economic goods and services plummets, and you get a
recession or depression. try to understand, its not hard, its really
easy. workers no longer consume, business's do not sell, and we have
less economic activity. really, this is basic stuff.
> Maybe you should try to get a clue?
>
maybe you are a idiot:)
> > china has huge stock piles of unsold steel, now they admit to have a
> >huge stock pile of unsold copper, both commodities they are about to
> >dump on the worlds markets further suppressing demand(wages).
>
> "...in the same week that the USA was urging other countries to crack
> down on subsidies at the OECD talks, the state of Pennsylvania
> provided financial support to enable the restart of a plant shut down
> by bankrupt Bethlehem Steel and the state of Ohio helped Republic
> Engineered Products finance the installation of a new rolling mill.
> These are only the latest examples of government funding for ailing
> steel companies that is widespread in the USA. How do the Americans
> expect the rest of the world to accept a subsidy ban when their own
> behaviour is so out of line?"http://www.meps.co.uk/viewpoint6-03.htm
>
china is not a open market, in fact, the g-20 has only two open
markets, the u.k., and america, the other 18 including china have buy
internal programs, and closed markets. so why do we listen to idiots
like you?
> > china has vast amounts of dollars, but its really chump change in a
> >country as large as china, with little or no internal demand. china
> >has a really small, and i mean really small middle class, that
> >averages about 5k a year, and makes up about 8% of their population,
> >the rest, around 1 billion serfs, live on $2.00 a day or less.
> > 2 parts of their country are really under martial law, and it could
> >spread, it will take many dollars to suppress a billion starving
> >serfs. besides, china no longer is the largest purchaser of
> >treasuries, japan is now.
>
> "A little known fact (and one totally ignored by the mainstream media)
> is that the Fed accounted for nearly half of all Treasury purchases in
> the second quarter ($164 billion out of $339 billion). In fact, the
> Fed bought more Treasuries than the next three largest purchasers
> combined!!
>
so, we can buy the bastards out, and send them packing.
> "The Fed’s purchases outnumber foreign holders (foreign governments),
> US households, and Primary Dealers (mega banks) combined. One should
> also note that foreign holders reduced their purchases of US debt from
> $159 billion in 1Q09 to $101 billion in 2Q09 (a 40% decrease)."http://investment-blog.net/oct-7th-treasury/
>
so, we own them now, they do not own us. we can simply tell them to
f.o. and refuse to pay them. its internal debt.
> > but what can we expect out of a world economy designed by milton
> >friedman:)
>
> So, looking at how utterly and totally WRONG you were about EVERYTHING
> above, should I conclude that you're basically just a common RETARD?
almost everything milton did, was a disaster. and he has been
discredited, and is the laughing stock of the world. if he is your
type, then you are a crank.
Nickname unavailable
its simply amazing that any government even cares what his type
thinks. his type of economics has destroyed the worlds economy again,
this is the third blowout of free market economics in a little over
100 years. what hold do they have on our governments? its unworkable,
and cannot be re-animated.
MACK DADDY
> On 6 Nov 2009 23:41:34 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:11:39 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2009 21:33:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:12:43 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
> >>>>>On Oct 28, 3:35 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:15:07 -0700 (PDT), MACK DADDY
> >>>>>> <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> On 23 Oct 2009 23:30:26 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> >>>>>> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:22 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0700 (PDT), The_Carpathia
> >>>>>> >> >> <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >>>I want an answer about this with all of the support out there
> >>>>>> >> >>>for the government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other
> >>>>>> >> >>>matters, simply because the government gave them a lot of
> >>>>>> >> >>>money.
> >>>>>> >> >>>SIGNIFICANT percent of our national debt. So, we have no say
> >>>>>> >> >>>in rejecting China's demands and MUST change our policies to
> >>>>>> >> >> Not necessarily....
> >>>>>> >> >> IF our debt is based on hard terms AND WE pay the interest on
> >>>>>> >> >> our debt THEN they cannot dictate shit to us... (They have
> >>>>>> >> >> already said they'll lend us NO MORE...) However, if any of
> >>>>>> >> >> our debt is on loose terms or we get slack paying the interest
> >>>>>> >> >> then they COULD call in the balances OR dictate anything they
> >>>>>> >> >> want...
> >>>>>> >> >haul is into in order to collect?
> >>>>>> >> There isn't one...
> >>>>>> >> >And what "police force" will they use to enforce and decision.
> >>>>>> >> They have one but it lacks a Navy... (Oops!)
> >>>>>> >> >Maybe they will stop sending us crap manufactured in China.
> >>>>>> >> THEM to send that "crap" it to us. Obviously they won't stop
> >>>>>> >> making it if we keep paying them to make it...
> >>>>>> >> >You people are so damned stupid it is scary.
> >>>>>> >> Lemme see if I got this correct, YOU THINK the Chinese just make
> >>>>>> >> "crap" because they have nothing else to do then send it to us
> >>>>>> >> because they don't have anywhere to store it BUT YOU THINK
> >>>>>> >> everybody ELSE is stupid?
> >>>>>> >> hahahahahhahahaha!!!
> >>>>>> >> Thanks for the opportunity to urinate on you in public.
> >>>>>> >The best way to keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders is
> >>>>>> >to charge tariffs on the shit!
> >>>>>> That was a semi-reasonable idea a few decades ago, back when we were
> >>>>>> just barely able to compete with American-made products. Those days
> >>>>>> are LONG GONE.
> >>>>>> If you want to "keep the Chinese shit from reaching our borders" the
> >>>>>> ONLY way to do it is to RESTRICT American companies from PAYING the
>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/ndbumo
>
> http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+...
>
Only a Republitard and/or a fascist would be rude enough to spit,
piss, or shit in someones mouth. You are one sick muthafucka!
Patriot Games
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 10:41嚙窮m, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:12:41 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> >> I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
>> >> government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
>> >> national debt. 嚙磅o, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
>> >> MUST change our policies to their desires. 嚙瘠orrect?
>> > china is a free market house of cards, propped up by free market
>> >drunken sailor spending, with no real internal demand of their own.
>> >they rely on american markets to keep their serfs employed.
>> No, they rely on North America and Western Europe.
> yes, the wages of the western worker. which i posted just that.
No, 'Tard, you said "they rely on american markets."
>> >demand is wage driven.
>> If that we true we would have trillions floating in credit card
>> debt... 嚙確ry to get a clue.
If that we true we WOULDN'T have trillions floating in credit card
debt... 嚙確ry to get a clue.
> try to get a clue, ROTFLOL. what a mental giant, then where does
>demand come from dummy, mars. wages drive demand stupid, otherwise
>workers in poor countries would all be living in mansion driving
>caddies, what a moron!
If demand was wage-driven NOBODY would spend MORE than they have,
which is their wages. Instead we DO have trillions in credit card
debt becuse demand is MORE than just wage-driven.
Try to get a clue.
>> >so now we maybe in a depression, a depression is a
>> >lack of demand, it will drive down prices, as well as wages.
>> "In economics, a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in
>> economic activity in one or more economies. It is a more severe
>> downturn than a recession, which is seen as part of a normal business
>> cycle.
> gee, and i wonder if it has anything due with demand, a lack of it
>stupid.
You were WRONG.
Learn to like being smacked in public.
>> "Considered a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is
>> characterized by its length, and by abnormal increases in
>> unemployment, falls in the availability of credit, shrinking output
>> and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and
>> commerce, as well as highly volatile relative currency value
>> fluctuations, mostly devaluations. Price deflation, financial crisis
>> and bank failures are also common elements of a depression."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)
> because idiot, demand, which is the worker, needs wages to consume,
>save, and service debt. and if wages fall behind the cost of living,
>demand for economic goods and services plummets, and you get a
>recession or depression.
The CORRECT definition is quoted above.
YOUR RETARDED definition is WRONG.
You were WRONG.
Learn to like being smacked in public.
> try to understand, its not hard, its really
>easy. workers no longer consume, business's do not sell, and we have
>less economic activity. really, this is basic stuff.
What you just described is a RECESSION, 'Tard.
You were WRONG.
Learn to like being smacked in public.
>> Maybe you should try to get a clue?
>> > china has huge stock piles of unsold steel, now they admit to have a
>> >huge stock pile of unsold copper, both commodities they are about to
>> >dump on the worlds markets further suppressing demand(wages).
>> "...in the same week that the USA was urging other countries to crack
>> down on subsidies at the OECD talks, the state of Pennsylvania
>> provided financial support to enable the restart of a plant shut down
>> by bankrupt Bethlehem Steel and the state of Ohio helped Republic
>> Engineered Products finance the installation of a new rolling mill.
>> These are only the latest examples of government funding for ailing
>> steel companies that is widespread in the USA. How do the Americans
>> expect the rest of the world to accept a subsidy ban when their own
>> behaviour is so out of line?"http://www.meps.co.uk/viewpoint6-03.htm
>> > china has vast amounts of dollars, but its really chump change in a
>> >country as large as china, with little or no internal demand. china
>> >has a really small, and i mean really small middle class, that
>> >averages about 5k a year, and makes up about 8% of their population,
>> >the rest, around 1 billion serfs, live on $2.00 a day or less.
>> > 2 parts of their country are really under martial law, and it could
>> >spread, it will take many dollars to suppress a billion starving
>> >serfs. besides, china no longer is the largest purchaser of
>> >treasuries, japan is now.
>> "A little known fact (and one totally ignored by the mainstream media)
>> is that the Fed accounted for nearly half of all Treasury purchases in
>> the second quarter ($164 billion out of $339 billion). In fact, the
>> Fed bought more Treasuries than the next three largest purchasers
>> combined!!
You said "china no longer is the largest purchaser of treasuries,
japan is now."
You were WRONG.
Learn to like being smacked in public.
>> "The Fed嚙編 purchases outnumber foreign holders (foreign governments),
>> US households, and Primary Dealers (mega banks) combined. One should
>> also note that foreign holders reduced their purchases of US debt from
>> $159 billion in 1Q09 to $101 billion in 2Q09 (a 40% decrease)."http://investment-blog.net/oct-7th-treasury/
>> > but what can we expect out of a world economy designed by milton
>> >friedman:)
>> So, looking at how utterly and totally WRONG you were about EVERYTHING
>> above, should I conclude that you're basically just a common RETARD?
> almost everything milton did, was a disaster.
Judging from how you got EVERYTHING above WRONG your "opinion" is
totally worthless.
>and he has been discredited,
Yet you could provide NOT ONE credible cite...
>and is the laughing stock of the world.
Actually, that would be YOU.
Hahahahahahahahahahahha!!!
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:45:17 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> >On Nov 11, 10:41 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:12:41 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
> >> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >> >> I want an answer about this with all of the support out there for the
> >> >> government controlling the TARP banks' pay and other matters, simply
> >> >> American policy? After all, it owns a SIGNIFICANT percent of our
> >> >> national debt. So, we have no say in rejecting China's demands and
> >> >> MUST change our policies to their desires. Correct?
> >> > china is a free market house of cards, propped up by free market
> >> >drunken sailor spending, with no real internal demand of their own.
> >> >they rely on american markets to keep their serfs employed.
> >> No, they rely on North America and Western Europe.
> > yes, the wages of the western worker. which i posted just that.
>
> No, 'Tard, you said "they rely on american markets."
>
asia mostly does, stupid, europe in most cases protects there market.
but, cheap chinese junk has destroyed the demand of the western
worker. the west idiot, includes europe, europe sells lots to us, or
did dummy.
> >> >demand is wage driven.
> >> If that we true we would have trillions floating in credit card
> >> debt... Try to get a clue.
>
> If that we true we WOULDN'T have trillions floating in credit card
> debt... Try to get a clue.
>
> > try to get a clue, ROTFLOL. what a mental giant, then where does
> >demand come from dummy, mars. wages drive demand stupid, otherwise
> >workers in poor countries would all be living in mansion driving
> >caddies, what a moron!
>
> If demand was wage-driven NOBODY would spend MORE than they have,
> which is their wages. Instead we DO have trillions in credit card
> debt becuse demand is MORE than just wage-driven.
>
look dummy, you need wages to service debt, consume, and save. any
randys milton friedman/alan greenspan/ronnie ray-gun crafted a economy
based on borrowing, drunken sailor spending, and importing, now the
jig is up dummy, and WAGES are so low, we can no longer service our
debt, let alone consume.
i know this is really hard on a one brain cell creature, but try to
understand, when workers can no longer consume, service their debt,
and save at the same time, consumption of goods and services plummets.
its why sales have fallen, and keep falling.
> Try to get a clue.
>
i am simply becoming embarrassed by so many stupid conservatives.
> >> >so now we maybe in a depression, a depression is a
> >> >lack of demand, it will drive down prices, as well as wages.
> >> "In economics, a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in
> >> economic activity in one or more economies. It is a more severe
> >> downturn than a recession, which is seen as part of a normal business
> >> cycle.
> > gee, and i wonder if it has anything due with demand, a lack of it
> >stupid.
>
> You were WRONG.
>
that is your personal opinion, however, demand which is wage driven,
can no longer service debt, consume, and save at the same time, so
consumption, demand is plummeting.
> Learn to like being smacked in public.
>
you keep making a ass out of yourself. be careful, someday you might
have to stand up in front of the world like another famous any randy
moron, and declare the cult was wrong.
> >> "Considered a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is
> >> characterized by its length, and by abnormal increases in
> >> unemployment, falls in the availability of credit, shrinking output
> >> and investment, numerous bankruptcies, reduced amounts of trade and
> >> commerce, as well as highly volatile relative currency value
> >> fluctuations, mostly devaluations. Price deflation, financial crisis
> >> and bank failures are also common elements of a depression."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)
> > because idiot, demand, which is the worker, needs wages to consume,
> >save, and service debt. and if wages fall behind the cost of living,
> >demand for economic goods and services plummets, and you get a
> >recession or depression.
>
> The CORRECT definition is quoted above.
>
where do the increased unemployment come from dummy, could it be the
workers are laid off because the companies sales have collapsed? try
hard, one brain cell is small, i know, but you still have the ability
for a break thru:)
> YOUR RETARDED definition is WRONG.
>
> You were WRONG.
>
> Learn to like being smacked in public.
>
smacked by a any randy, snicker, you keep slapping yourself, and
asking me if i want more:)
> > try to understand, its not hard, its really
> >easy. workers no longer consume, business's do not sell, and we have
> >less economic activity. really, this is basic stuff.
>
> What you just described is a RECESSION, 'Tard.
>
gee, are we making headway! all depressions start out as recessions
dummy:)
> You were WRONG.
>
> Learn to like being smacked in public.
>
yep, smack some more, every time you slap me you say ouch:)
good god man, that slap must have hurt your face badly. now, i know
its been a couple of days since this was announced, and china could be
back on top again in just 3 short days, but i doubt it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a2jbLSo3rgxk
Japan Tops China Buying Treasuries After Lost Decade (Update2)
By Wes Goodman and Cordell Eddings
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Japanese investors who lived through a decade of
deflation and recessions say U.S. Treasuries are a bargain even with
yields at about the lowest levels since at least the 1960s.
Japan bought a net $105 billion of U.S. government debt through
August, exceeding China as the biggest foreign buyer and boosting its
holdings to $731 billion, or more than 10 percent of the total market,
Treasury Department data show. The 17 percent increase is the most
since a 25 percent surge in 2004.
Mizuho Asset Management Co. and Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management Co.
are among the investors buying U.S. bonds because they see
similarities between America’s response to the recession and their
government’s efforts during the so-called lost decade of the 1990s. An
index of Japanese debt securities compiled by Bank of America Corp.’s
Merrill Lynch unit returned 90 percent in the 1990s, while the Nikkei
225 Stock Average fell as much as 67 percent between January 1990 and
October 1998.
“The U.S. economy has faced a double whammy: the recession and credit
contraction,” said Akira Takei, head of non-yen denominated bonds at
Mizuho Asset in Tokyo, a unit of Japan’s second-largest bank. “The
U.S. will face a triple whammy with deflation. That’s good for the
Treasury market.”
Inflation-Protected Debt
Michael Pond, an interest-rate strategist at Barclays Plc, one of 18
primary dealers that trade with the Federal Reserve, favors Treasury
Inflation Protection Securities, or TIPS, and said Asian investors,
including the Japanese, have been buying the bonds on concern the
dollar will continue to decline and inflation will accelerate.
Barclays expects consumer prices to rise 1.9 percent in 2010, after a
decline of 0.4 percent this year, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
“Japanese investors have been skewed to expecting deflation because of
their own experience, but the more pressing concern over the
intermediate term is inflation,” said Pond, who works in New York for
Barclays, Britain’s second-largest lender.
The 3.625 percent benchmark U.S. 10-year note due in August 2019
closed last week at 101 1/32 to yield 3.5 percent. The yield has
averaged 3.19 percent in 2009, the lowest since the Fed began
providing daily data on the securities in 1962 and down from 3.64
percent for all of 2008.
It rose to 3.51 percent at 7:01 a.m. in New York.
Takei’s Forecast
Takei, who helps oversee the equivalent of $21 billion, bought
Treasuries in July and predicts 10-year yields will decline to 2.75
percent by year-end. An investor who purchased $10 million of the
notes would earn about $715,000 if yields dropped to Takei’s forecast,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Government securities have lost 2.8 percent since December, when 10-
year yields fell to 2.04 percent, according to the Merrill Lynch U.S.
Treasury Master Index data. Treasuries are on a pace to post their
first annual losses since 1999 as the recovery in the global economy
following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression
reduces the appeal of the debt as a haven.
Similar to Japan’s response to its real estate collapse in the 1990s,
the U.S. is flooding the economy with cash only to see financial
institutions sock the money away in bonds instead of making loans.
The Fed and the U.S. government have spent, lent or guaranteed $11.6
trillion to spur the world’s biggest economy from recession and curb a
decline in asset prices. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has gained 58
percent to 1,069.30 from its low this year of 676.52 on March 9,
though it’s below the peak of 1,576.09 reached in October 2007.
Consumer Prices
During the 1990s, Japan’s economy grew at an average rate of about 1
percent a year as asset prices tumbled. It hasn’t fared much better
this decade, with gross domestic product expanding 0.2 percent on
average and consumer prices falling 0.2 percent.
The threat of deflation, a general drop in prices that enhances the
value of a bond’s fixed payments, makes Treasuries attractive to
Japanese investors even with bond yields rising from last year’s lows.
U.S. consumer costs fell 1.3 percent in September from a year earlier,
according to the Labor Department. They dropped at a 2.1 percent
annual rate in July, the most since Harry S. Truman was president in
1950.
Ten-year notes pay a real yield, or what investors get after
accounting for the cost of living, of 4.91 percent, above the five-
year average of 1.42 percent.
Surpassing China
“The recovery is very weak and the U.S. is running the risk of
deflation,” said Hideo Shimomura, who helps oversee the equivalent of
about $55.4 billion in Tokyo as chief fund investor at Mitsubishi UFJ
Asset, part of Japan’s largest bank.
Mitsubishi UFJ bought Treasuries in October, said Shimomura, who
expects 10-year yields will fall to 3 percent by year-end.
Japan’s purchases exceed those of China, which has boosted its
holdings 9.6 percent, or $69.7 billion, to $797.1 billion, Treasury
data show. Japan’s buying spree started in May 2008, after its U.S.
debt dropped to a four-year low of $575.3 billion.
The Fed’s pledge last week to keep interest rates near zero for an
“extended period,” the absence of a recovery in U.S. real estate and
hoarding of cash by banks has Japanese investors such as Shimomura
saying the parallels are too close to what happened in Japan.
Bank Holdings
The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index for 20 U.S. cities fell 11.3
percent in August from a year earlier. Bank holdings of government
securities and debt of mortgage companies Fannie Mae in Washington and
McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac increased to $1.39 trillion in the
week ended Oct. 21 from $1.26 trillion a year earlier. Commercial and
industrial loans fell 17 percent from an all-time high a year ago to
$1.37 trillion as of Oct. 21, a record decline.
Banks in Japan such as Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. and Mizuho
Financial Group Inc., the two largest by assets, own 116.9 trillion
yen of government securities, the most since Bank of Japan figures
started in 1993.
“Demand for Treasuries is very good because of the idle money in the
banking system,” said Satoshi Okumoto, a general manager at Fukoku
Mutual Life Insurance Co. in Tokyo, which has the equivalent of $60
billion in assets. “In 2010, there will be a second dip in the
economy. There will still be room for yields to fall.”
Fukoku plans to add to its holdings if 10-year yields rise to 4
percent, he said.
New Normal
Paul McCulley, a partner at Pacific Investment Management Co., which
runs the world’s biggest bond fund, said Oct. 29 that investors should
sell riskier assets such as stocks and high- yield corporate debt
because the U.S. recession “might not even be over.” Those types of
assets carry “lofty valuations,” McCulley said in a report posted on
Pimco’s Web site.
Officials at Newport Beach, California-based Pimco say there is a “new
normal” in the global economy that includes heightened government
regulation, lower consumption, slower growth and a shrinking global
role for the U.S.
Pimco began adding longer-maturity Treasuries to the $192 billion
Total Return Fund during the third quarter, according to the firm’s
monthly reports.
Prospects for economic growth combined with the record amount of debt
the U.S. is selling are enough to prevent Daiwa Asset Management Co.,
part of Japan’s second-largest brokerage, from buying. After
contracting 2.5 percent in 2009, the U.S. economy will expand 2.4
percent next year and 2.85 percent in 2011, separate surveys of
economists by Bloomberg News show.
Budget Deficit
“The economy will be picking up throughout the next year,” said
Tsutomu Komiya, a Daiwa investment manager in Tokyo who helps oversee
the equivalent of $77 billion. “The huge issuance will make Treasury
yields go higher.”
The U.S. budget deficit widened to a record $1.42 trillion in the 12
months to Sept. 30 as the administration increased spending to revive
the economy. The Treasury is scheduled to sell $40 billion of three-
year notes today, $25 billion of 10- year debt tomorrow and $16
billion of 30-year bonds on Nov. 12. The amounts are all-time highs
for each maturity.
“The medium-term risk toward inflation is being caused by potential
policy missteps by policy makers in regards to monetary and fiscal
policy and the weakening dollar,” Pond said.
Barclays forecast that 10-year yields will rise to 4.60 percent by the
end of next year. Intercontinental Exchange Inc.’s U.S. Dollar Index,
which tracks the currency’s performance against the euro, yen, pound,
Canadian dollar, Swiss franc and Swedish krona, fell 15 percent to
75.819 last week from its high this year of 89.624 on March 4.
Borrowing Estimate
Record U.S. debt sales may be peaking. The Treasury Department cut its
estimate for borrowing in the current quarter by 43 percent on Nov. 2,
largely because of reductions in a program for helping the Fed manage
its balance sheet. Borrowing will total a net $276 billion from
October through December, compared with a previous estimate of $486
billion.
While the difference between rates on 10-year notes and TIPS, which
reflects the outlook among traders for consumer prices, widened to
2.18 percentage points from almost zero at the end of 2008, it’s equal
to the five-year average.
In Japan, the so-called breakeven rate is negative 1.1 percent, when
measured using nine-year bonds, the lowest among all government
inflation-index debt.
Rising Unemployment
“Any economics textbook would tell you that the massive stimulus from
the central government will eventually cause inflation, but the
Japanese know it doesn’t have to turn out that way,” said Michael
Cheah, who manages $2 billion in bonds at SunAmerica Asset Management
in Jersey City, New Jersey and a former official at the Monetary
Authority of Singapore, that nation’s central bank.
Rising unemployment in the U.S. means Treasuries are still worth
buying, said Shuhei Mochizuki, assistant manager in Tokyo at the
foreign-bond section at Sumitomo Life Insurance Co., which oversees
the equivalent of $221 billion. Ten-year yields will be 3.25 percent
by year-end, he said.
The unemployment rate reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in
October as payrolls fell by 190,000, the Labor Department said Nov. 6.
“Employment conditions are worsening,” said Mochizuki, assistant
manager in Tokyo at the foreign-bond section at Japan’s fourth-largest
life insurer. “Yields will fall.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Wes Goodman in Singapore at
wgoo...@bloomberg.net; Cordell Eddings in New York at o
cedd...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 9, 2009 07:05 EST
> >> "The Fed’s purchases outnumber foreign holders (foreign governments),
> >> US households, and Primary Dealers (mega banks) combined. One should
> >> also note that foreign holders reduced their purchases of US debt from
> >> $159 billion in 1Q09 to $101 billion in 2Q09 (a 40% decrease)."http://investment-blog.net/oct-7th-treasury/
> >> > but what can we expect out of a world economy designed by milton
> >> >friedman:)
> >> So, looking at how utterly and totally WRONG you were about EVERYTHING
> >> above, should I conclude that you're basically just a common RETARD?
> > almost everything milton did, was a disaster.
>
> Judging from how you got EVERYTHING above WRONG your "opinion" is
> totally worthless.
>
> >and he has been discredited,
>
> Yet you could provide NOT ONE credible cite...
>
> >and is the laughing stock of the world.
>
> Actually, that would be YOU.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahha!!!
its not me dummy that has discredited your type, its you that did it
to yourselves, regardless if its ireland, iceland, the u.k., the
baltics, america, chile, new zeeland, where ever milton touched, has
collapsed.
you see dummy, free trade is a debt based system, where wages fall
faster than prices.
what is the definition of a crank? one whom gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what s the definition of a crank? one whom embraces or acts upon
advise that makes no sense at all.
Nickname unavailable
china is in worse shape than us moron. its a house of cards built on
funny money, with no real middle class, and almost no consumption.
because, demand is wage driven:)
the free markets darling house of cards china is really just another
conservative drunken sailor:china could be creating a global
deflationary bust of epic proportions, a nation of corporate slaves
has no demand
China's record debt has economists worried
• By Bill Powell, contributor
• On 12:21 pm EST, Wednesday November 11, 2009
In a world still awash in economic worry, China has stood apart as the
one country that has come through the global slump with only the
briefest of hiccups.
Last quarter the nation grew at a brisk 8.9% rate, and many economists
expect it to expand even faster over the remainder of the year.
Profits at large, state-owned companies that have benefited from
Beijing's aggressive stimulus program are up sharply.
Li Xiaochao, spokesman for the National Bureau of Statistics, summed
up the zeitgeist in China these days: "The overall situation of the
economy is good."
A lot of global CEOs, of course, are on the thank-God-for-China
bandwagon, and it might seem a little churlish to question one of the
world's few good-news economic stories. Yet a growing number of
observers believe that China is creating its own bubble economy. And
they have a case to make.
The U.S. fueled its housing and consumption bubbles by providing easy
credit. China seems headed in the same direction, although the victims
would be different this time.
In the first nine months of the year, Beijing has shoveled $1.27
trillion in new loans into the economy, up 136% from the same period
last year. That money has gone to three main areas: infrastructure,
manufacturing, and real estate.
According to a recent analysis by Monaco-based hedge fund Pivot
Capital Management, China's total lending reached 140% of GDP at
midyear. That kind of lending makes China an "outlier" compared with
other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries -- and is
already well beyond the levels that "have led to sharp and brief
credit crises in the past," the Pivot Capital report contends.
Moreover, an increasing number of Chinese loans are being funneled
into projects unlikely to generate an attractive economic return. From
2000 to 2008 it took just $1.50 in new credit to generate $1 of GDP
growth. Now that ratio is 7 to 1. (In the U.S., just before the
financial crisis hit, the ratio was only 4 to 1.)
That's because the loans are creating huge amounts of manufacturing
capacity -- which is unneeded in the bears' view. China's spare
capacity in the cement industry, for example, equals the total annual
consumption in the U.S., Japan, and India combined.
So where will the growth come from? China's export markets are tapped
out. Its domestic consumption, stalled at around a third of GDP,
hasn't yet started to rise significantly. Additional manufacturing
investment would be crazy, leading arguably to a global deflationary
bust of epic proportions.
Over the past decade China has spent massively on roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure. Some economists believe China's infrastructure,
already superior to that of many other developing economies, has now
passed the point where more investment can contribute much to growth.
China, in other words -- despite the rosy, headline GDP numbers --
might be stuck.
Those bullish on China say the government will keep spending no matter
what to keep the economy humming, given its relatively healthy
domestic balance sheet compared with that of the U.S. Skeptics reply
that if the debt taken on by provincial governments is taken into
account, China's fiscal health begins to look questionable.
The good news is that the authorities are well aware of the problems.
Behind the scenes, Chinese officials are engaged in an increasingly
rancorous debate about whether and how quickly to take away the credit-
filled punch bowl. Lending has slowed a bit from the red-hot levels in
the first half, and recently China's National Development and Reform
Commission, a key government policymaking body, said it would begin to
deal with excess capacity in key sectors of the economy by forcing
mergers and in some cases ordering factories to close.
So, yes, Beijing may be working hard to keep its economy vibrant, but
danger lurks out there. Avoiding an American-style meltdown is the
economic test that's coming.
Patriot Games
ONLY IF the Market CAN switch, ONLY if there are LOCAL products to
switch to...
As I said, tariffing ONLY works when you have non-imported products as
alternatives.
YOU FAILED to CITE JUST ONE product that we can manufacture in
quantities to meet our CURRENT IMPORTS of that same product.
YOU WILL NOW CITE JUST ONE product that we can manufacture in
quantities to meet our CURRENT IMPORTS, YOU WILL show your work, YOU
WILL CITE your answers, YOU WILL respond promptly, AND YOU WILL
provide ALL NECESSARY QUANTITIES WITH CITES.
Begin here: _________
>>>Meanwhile, my credibility as a poster remains high
>>As a Proven Liar and a Proven Malicious Poster your credibility was
>>SHIT ON by me
>Nobody cares what you "think".
You're wrong.
What has happenned EVERY TIME I exposed your LYING and EVERY TIME I
exposed YOU as a Malicious Poster?
2008 Posting
Feb: 432
Mar: 203 -53%
Apr: 152 -25%
2008
Jun: 438
Jul: 293 -33%
Aug: 251 -14%
2009
Apr: 526
May: 260 -50%
Jun: 245
Jul: 47 -81%
EVERY TIME I exposed your LYING and EVERY TIME I exposed YOU as a
Malicious Poster HORDES OF PEOPLE IGNORED YOU.
Let me now GUARANTEE that I WILL NEVER STOP EXPOSING YOU.
>>>The part that give us the ability to enforce a treaty's provisions on
>>>companies in another country.
>>Treaties are like any other contract, violate any provision and pay a
>>penalty.
>>>All we can do is cancel the treaty or enforce sanctions at our borders,
>>We can do anything we want in a Treaty.
>>>Even with a treaty.
>>>WE have to abide by THEIR laws, and they do not need to abide by ours.
>>We can put anything we want in a Treaty, any form of verification, any
>>form of inspection, and we can require any manner of compliance.
>And the other country can tell us to shove our treaty up our ass.
How STUPID are you really? If the other country tells "us to shove
our treaty up our ass" THEN THERE IS NO Treaty... That means NO
ECONOMIC BOOM for them... We are in the position to dictate terms.
But let's NOT let your feeble attempts to weasel, squirm and change
the subject TRICK us. YOU said Treaties wouldn't work, YOU WERE
WRONG, and you were SLAPPED DOWN in public for being stupid.
>>>>>>>>>Some people are simply a lot smarter
>>>>>>>>>than others and seemingly more able to learn.
>>>>>>>> And such people PROVE IT by PERFORMANCE and are properly REWARDED.
>>>>>>>To whom do they "prove it"
>>>>>>To their children, by EARNING through PERFORMANCE the means to PAY for
>>>>>>their childen's complete college educations.
>>>>>Most children haven't a clue where their parents' money comes from
>>>>Irrelevant.
>>>If they don't know, then nothing has been proven, loser.
>>And YOU think children, with no knowledge of working, earning a
>>living, getting paid, and saving ARE ENROLLING AS COLLEGE FRESHMAN?
>Quite a few indeed. My son fit that description a couple years ago.
>He was awesomely clueless. For that matter, so was I when I first
>enrolled in college.
I guess that PROOF that Stupidity is hereditary...
>>>>Irrelevant.
>>>If few people do it, then few have proven anything to their parents.
>>"If?" FIRST, you must PROVE YOUR CLAIM, ONLY THEN may you refer to it
>>AS "IF" it was a FACT.
>>My examples PROVED that YOUR FAILED LIFE has CAUSED YOU to HATE the
>>success of OTHERS.
See above.
Patriot Games
The Socialists and Communists (such as the LIAR and Malicious Poster
'Bob LeChevalier') positively KNOW that Socialism and Communism has
FAILED everywhere it has been tried.
They KNOW it doesn't work in the long run.
But the "long run" doesn't interest them.
They are ONLY interested in their OWN personal warm place to shit,
they hate people more successful than them (which is most people),
they want revenge, they want other people's money ALL BECAUSE they
want their OWN warm place to shit to be very nice yet they REFUSE to
EARN it.
Socialists and Communists in America (such as the LIAR and Malicious
Poster 'Bob LeChevalier') should be dragged into the street, sprayed
John Galt
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:51:19 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
> <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 1:14 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> its simply amazing that any government even cares what his type
>> thinks. his type of economics has destroyed the worlds economy again,
>> this is the third blowout of free market economics in a little over
>> 100 years. what hold do they have on our governments? its unworkable,
>> and cannot be re-animated.
>
> The Socialists and Communists (such as the LIAR and Malicious Poster
> 'Bob LeChevalier') positively KNOW that Socialism and Communism has
> FAILED everywhere it has been tried.
One other point.....
Free markets lead to bubbles. When bubbles break, they result in
recessions.
That's not a failure of "free market economics." It's working exactly
they way it's supposed to work.
The ISSUE is the delivery of standard of living to the population over
time. Despite the bubbles and their breaks, the free market delivers,
socialism does not.
That's history, not politics.
JG
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:51:19 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
> >On Nov 11, 1:14 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > its simply amazing that any government even cares what his type
> >thinks. his type of economics has destroyed the worlds economy again,
> >this is the third blowout of free market economics in a little over
> >100 years. what hold do they have on our governments? its unworkable,
> >and cannot be re-animated.
>
> The Socialists and Communists (such as the LIAR and Malicious Poster
> 'Bob LeChevalier') positively KNOW that Socialism and Communism has
> FAILED everywhere it has been tried.
>
communism has failed, just as free market economics has failed every
time its tried, because, both systems are almost identical, because in
either system, almost all of the power and wealth, ends up in the
hands of a few.
> They KNOW it doesn't work in the long run.
>
> But the "long run" doesn't interest them.
>
> They are ONLY interested in their OWN personal warm place to shit,
> they hate people more successful than them (which is most people),
> they want revenge, they want other people's money ALL BECAUSE they
> want their OWN warm place to shit to be very nice yet they REFUSE to
> EARN it.
>
> Socialists and Communists in America (such as the LIAR and Malicious
> Poster 'Bob LeChevalier') should be dragged into the street, sprayed
> with gasoline and lit up!
typical response from a extremist.